Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat, 16624-16681 [2024-04053]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16624-16681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04053]



[[Page 16623]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 46

March 7, 2024

Part II





 Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 16624]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, 
approximately 1,160,625 acres (469,688 hectares) in 13 Florida counties 
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This 
rule extends the Act's protections to this species' critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus. Comments and materials we received are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2019-0106.
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used 
in preparing this rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. The coordinates or plot points or both 
from which the maps are generated are included in the decision file for 
this critical habitat designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, at https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus, and at the 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, below).

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 (352) 749-2462. 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 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 through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule designates critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat. The designation includes approximately 
1,160,625 acres (ac) (469,688 hectares (ha)) in portions of 13 Florida 
counties.
    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 protection; 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.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the Florida bonneted bat's final listing rule (78 
FR 61004; October 2, 2013), proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 
35510; June 10, 2020), and revised proposed critical habitat rule (87 
FR 71466; November 22, 2022) for a detailed description of previous 
Federal actions concerning this species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the proposed critical habitat 
rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020). We sent the proposed rule to six 
independent peer reviewers and received two responses. Following the 
public comment period for the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466; 
November 22, 2022), we sent the revised proposed rule to five 
independent peer reviewers and received one response. The peer reviews 
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the 
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into this final rule. A 
summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found 
under Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    After considering the comments we received during the public 
comment period (refer to Summary of Comments and Recommendations, 
below) and new information published or obtained since the revised 
proposed rule was published (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022), we made 
changes to this final critical habitat designation, as described below. 
No changes were made to our economic analysis after considering public 
comments on the draft document; thus, we finalized the economic 
analysis of the designation. We added the following supporting 
documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106: (1) A table entitled, ``Conservation Lands Within Florida 
Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation,'' (2) coordinates from 
which the final critical habitat maps are generated, (3) a list of 
literature cited in this final rule, (4) the peer reviews of the 
revised proposed rule and the accompanying conflict of interest forms, 
and (5) a table of requested additions to the proposed and revised 
proposed critical habitat designations and the outcome of our 
evaluation for each area.
    In this rule, we make many small, nonsubstantive changes and 
corrections (e.g., updating the discussion under Background, below, in 
response to comments and making minor clarifications) that do not 
affect the designation. We also make several minor updates to the 
biological information for and habitat use by the Florida bonneted bat 
based on new and updated information. Specifically, we update 
measurements of roost characteristics, add detail on foraging areas and 
insects associated with agricultural crops, add information about the 
Florida bonneted bat's use of

[[Page 16625]]

seasonally inundated forested wetlands, and add new information about 
the species' breeding and resource defense. In addition, we update 
citations supporting existing statements as needed. The following items 
describe changes made between the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466; 
November 22, 2022) and this final rule:
    (1) In Cover or Shelter, under Physical or Biological Features 
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, below, we update roost 
habitat characteristics and roost measurements, including both averages 
and ranges in our description, and we clarify the role of artificial 
roosts in Florida bonneted bat habitat.
    (2) In Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements, under Physical or Biological Features 
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, below, we add information 
on the influence of artificial lighting on Florida bonneted bat 
habitat.
    (3) In both the Summary of Essential Physical or Biological 
Features, under Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of the Species, and in the rule portion of this document, 
below, we modified the first and second physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat to include 
sufficient darkness as a habitat feature, and we modified the first 
physical or biological feature to qualitatively characterize roosting 
habitat.
    (4) Under Special Management Considerations or Protection, below, 
we update estimates of the critical habitat area to be affected by sea 
level rise or converted to developed land by 2070 based on the areas 
included within this final critical habitat designation, and we add a 
discussion under the heading Ecological Light Pollution to align with 
the changes we make to the physical or biological features noted in (2) 
and (3), above, regarding artificial lighting and sufficient darkness.
    (5) Under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below, we adjust the 
boundaries of Subunits 3B, 9M, 9N, and 9O to include a total of an 
additional 1,179 ac (477 ha). Subunit 3B now includes an additional 
1,118 ac (452 ha) of lands primarily owned by Lee County, based on a 
peer review comment and to ensure we are designating the specific areas 
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. Subunit 9M includes an 
additional 10 ac (4 ha) of lands owned by Miami-Dade County, based on a 
request from Miami-Dade County and new information indicating these 
areas have the essential physical or biological features. Subunit 9N 
includes an additional 10 ac (4 ha) of lands primarily owned by the 
State of Florida and managed by Miami-Dade County, based on a request 
from Miami-Dade County and new information indicating this area also 
contains the essential physical or biological features. Subunit 9O 
includes an additional 42 ac (17 ha) of lands primarily owned by Miami-
Dade County (38 ac (15 ha)) and the U.S. Coast Guard (4 ac (2 ha)), 
based on new information indicating this area also contains the 
essential physical or biological features.
    (6) Under Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard, 
below, we add excessive alteration of natural lighting as an action 
that would significantly reduce habitat suitability or impact the prey 
base for the Florida bonneted bat in the list of activities that we 
may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat.
    (7) We exclude the Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan 
(HCP) on-site preserve and off-site mitigation areas in Subunit 9O from 
this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on 
the provisions of the HCP. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 
104 ac (42 ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
    (8) We exclude Tribal lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida in 
Unit 6. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 
ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
    (9) We exclude Tribal lands of the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida in 
Subunit 1B. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 
ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
    (10) We apply updated information on parcel boundaries and parcel 
ownership that we obtained from counties, which changed some of the 
areas of critical habitat by land ownership category from what we 
presented in table 1 in the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, 
November 22, 2022, p. 71475; see table 1 under Final Critical Habitat 
Designation, below, for comparison). However, the total area of 
critical habitat in Units 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are the same as we 
proposed. The total area has only substantially changed for those units 
where exclusions or boundary adjustments were applied, as noted above 
in (5), (7), (8), and (9).
    (11) Because of the above boundary adjustments and exclusions, in 
this rule, we revise the index map and maps for Units 1, 3, 6, and 9A-
9O in the rule portion of this document.
    Beyond those changes, this critical habitat designation is 
unchanged from what we proposed on November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71466).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested that all interested parties submit written comments on 
the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020) and on 
the revised proposed critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 
2022) for the Florida bonneted bat. The comment period for the proposed 
critical habitat rule closed on August 10, 2020; the comment period for 
the revised proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 23, 2023.
    For the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 
2020), we contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, 
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposal. For the revised proposed 
critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022), we again 
contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific 
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal. In the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule, we stated that any comments we received in response to 
the June 10, 2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they would 
be fully considered in this final rule.
    For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, newspaper notices inviting 
general public comment were published in the Orlando Sentinel, Ft. 
Myers News-Press, Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Miami Herald newspapers 
on June 9, 2020. For the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, a 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the 
Miami Herald newspaper on November 28, 2022.
    For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing, but we held public informational 
webinars on June 16 and 17, 2020. For the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule, we did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
    Because of the comprehensive changes we made to the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, some 
substantive comments and information we received during the comment 
period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule no longer apply, and we do 
not address them below. All other substantive information we received 
during both comment periods has either been

[[Page 16626]]

incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below.
    During the comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we 
received approximately 1,900 written comment letters on the proposed 
critical habitat designation or the draft economic analysis (DEA) and 
supplemental memo (IEc 2020a, b, entire). During the comment period on 
the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we received an additional 
41 comment letters on the revised proposed critical habitat designation 
or the DEA and supplemental memo (IEc 2021a, b, entire). During the 
comment period on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we also 
received four requests for exclusion of areas that were not identified 
as being considered for exclusion in the proposed rule or the revised 
proposed rule. We reviewed each exclusion request, whether received in 
response to the proposed or revised proposed rule, to determine if the 
requester provided information or a reasoned rationale to initiate an 
analysis of exclusion or support an exclusion (see Policy Regarding 
Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 
7226; February 11, 2016), hereafter referred to as our 2016 section 
4(b)(2) policy). All substantive information provided to us during both 
comment periods has been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or, in the case of substantive information regarding the 
DEA received during the comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed 
rule, was used to revise the economic analysis and supplemental memo 
(IEc 2021a, b, entire) between the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 
22, 2022, revised proposed rules.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two 
peer reviewers on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule and one peer 
reviewer on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule. We reviewed 
all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues 
and new information regarding the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat 
use and needs. The peer reviewers provided critiques of our methods but 
generally concurred with our designation of critical habitat and 
conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and 
suggestions to improve the designation. Our revised proposed critical 
habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022) was developed in part to 
address some of the critiques and information raised by the peer 
reviewers in 2020. The additional details and information we received 
or that were raised by the peer reviewers have been incorporated into 
this final rule, as appropriate. Peer review comments are addressed in 
the following summary.
    (1) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed critical 
habitat rule (85 FR 35510) and the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466), we received peer review and public 
comments requesting that we consider adding 71 areas to the critical 
habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat. Specific additions 
were recommended with supporting information, including information 
regarding habitat and evidence of use by the Florida bonneted bat. 
Commenters also stated their views that the critical habitat areas 
included in the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed designations were not sufficient to ensure long-term 
conservation of the species in light of future threats, such as climate 
change and urbanization, and that unoccupied habitat should be 
reexamined for inclusion.
    Our Response: In preparing this final designation, we evaluated all 
requests for the addition of specified areas (see ``Areas Requested for 
Addition to Florida Bonneted Bat Critical Habitat'' under Supporting 
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). In the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation, we included 24 additions requested in response to the June 
10, 2020, proposed rule that resulted from our development of new 
critical habitat criteria and analysis of physical or biological 
features that are essential to the Florida bonneted bat, which guided a 
new delineation of revised critical habitat units. Of those areas not 
included in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we determined 
that four meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat, and we include these areas in this final designation as 
reflected in boundary changes made to four subunits (Subunits 3B, 9M, 
9N, and 9O; see Final Critical Habitat Designation, below). The 
remaining areas, including identified golf courses, parks, and heavily 
fragmented areas, are not included in this final designation. While we 
agree that such areas can be important to the species and are 
considered in recovery and regulatory processes, our evaluation 
indicated the identified areas did not meet our criteria for 
designating critical habitat.
    A critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside 
the designated area is unimportant or should not be managed or 
conserved for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) section 9 of 
the Act, which prohibits taking any individual of the species, 
including taking caused by actions that affect habitat; and (3) 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure that actions that they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Thus, 
Federal agencies must consult with the Service even if actions they 
authorize, fund or carry out are conducted outside of designated 
critical habitat if those activities may affect listed species.
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are designating 
critical habitat in specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. We acknowledge that a variety of roosting and foraging 
habitats are important to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. 
However, a critical habitat designation identifies the habitat areas 
essential to the species; it is not necessary to include in the 
designation all areas that can be occupied by the species or where the 
species has been detected. We may designate critical habitat that is 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species if we determine 
it to be essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, 
during the development of our November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, 
we evaluated areas both within and outside the species' current range 
to identify those areas that have the essential physical or biological 
features we established for inclusion in critical habitat. We then 
evaluated whether the areas considered to be occupied are sufficient to 
ensure conservation of the species. Based on our determination that the 
occupied units included in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule 
represent the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to 
the species, we determined unoccupied areas are not essential for the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. However, this designation 
does include areas in the northern extremes of the species'

[[Page 16627]]

current range that, while currently occupied, may become of much higher 
value to the species as the climate changes (see description of Unit 1 
under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below).
    (2) Comment: Peer reviewers recommended acknowledging the important 
role artificial roosts play in Florida bonneted bat conservation and 
recovery, and they suggested including artificial roosts (e.g., bat 
houses, bat boxes) in the species' essential physical or biological 
features and our habitat analysis.
    Our Response: Physical or biological features are features that 
support the species' life-history needs, such as reproduction. Roosting 
habitat is essential to Florida bonneted bats to provide shelter and 
support reproduction, socialization, and other natural behaviors. While 
artificial roosts can provide alternative, long-term, and hurricane-
resilient roosting habitat for the species where roosting habitat is 
limited, they are an imperfect surrogate for natural roosting habitat 
and are not on their own a habitat feature essential for the species' 
survival (see Cover or Shelter, below, for additional details). It is 
also for this reason that we do not include roost measurements of 
artificial or supplemental roosts in our description of roosting 
habitat, although available locations of artificial roosts are included 
in the presence dataset used for our habitat analysis (see ``Florida 
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis'' under Supporting and Related Material 
in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). 
Additionally, while our knowledge regarding how to design bat houses 
with conservation benefits for Florida bonneted bats is improving, many 
designs still present thermal issues to bat colonies and can be harmful 
(Crawford and O'Keefe 2021, entire; Bat Conservation International 
2022, pp. 10-11). Also, bat houses often require human intervention to 
repair and replace as they deteriorate, especially in Florida, reducing 
the potential for these structures to provide long-term conservation 
benefits for Florida bonneted bats. We appreciate the efforts of our 
partners to provide safe supplemental roosts for the Florida bonneted 
bat, and we agree that, with proper placement, design, and maintenance, 
supplemental roosts play an important role in the conservation of the 
species. While not intentionally included or excluded, all bat houses 
for Florida bonneted bats at Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife 
Management Area (Babcock-Webb WMA) and the majority (80 percent) of 
known bat houses for Florida bonneted bats in Miami-Dade County are 
located within the final critical habitat designation. Additionally, as 
noted above, areas including artificial roosts remain subject to 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure that actions that they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species.
    (3) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed and 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules, peer reviewers and public 
commenters stated their views that additional discussion and 
consideration of urban areas were needed, and they suggested including 
some or all urban areas within the species' range (including golf 
courses, parks, urban ponds, and canals, especially within Miami-Dade 
County) in the critical habitat designation. Commenters voiced that the 
addition of these areas is needed to allow the Florida bonneted bat to 
forage in fragmented landscapes. Commenters also questioned why the 
proposed and revised proposed rules include negative associations with 
respect to urban areas and Florida bonneted bat habitat, when a 
significant portion of the overall population uses an urban landscape; 
commenters suggested that suburban and urban areas be modeled at a 
different, smaller scale than areas outside the urban matrix and/or be 
considered using different criteria for inclusion in the critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: To identify specific areas that may qualify as 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, in accordance with 50 
CFR 424.12(b), we included the following considerations in the process: 
(1) Identifying the geographical area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing; (2) identifying physical or biological habitat 
features essential to the conservation of the species; (3) identifying 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
that contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species; (4) determining which of 
these essential features may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (5) identifying specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for the 
species' conservation. Our evaluation and conclusions are described in 
detail below under the following headings: Physical or Biological 
Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species, Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, and Conservation Strategy and 
Selection Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat.
    In development of the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation, we developed revised physical or biological features based 
on new information as well as peer review and public comments on the 
June 10, 2020, proposed rule. As a result, habitat within the Miami-
Dade urban matrix was evaluated, and those areas that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species were included in our revised proposed designation (i.e., Unit 
9). However, while natural areas within urban landscapes are used by 
Florida bonneted bats, increased urbanization is considered a threat to 
the species as these areas can have limited resources, such as a lack 
of roost trees, and increased conflicts with humans. Therefore, despite 
their use by the species and their local importance, many urban areas 
have a lower conservation value to the species as a whole and do not 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
    Results of our habitat analysis (see ``Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat 
Analysis'' under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov) did not specifically 
inform our consideration of urban areas as part of our revised proposed 
critical habitat methodology or delineation. The MaxEnt model that we 
used in our analysis did not identify the amount of urbanization as a 
habitat-related variable having strong influence on the probability of 
Florida bonneted bat occurrence. Thus, no urbanization covariate was 
incorporated in our model output or analysis results, and we have no 
model-related results to estimate its correlation (positive or 
negative) with Florida bonneted bat occupancy or the relative 
conservation value of these areas.
    In addition, model covariate layers representing high-quality 
foraging habitat include certain natural areas within the urban matrix 
based on our evaluation of land cover type characteristics; thus, we 
did not assume a broad negative association between foraging habitat 
quality and urbanization. We acknowledge that choice of scale typically 
impacts the results of any spatial analysis and that the influence and 
association of urban areas with Florida bonneted bat occurrence and 
habitat suitability may differ from our MaxEnt results if a different 
scale (i.e., grid cell size) is

[[Page 16628]]

used. Based on the attributes of the available covariate data, as well 
as on available sample size, we identified our grid cell size using the 
best available data on Florida bonneted bat biology and habitat use at 
the time of analysis (see ``Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis'' 
under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 
on https://www.regulations.gov).
    Given acknowledged limitations of the habitat analysis, additional 
criteria were applied to identify areas containing the essential 
physical or biological features and delineate critical habitat (see 
Selection Criteria and Methodology Used to Identify Critical Habitat, 
below), including in urban areas.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public commenters stated 
their views that habitat is a three-dimensional concept, and therefore 
the airspace above the substrate, where the Florida bonneted bat 
forages and socializes, is essential to the conservation of the 
species. The peer reviewer also mentioned that because this three-
dimensional habitat approach has been used in critical habitat for 
aquatic and fossorial species, the same approach should be applied to 
the Florida bonneted bat as a flying species. Some commenters 
suggested, citing Diehl et al. 2017 and other studies, that airspace 
above disturbed areas, including over paved surfaces, is vital habitat 
and heavily used by the species in some areas.
    Our Response: We agree that airspace is important to this species. 
``Open areas,'' as described in the second essential physical or 
biological feature for the Florida bonneted bat, include the ground, 
water, vegetation, and air where the Florida bonneted bat forages and 
socializes above those surfaces; thereby, the air above the surfaces 
where the Florida bonneted bat forages and socializes is included in 
the open areas described in in the essential physical or biological 
features for the species. Since the species' listing, consultations 
have considered the species' use of habitat in three dimensions, and 
the evaluation of impacts to Florida bonneted bat habitat addressed in 
the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines also considers habitat 
use in three dimensions (see Supporting and Related Material in Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov).
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public commenters 
expressed concerns regarding policy and language in the proposed rule 
that states that critical habitat does not include lands covered by 
buildings, pavement, and other structures (see paragraph (3) in the 
proposed rule text for the Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat 
designation at 85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020, p. 35539). Commenters stated 
their views that excluding these areas is arbitrary and unsupported by 
the best data available on the Florida bonneted bat, and thus these 
areas are inappropriately omitted from the critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: The Florida bonneted bat may roost in buildings and 
forage above human-made structures, but critical habitat is not 
intended to include all areas and locations that the species uses. 
While certain human-made structures and the lands on which they are 
located are not included in the designated critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat, impacts to bats using these areas may still be 
considered during consultations for effects to the species.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that live oaks (Quercus 
virginiana) be included in the Cover or Shelter discussion as a 
potential roost tree species. The reviewer mentioned that a non-volant 
(flightless) pup was found below bisected tree cavity in a live oak, 
providing evidence that the Florida bonneted bat will roost in live oak 
trees. The peer reviewer also noted that the rule should acknowledge 
live oak as a potential roost tree species considering mature trees of 
this species with cavities are plentiful near known Florida bonneted 
bat foraging areas.
    Our Response: Known natural roosts with Florida bonneted bat 
colonies have been documented in slash pine (Pinus elliottii), longleaf 
pine (Pinus palustris), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and royal 
palm (Roystonea regia) (see Cover or Shelter, below). All trees of 
appropriate size, regardless of species, are considered to be possible 
roost trees when project areas are evaluated and surveyed for 
consultations. While no tree species is omitted from consideration 
under the Florida bonneted bat's essential physical or biological 
feature describing roosting habitat, we do not have the information 
needed to specifically identify live oak trees as a species in which 
roosts with Florida bonneted bat colonies have repeatedly been 
observed.

Federal Agency Comments

    (7) Comment: Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
Miami-Dade County recommended that conservation plans and additional 
conservation measures for the Florida bonneted bat be included either 
as part of the final rule or shared with Federal and local governments 
outside of the rulemaking process. Other suggestions included that the 
Service provide funding for land acquisition, incentives for limiting 
pesticide use, guidance regarding bat-friendly lighting and exclusions, 
and outreach materials.
    Our Response: We appreciate our partners' support for conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat and interest in specific and additional 
ways to conserve the species and its habitat. While critical habitat is 
one tool that supports conservation of the species, providing 
additional or specific conservation recommendations or funding 
conservation is not within the scope of a critical habitat designation. 
Additional discussion of conservation actions can be found in the 
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy and the Florida Bonneted Bat 
Consultation Guidelines (see Supporting and Related Material in Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov) and will be 
more fully addressed in the species' recovery plan. For further 
coordination on development of conservation plans related to the 
Florida bonneted bat or other listed species, please contact the 
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (8) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that private lands enrolled in 
the Wetland Reserve Easement Partnership Program (WREPP, formerly the 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)) and lands within the Picayune Strand 
Restoration Project be excluded from critical habitat designation. They 
suggested that exclusion should be considered on an economic basis for 
both areas of land and, for lands enrolled in WREPP, that exclusion 
should also be considered due to the conservation benefits associated 
with the program.
    Our Response: We listed this exclusion request in table 2 in the 
Exclusion Requests Received During the Previous Public Comment Period 
section of the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, 
p. 71481). In this final rule, we do not conduct an analysis of these 
lands to determine whether the benefits of potentially excluding any 
specific area from this critical habitat designation outweigh the 
benefits of including that area in the designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. Under our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, we may 
choose to exclude proposed critical habitat if there is a signed 
conservation plan or program that provides for the necessary long-term 
conservation and management of habitat for a species and an analysis 
has determined that the benefits of

[[Page 16629]]

excluding outweigh the benefits of including the area in critical 
habitat.
    This comment was received in the context of the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule, and the WREPP lands that were requested for exclusion 
(Wolf Island) were in Unit 1 of the proposed designation. Under the 
revised physical or biological features proposed in the November 22, 
2022, revised proposed rule, those WREPP lands no longer meet the 
definition of critical habitat.
    However, in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed designation, 
there were other WREPP lands that overlapped with our revised proposed 
critical habitat units, consisting of 387 ac (157 ha) in Subunit 2A. 
Because of this, we extrapolated the logic of the initial request to 
exclude WREPP lands, and we considered this initial request to also 
apply to WREPP lands in the revised proposal, although we did not 
receive a comment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting that 
we consider these other WREPP lands for exclusion. However, we did not 
conduct an analysis considering the benefits of excluding WREPP lands 
covered by a non-permitted voluntary conservation plan because the 
initial request did not provide information on the benefits of 
exclusion that would be needed to weigh the potential benefits of 
excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation against 
including them in the designation. Further, we did not receive any 
other comments about this request. Additionally, it is our 
understanding that the conservation in agreements under the WREPP 
program is highly variable among landowners, and no landowner for these 
WREPP lands provided information or comment on either the June 10, 
2020, proposed or November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule. Similarly, 
we do not conduct an exclusion analysis based on economic impacts for 
either WREPP lands or lands within the Picayune Strand Restoration 
Project (consisting of 64,490 ac (26,098 ha) in Unit 6) because the 
commenter described an economic burden that is purely associated with 
listing, and they did not describe any additional anticipated project 
modifications or costs anticipated to result from the designation of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.

State Comments

    (9) Comment: Two State agencies (the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission and Florida Farm Bureau) and other commenters 
recommended that the Service provide assurances that the critical 
habitat designation would not negatively affect a land manager's or 
private landowner's ability to implement resource management activities 
(e.g., prescribed fire, invasive species management, grazing, tree 
harvesting) or recreational activities (e.g., hunting, off road vehicle 
use) within critical habitat, and that it will not add regulatory 
burden. Further, commenters recommended that the Service identify which 
activities are likely to require (or not require) consultation with the 
Service and clarify the project modifications that would be needed to 
avoid adverse effects to or the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: The purpose of the designation of critical habitat is 
to identify those areas critical to the conservation of the species, 
not to impede resource or habitat management. Section 7(a)(2) states 
that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the 
Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its 
action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect 
listed species or critical habitat. To help Federal and State agencies 
and members of the public recognize the actions considered to have 
potential effects on designated critical habitat, we generally identify 
those types of actions that could potentially result in destruction or 
adverse modification of designated critical habitat (see Application of 
the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard, below). The actual effects of a 
proposed action on designated critical habitat are dependent on many 
project-specific factors related to both the action being proposed and 
the project area. Therefore, we cannot determine or provide specific 
thresholds for adverse effects or adverse modification within this 
rule. Determination of adverse effects or adverse modification is 
conducted through the section 7 process, during which specific factors 
of the proposed action and conditions within the project area can be 
evaluated. This consultation requirement under section 7 is not a 
prohibition of otherwise lawful actions; rather, it is a means by which 
they may proceed in a manner that avoids destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Even in areas absent designated 
critical habitat, if the action may affect a listed species, 
consultation is still required to ensure the action is not likely to 
jeopardize the species. There is not expected to be any difference 
between a jeopardy analysis (on the species) and an adverse 
modification analysis (on the species' critical habitat) conducted as 
part of the consultation because threats to the Florida bonneted bat 
are largely habitat-related and all critical habitat units are 
occupied.
    Additionally, there are opportunities for collaboration and 
cooperation with our partners to develop conservation strategies, 
conservation plans, and programmatic consultations to streamline 
regulatory procedures and compliance and to benefit listed species.

Public Comments

    (10) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter requested clarification 
regarding how all peer review, public comments, and new information 
provided in response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule were 
considered in our revised proposed designation process. They also asked 
what changes were made from the proposed rule to the revised proposed 
designation and reasons for those changes.
    Our Response: All peer review, public comments, and new information 
we received on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule were thoroughly 
reviewed and considered in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation. Based on this review, we determined that changes were 
needed to the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat and the criteria and 
methodology used to identify those specific areas that constitute 
critical habitat for the species (see New Information and Revisions to 
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat at 87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, 
p. 71469). To sufficiently address comments we received and incorporate 
new information, we comprehensively rewrote the proposed designation 
based on the development of a conservation strategy and corresponding 
critical habitat criteria, a new habitat analysis, and new essential 
physical or biological features, all based on the best available 
science. Given the significant and substantive changes we made in 
identifying the essential physical or biological features and, 
accordingly, the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat, we determined it was necessary to revise the 
proposal and provide for notice and comment; therefore, we published 
the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466). In this 
final rule, we are providing responses to peer review and public 
comments we received on both the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 
22, 2022, revised proposed rules, and, where appropriate, we have noted 
how our November 22, 2022,

[[Page 16630]]

revised proposed designation addressed comments on the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule.
    (11) Comment: One commenter stated their view that the November 22, 
2022, revised proposed rule explains how genetic diversity, geographic 
extent, and ecological diversity were incorporated in the revised 
proposed critical habitat designation, but it does not show that the 
designation is sufficient to achieve resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation.
    Our Response: To determine and select appropriate areas, we 
incorporated information from the conservation strategy for the species 
(see ``Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy'' under Supporting 
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). This conservation strategy helped identify those 
areas within the Florida bonneted bat's range that contain the 
essential physical or biological features. In the absence of population 
estimates or trend data, we used current presence data along with 
information regarding future changes to the landscape (e.g., due to 
climate and urbanization) to estimate the quantity and spatial 
arrangement of units that would be sufficient to conserve the species. 
The resulting 1,160,625-ac (469,688-ha) designation includes the four 
known Florida bonneted bat populations that support resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation of the species by including areas that 
maintain or reestablish connectivity within and between populations 
(supporting resiliency), that are predicted to be unaffected or less 
affected by sea-level rise and climate change (supporting resiliency), 
that are in each of the known genetically distinct areas and 
distributed across the geographic range of the species (supporting 
representation, redundancy, resiliency), and that are in each major 
ecological community that provides roosting habitat (supporting 
representation and resiliency).
    (12) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed and 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rules, several 
commenters stated their views that our designation process did not 
consider the best available scientific information and that information 
was not considered sufficiently or interpreted correctly. Specific 
concerns expressed included failure to incorporate all Florida bonneted 
bat location data, including acoustic and telemetry data, as well as 
specific published and unpublished information sources related to the 
species' range, movements, biology, genetics, habitat use, and threats 
(including climate change). One commenter disagreed with our 
interpretation of acoustic data, specifically related to the level of 
bat activity, which the commenter believes resulted in an over-
inclusive designation regarding Subunit 9O.
    Our Response: In development of the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, we reviewed all information sources and 
specific information identified in comments on the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule to ensure that they were considered as part of our 
revised designation process. We also obtained and incorporated all 
available location data for the Florida bonneted bat, including 
geographic information system (GIS) and non-GIS data from acoustic 
surveys, reports, and researchers (including roost locations and maps 
of telemetry data). All of this information was used in multiple facets 
of our revised designation process, including the development of our 
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy and Florida Bonneted Bat 
Habitat Analysis (see these documents under Supporting and Related 
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov), physical or biological features essential to the 
Florida bonneted bat, critical habitat criteria, and critical habitat 
delineation methods. As such, the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
rule incorporated substantial new information representing the best 
available science. In addition, in the development of this final 
designation, we have reviewed additional information sources provided 
through public comments on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule 
and have updated the rule as appropriate (see Summary of Changes from 
the Proposed Rule, above).
    We followed our standard peer review process for both the June 10, 
2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules to help 
ensure we are applying the best available information and that our 
interpretation is appropriate. While acoustic locations were used to 
indicate presence of Florida bonneted bats as part of our habitat 
analysis, information related to the level of bat activity (e.g., 
number of Florida bonneted bat calls or percentage of total bat calls) 
did not provide further insight into the presence of Florida bonneted 
bats in an area and was not used in delineating Subunit 9O or in any 
part of the revised designation process. Furthermore, as mentioned, the 
designation process is complex and not based on presence data alone.
    (13) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter stated their view that 
the habitat analysis methods used were flawed and that the results 
appear to conflict with the best available science. Specifically, the 
commenter expressed concerns that our use of a combination of roost 
locations and positive acoustic detections (the latter of which 
represented the majority of locations) resulted in skewed data. The 
commenter asserted that the use of non-random acoustic data may have 
influenced our analysis results, which they said seem to disagree with 
independent research and peer-reviewed studies that suggest 
agricultural areas are important for the Florida bonneted bat. The 
commenter also questioned why and how we classified cover types as 
high-quality foraging habitat in our development of modeling 
covariates.
    Our Response: In response to comments we received on the June 10, 
2020, proposed critical habitat rule, we incorporated all available 
data (e.g., acoustic detections from all available sources, including 
locations sampled by Bailey et al. (2017a, entire), as well as known 
roost locations) in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation. In our initial exploratory analyses during the development 
of the revised proposed designation, model results based only on roost 
locations indicated the model was overfitted (i.e., model results 
corresponded too closely to the data used and thus may fail to predict 
future observations reliably), likely resulting from small sample size 
(n = 21). Because these exploratory analyses showed that a roost-only 
model is not appropriate based on data available at the time of our 
analysis, in our final analysis, we chose to combine roost locations 
with acoustic data in a single presence dataset to ensure we 
incorporated all available GIS data into our model. Likewise, we did 
not limit our analysis to only those data collected using a randomized 
sampling design, as that would exclude a large amount of available 
data. As acknowledged in our Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis (see 
Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on 
https://www.regulations.gov), we recognize that the majority of 
acoustic data were collected during pre-development surveys and thus 
may exhibit a certain level of habitat bias based on project locations 
(but not due to survey protocol, as agricultural areas are included in 
potential foraging habitat to be surveyed (see ``Florida Bonneted Bat 
Consultation Guidelines'' under Supporting and Related Material in 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106

[[Page 16631]]

on https://www.regulations.gov)). We agree that this habitat bias 
likely contributed to the differing results obtained from our model 
related to correlation of species' occurrence with agricultural areas 
when compared to the results of those studies identified by the 
commenter (i.e., Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1589; Webb 2018, p. 25), 
although our results were also (and possibly more so) influenced by 
differences in the source and classification of land cover data, model 
covariates, and/or model spatial scale. While our designation is based 
on the best available data, we believe continued modeling efforts would 
be useful to better understand the Florida bonneted bat's habitat needs 
at both local and landscape scales, including how different habitat 
types contribute to supporting the long-term conservation of the 
species.
    Many habitats or land cover types contribute at least minimally to 
providing foraging opportunities for Florida bonneted bats (e.g., by 
producing prey), but not all of these areas are equal in the amount or 
type of prey they produce or in having the open habitat structure 
needed for maneuvering to catch prey. To explore these relationships, 
we classified land cover data in two ways: (1) Foraging habitat quality 
(high quality, low quality, not foraging habitat) based on the cover 
type's likelihood of producing large insects (e.g., beetles and moths); 
and (2) foraging habitat structure (open, not open) based on the cover 
type description (see table 1 in Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis 
under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 
on https://www.regulations.gov). Many land cover types, including most 
agricultural types, were classified as high-quality foraging habitat 
(based on prey production); cover types we associated with lower prey 
production consisted of saltwater/saline habitats, highly manicured 
areas (e.g., lawns), and unvegetated cover types. Of those cover types 
classified as high-quality foraging, all having an open habitat 
structure were classified as high-quality open foraging habitat. These 
classifications were then used to develop model covariate layers to 
investigate their potential influence on Florida bonneted bat 
occurrence. The MaxEnt model that we used in our analysis does not 
identify the amount of high-quality or high-quality open foraging 
habitat as having a strong influence on the probability of Florida 
bonneted bat occurrence; thus, these covariates were not incorporated 
in our model output or analysis results.
    (14) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, commenters stated concerns about 
various aspects of how current and future land use, the overall spatial 
extent of the designation, ownership, and habitat quality were 
considered in the revised proposed designation of critical habitat. 
Some commenters stated their views that private lands, urban areas, and 
agricultural areas were seemingly arbitrarily avoided in our revised 
critical habitat designation and that the spatial extent of the 
designation was arbitrarily reduced from the June 10, 2020, proposal. 
Other commenters expressed concern with the revised proposed critical 
habitat not aligning with ownership boundaries, such as conservation 
easements, property lines, or other easements, or suggested that the 
Service should consider future development plans when delineating 
critical habitat and aim to avoid or protect areas with plans for 
development. One commenter requested additional information regarding 
how we considered ``hot spots'' identified by the habitat analysis, 
specifically expressing concerns that some apparently high-quality 
areas were omitted from the revised proposed designation.
    Our Response: Critical habitat, as defined in section 3 of the Act, 
includes 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 essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. In the development of our November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed designation, we followed this approach to identify and 
delineate critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat using a step-
wise process incorporating critical habitat criteria based on the 
species' conservation strategy, results of our spatially explicit 
habitat analysis, and additional information that could not be 
incorporated into our spatial analysis (see Conservation Strategy and 
Selection Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below). We did 
not consider ownership or management of any areas during this process, 
and ownership and management information (including easements) is not 
evaluated until after critical habitat delineation is completed; future 
development plans are not considered in the definition or delineation 
of critical habitat. Thus, private lands were not purposefully avoided, 
and most units include private lands to some degree. Urban and 
agricultural areas, while not specifically avoided, are less prevalent 
than certain land cover types (e.g., forested lands, freshwater 
wetlands) in the designation; this is primarily a result of their lower 
likelihood of containing the essential physical or biological features 
or their lower conservation value. For example, despite their use by 
Florida bonneted bats and their local importance in the southeastern 
extent of the species' range, many urban areas have lower conservation 
value to the species as a whole and do not contain the physical or 
biological features essential for the conservation of the Florida 
bonneted bat, as further discussed above in our response to (3) 
Comment. Likewise, although some agricultural areas are known to 
provide foraging habitat for the species, the conservation value of 
these areas is generally lower than that of other open foraging 
habitats that are dominated by native vegetation and not exposed to 
regular pesticide applications. Regardless of critical habitat 
designation, Federal agencies are required to fulfill their 
conservation responsibilities by consulting with the Service if the 
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out ``may affect'' listed 
species; therefore, Florida bonneted bats and their habitat are still 
protected by the Act where they occur, including in urbanized and 
agriculture areas.
    Just as the composition of our November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation was guided by the factors described above, so were the 
spatial arrangement and extent of our revised critical habitat units. 
During the development of our revised proposed rule, we evaluated areas 
both within and outside the species' known range to identify those 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. This evaluation 
included areas identified as potential ``hot spots'' (areas having 
higher probability of Florida bonneted bat occurrence) in the 
predictive maps produced based on our MaxEnt model. We further 
evaluated these areas for the temperature limitations of the species 
and to ensure that land cover data were correctly categorized, and we 
eliminated areas that were unlikely to contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the species (e.g., areas at the far 
northern edge of the model's spatial extent where winter temperatures 
are typically too low for the bat, areas where aerial imagery indicated 
poor habitat quality). Other areas identified as ``hot spots'' by the 
model but that were not occupied (e.g., area east of Lake Okeechobee) 
were eliminated in a later step of our delineation process because we 
determined unoccupied

[[Page 16632]]

areas are not essential for the conservation of the Florida bonneted 
bat, as further discussed in our response to (1) Comment, above. The 
remaining areas were included in our November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed designation, as were additional areas where the physical or 
biological features essential to the species are found and which we 
determined were necessary to fulfill critical habitat criteria (e.g., 
areas for connectivity between model-identified ``hot spots'' that fall 
within the geographical area occupied by the species as defined at 50 
CFR 424.02). These methods produced the specific critical habitat units 
included in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed designation, and 
any differences in unit size, arrangement, or composition between the 
June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed units 
are a result of delineations made following revised criteria to 
identify the essential physical or biological features rather than 
arbitrary changes (see also our response to (10) Comment, above).
    (15) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter questioned the removal of 
minimum patch size as a criterion for critical habitat units and 
suggested that this was not supported other than to allow for 
additional connectivity, including the addition of smaller patches or 
``stepping stones.'' The commenter also requested that a definition be 
provided for the term ``stepping stones.''
    Our Response: Based on peer review and public comments on the June 
10, 2020, proposed rule and new information, we determined that use of 
a minimum patch size was not appropriate for the Florida bonneted bat 
because using a minimum patch size would have eliminated areas that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and that provide necessary ecological 
community and genetic representation. ``Stepping stones'' are 
characterized in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule and in 
this rule under Space for Individual and Population Growth and for 
Normal Behavior, below, as suitable habitat in the form of linear 
corridors or patches and are described more specifically in the 
description of the essential physical or biological features as patches 
such as tree islands or other isolated natural areas within a matrix of 
otherwise low-quality habitat.
    (16) Comment: Several comments expressed concerns that many threats 
to the Florida bonneted bat, as well as details related to some of the 
outlined threats (e.g., habitat loss, climate change, environmental 
stochasticity, pesticides and contaminants), were not mentioned or 
fully addressed in the Special Managements Considerations or Protection 
discussions in the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, 
revised proposed rules.
    Our Response: The threats included in the discussion under Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, below, as well as in the June 
10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules, are 
potential threats to the physical and biological features, not threats 
directly to the Florida bonneted bat. Additionally, the threats 
included in our discussion are not intended to be an exhaustive list. 
Additional discussion of threats to the Florida bonneted bat can be 
found in the final rule to list the Florida bonneted bat as an 
endangered species (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) A comprehensive 
discussion of current and future threats to the species will be a part 
of the species' upcoming recovery plan.
    (17) Comment: Several commenters stated that the baseline approach 
used by the Service to assess economic impacts, which considers only 
impacts solely attributable to the critical habitat designation, is 
flawed and severely underestimates costs presented in the DEA. 
Commenters further suggested that considering all costs regardless of 
whether they are incremental to critical habitat designation, thus 
including those costs likely to be incurred to avoid adverse habitat 
modification as well as jeopardy to the species, would more accurately 
analyze how a critical habitat designation affects property owners.
    Our Response: Because the primary purposes of the Service's 
economic analysis are to facilitate the mandatory consideration of the 
economic impact of the designation of critical habitat, to inform the 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, and to determine 
compliance with relevant statutes and Executive orders, our economic 
analysis focuses on the incremental impact of the designation. The 
economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat follows this incremental approach. As such, costs 
associated with actions that are anticipated to occur regardless of 
critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat are not 
included.
    The Service acknowledges that historically the method for assessing 
the economic impact of critical habitat designations has been the 
subject of significant debate. The United States Court of Appeals for 
the Tenth Circuit in New Mexico Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. FWS, 248 F.3d 
1277 (10th Cir. 2001) found that the regulatory definition of the 
jeopardy standard fully encompassed the adverse modification standard, 
rendering any purported economic analysis done utilizing the baseline 
approach, which only considers economic impacts that would not occur 
``but for'' the critical habitat, virtually meaningless. For this 
reason, the court rejected the baseline approach to economic analysis. 
Later, in 2004, the Ninth Circuit (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS, 
378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)) invalidated the regulatory definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification.'' The court held that the 
definition gave too little protection to critical habitat by not giving 
weight to Congress' intent that designated critical habitat supports 
the recovery of listed species. On August 27, 2019, the Service issued 
a final rule (84 FR 44976) revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification in a way that allows the Service to define an 
incremental effect of the designation. This process eliminated the 
predicate for the Tenth Circuit's analysis and decision. Therefore, the 
Service has concluded that it is appropriate to consider the impacts of 
designation on an incremental basis. Indeed, no court outside of the 
Tenth Circuit has followed New Mexico Cattle Growers since the Ninth 
Circuit issued Gifford Pinchot Task Force and the Service revised its 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification.''
    Most recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 
incremental approach as lawful explaining that ``the very notion of 
conducting a cost/benefit analysis is undercut by incorporating in that 
analysis costs that will exist regardless of the decision made.'' 
Further, when the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari 
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to specifically answer the question of 
whether the government is required to ``analyze all of the economic 
impacts of `critical habitat' designation (regardless of whether the 
impacts are co-extensive with, or cumulative of, other causes), as the 
Tenth Circuit decided, or instead only those impacts for which 
`critical habitat' designation is a `but for' cause, as the Ninth 
Circuit decided,'' the Supreme Court declined to hear the case (Home 
Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed 
2d 301, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); citing Arizona 
Cattle Growers v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 
179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011

[[Page 16633]]

U.S. Lexis 1362, 79 U.S. L.W. 3475 (2011)). Subsequently, on August 28, 
2013, the Service issued a final rule (78 FR 53058) revising its 
approach to conducting impact analyses for designations of critical 
habitat, specifying that we will compare the impacts with and without 
the designation (50 CFR 424.19(b)).
    (18) Comment: Several commenters stated concerns that critical 
habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat will alter land 
management, development, and conservation activities and will result in 
economic impacts that are not included or are underestimated in the 
DEA. Commenters specifically cited concerns that the costs that private 
entities incur during section 7 consultation (e.g., biologist and 
consultant fees, project modifications and mitigation, costs associated 
with permit and project delays) and potential increased litigation risk 
are a significant economic burden.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the economic analysis (IEc 2021a, pp. 
22-25) outlines the substantial baseline protections currently afforded 
the Florida bonneted bat throughout areas in the revised proposed 
critical habitat designation. These baseline protections result from 
the listing of the Florida bonneted bat under the Act and the presence 
of the species in all critical habitat units, as well as overlap with 
habitat of other, similar listed species and designated critical 
habitat. Specifically, once a species is listed as endangered or 
threatened, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with the Service to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or 
carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, 
even absent critical habitat designation. For designated critical 
habitat, section 7 also requires Federal agencies to ensure that their 
actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Thus, a 
key focus of the economic screening analysis is evaluating whether the 
designation of critical habitat would trigger project modifications to 
avoid adverse modification that would be above and beyond modifications 
that would already have been undertaken to avoid adverse effects to the 
species itself. The jeopardy analysis conducted as part of consultation 
would focus on the same impacts that an adverse modification standard 
analysis would because threats to the Florida bonneted bat are habitat-
related (e.g., removal, fragmentation, or degradation of habitat due to 
construction, development, or climate change). Under those 
circumstances, project modifications or conservation measures would 
likely be required to address the species, regardless of whether there 
is designated critical habitat, because of the effects on the species. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that an analysis would identify a difference 
between measures needed to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat from measures needed to avoid 
jeopardizing the species. Thus, the designation of critical habitat is 
unlikely to generate recommendations for additional project 
modifications in occupied areas. As such, we do not forecast any 
incremental costs associated with project modifications that would 
involve additional conservation efforts resulting from this critical 
habitat designation. Incremental costs include additional time for the 
Service, action agencies, and third parties to participate in 
consultations related to designated critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat.
    The Service makes its decision whether to specify any particular 
area as critical habitat based on the best available science after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impact. We do not consider the costs 
of litigation surrounding the critical habitat rule itself when 
considering the economic impacts of the rule. The extent to which 
litigation could increase the costs of a critical habitat designation 
is purely speculative and inappropriate for consideration.
    (19) Comment: Several commenters stated that the number of actions 
that would be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat, and thus the costs associated with those actions, 
may be larger than estimated in the DEA. Commenters specifically stated 
that the number of consultations associated with private projects that 
require Federal authorization (e.g., those triggering consultation 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) are 
underestimated in the DEA.
    Our Response: The economic analysis forecasts the likely number of 
future section 7 consultation actions based on the number of 
consultations for the Florida bonneted bat that have occurred since its 
listing in 2013 and information from the Service about likely future 
actions in particular units. The analysis also incorporates information 
provided by several government agencies, as well as by several public 
commenters, into the forecast of the number of likely actions that will 
require section 7 consultation. Specifically, the analysis incorporates 
information from the National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Service's 
Southwest Florida Refuge Complex, the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida Power and Light (FPL), and other 
commenters. By adding the number of annual consultations based on the 
historical rate to the specific known actions and actions identified 
through commenter input, our estimate of the number of future 
consultation actions is likely to be overstated because some of these 
actions would have also been captured in the historical number of 
consultations. Also, see our response to (18) Comment, regarding the 
substantial baseline protections currently afforded the Florida 
bonneted bat throughout areas in the revised proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters stated that the DEA underestimates 
the effect of the designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat on private land values, primarily because it does not 
account for the full perceptional effects of designating critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: Section 5 of the economic analysis discusses the 
possible perceptional effects of the proposed designation on private 
property values. Specifically, this section of the economic analysis 
discusses comments and concerns submitted in response to previous 
critical habitat rulemakings that the designation of critical habitat 
may affect the value of a private property due to the public perception 
that the Act may preclude, limit, or slow development or somehow alter 
the highest and best use of the property. The analysis acknowledges 
that incremental costs from public perception of the critical habitat 
designation for Florida bonneted bat could be possible. As stated in 
the analysis, public attitudes and concerns about the regulatory 
effects of the Act can cause real economic effects to the owners of 
property, regardless of whether such concerns and effects are actually 
realized. Over time, as public awareness grows with respect to the role 
of critical habitat and the impacts of a critical habitat designation, 
particularly where no Federal nexus compelling a section 7 consultation 
exists, concerns regarding the effect of critical habitat designation 
on properties may subside.
    While existing economic literature and prior public comments on 
previous designations suggest that costs may result from public 
perception about how critical habitat may affect private lands, given 
the differences in circumstances, including varying species, geographic

[[Page 16634]]

locations, public attitudes, and potential for a Federal nexus, we lack 
the ability to calculate costs associated with public perception in a 
manner that does not require extensive speculation. Additionally, we 
are unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related impacts to 
property values likely to result from this designation. We are unable 
to do this due to existing data limitations regarding the probability 
that such effects will occur, the likelihood of perception effects 
above and beyond those associated with the listing, and the presence of 
other co-occurring listed species and designated critical habitats.
    (21) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, one 
commenter stated that the Service should account for and incorporate 
planned land use changes in the economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation considered in the DEA.
    Our Response: Planned land use changes were considered and 
incorporated into our economic analysis of this critical habitat 
designation. Section 3 of the economic analysis forecasts section 7 
consultations based on data on past consultation efforts for the 
Florida bonneted bat in or near proposed critical habitat areas and 
identifies known or probable projects in proposed critical habitat that 
may affect critical habitat designation or require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. Known or probable projects were identified based 
on information we received from Federal agencies during the development 
of the incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and from the public in 
response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule. In addition, public 
comments we received on the proposed rule from FPL, Collier Enterprises 
Management, and a number of other interested parties provided 
information about potential effects of the critical habitat designation 
for Florida bonneted bat on ongoing activities. We used this 
information, as well as comments from Federal and State agencies, to 
forecast the number of consultations that will occur for the Florida 
bonneted bat in proposed critical habitat areas over the next 10 years. 
Information we received during the public comment period for the 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule about potential effects of 
critical habitat designation for Florida bonneted bat on ongoing 
activities was also considered in our analysis of the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
    (22) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to account 
for private development on county-owned leased lands in the Miami-Dade 
Rocklands Unit (Unit 9) and thus does not adequately estimate 
incremental costs, including those associated with perceptional 
effects, associated with private development on county-owned leased 
lands.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information the commenter submitted 
with respect to Unit 9. We did consider potential activity on all areas 
within this unit, including county-owned leased lands, when evaluating 
the economic impacts. Because the primary purposes of the economic 
analysis are to facilitate the mandatory consideration of the economic 
impact of the designation of critical habitat, to inform the 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, and to determine 
compliance with relevant statutes and Executive orders, the economic 
analysis focuses on the incremental impact of the designation. The 
economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat follows this incremental approach. Based on the 
consultation history and public and agency comments, the economic 
analysis anticipates that approximately 2 formal consultations, 15 
informal consultations, and 3 technical assistance efforts will occur 
in the Miami-Dade Rocklands Unit that will consider Florida bonneted 
bat critical habitat during the next 10 years, or approximately 2 
consultation actions annually. These forecasted consultations are not 
specific to particular landowners and may include county-owned lands.
    Critical habitat would only affect a private development project on 
county-owned leased lands if there were a Federal nexus for the project 
or the designation of critical habitat triggered regulatory compliance 
under State or local laws. We are aware of Miami-Dade County approving 
a long-term lease for lands within Unit 9. Because this area is 
considered occupied for Florida bonneted bat and co-occurs with other 
listed species and their critical habitats, should there be a Federal 
nexus for a project conducted on these lands, the incremental economic 
impact as a result of this critical habitat designation would be 
limited to minor additional administrative economic costs due to the 
additional analysis required for the destruction or adverse 
modification analysis.
    As the commenter notes, the economic analysis specifically 
discusses perception-related impacts as related to privately owned 
lands. Perception-related effects are also possible for county-owned 
lands that may be leased to private developers. However, for the 
reasons discussed above (see our response to (20) Comment), we are 
unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related impacts to 
property values that may result from this designation.
    (23) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, 
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. requested that we exclude the 
lands within the boundary of the draft East Collier Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), totaling 3,772 ac (1,526 ha) within 
Units 5 and 6 of the revised proposed designation.
    Our Response: We listed this exclusion request in table 2 of the 
revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, pp. 71481-
71482); however, we did not conduct an analysis to determine whether 
the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the 
benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
because this HCP was withdrawn prior to the publication of this final 
rule.
    (24) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, 
Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC, requested that we exclude the property 
owned by JB Ranch I, LLC, and Sunniland Family Limited Partnership 
lands. In addition, Miami-Dade Limestone Products Association requested 
that we exclude lands overlapping the Florida legislature-designated 
Lake Belt mining area.
    Our Response: We listed these exclusion requests in table 2 of the 
revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, pp. 71481-
71482), and we noted that these requests do not overlap with the 
revised proposed designation for the Florida bonneted bat. In this 
final rule, we did not conduct an analysis to determine whether the 
benefits of potentially excluding these specific areas outweigh the 
benefits of including them under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the 
lands identified in these requests do not overlap with the final 
critical habitat designation.
    (25) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed and 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules, several commenters requested 
that broad areas of land (e.g., all private property; all currently 
operating cattle ranches, associated rights-of-way, and access points 
within proposed critical habitat; all Federal and other publicly owned 
lands; entire proposed critical habitat units; and/or all proposed 
critical habitat) be excluded from designation because of economic and 
regulatory burdens. Commenters expressed concerns that critical habitat 
designation would restrict or prevent

[[Page 16635]]

actions from proceeding on those lands. One commenter supported their 
request for exclusion by stating that our approach for assessing the 
economic impacts of critical habitat designation was flawed and 
advocated for a coextensive approach. One commenter further stated that 
all Federal and publicly owned lands should be excluded from the 
critical habitat designation because the Service has not demonstrated 
that exclusion of all lands from critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the Florida bonneted bat.
    Our Response: We considered these requests according to our 2016 
section 4(b)(2) policy, which outlines measures we consider when 
excluding any areas from critical habitat. The commenters provided 
general statements of their desire to be excluded but provided no 
specific information about the economic impacts or reasoned rationale 
about the benefits of excluding any specific areas. To properly 
evaluate an exclusion request, the commenters must provide information 
concerning the economic impacts of the designation, and hence the need 
for exclusion. Thus, we did not conduct an analysis to balance or weigh 
the benefits of excluding the areas against the benefits of including 
the areas in the critical habitat designation. Neither the Act nor the 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 requires the Secretaries of 
the Interior and Commerce (Secretaries) to conduct a discretionary 
section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape Hatteras Access 
Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2010)). 
Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether to conduct that 
analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider exclusion of any 
particular area, no additional analysis is required.
    Regarding the concern that the critical habitat designation would 
restrict or prevent actions, the requirement to consult with us on 
actions with a Federal nexus that may affect designated critical 
habitat is designed to allow actions to proceed while avoiding 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, as further 
discussed in our responses to (9) Comment and (18) Comment.
    Regarding the concern that our approach for assessing the economic 
impacts is flawed, the economic analysis for the designation of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat follows an incremental 
approach, which has been upheld by the courts, as further discussed in 
(17) Comment.
    Regarding one commenter's assertion that all critical habitat 
should be excluded because this would not result in extinction of the 
species, we are mandated by the Act to designate critical habitat for 
listed species, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. The Act 
does not require us to exclude lands from the designation if that 
exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. Rather, 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any particular 
area if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including such area as part of the critical habitat, unless 
she determines, 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 (see Consideration of Impacts under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, below). As stated earlier in this comment response, 
because the commenter did not provide specific information or reasoned 
rationale about the benefits of excluding any specific areas, we chose 
not to conduct an analysis to balance or weigh the benefits of 
excluding the areas against the benefits of including the areas in the 
critical habitat designation.
    (26) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule, Miami-Dade County requested that we exclude the 327 ac 
(132 ha) of the developed footprint of Zoo Miami due to concerns that 
including this area in the critical habitat designation would prevent 
the zoo from conducting activities needed to adhere to Association of 
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accreditation standards. The commenter 
expressed concern that if they were not able to meet AZA standards, 
they could lose their AZA accreditation, which impacts the zoo's 
economic capacity.
    Our Response: We appreciate our partners' efforts to conserve 
wildlife and inspire stewardship for local wildlife as well as species 
around the world. We considered this request for exclusion according to 
our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, and we consulted with AZA 
accreditation experts and reviewed the AZA accreditation standards and 
related policies (AZA 2024, entire).
    Because a focus on conservation and active stewardship of the 
natural environment, including wildlife, is part of the accreditation 
process and standards (AZA 2024, pp. 6, 12, 27-28), it is reasonable to 
assume that a demonstrated commitment to supporting the conservation of 
an endangered species, such as the Florida bonneted bat, would benefit 
an organization seeking accreditation.
    Human-altered areas such as buildings or pavement without any type 
of vegetation that could provide roosting habitat or support insect 
populations that provide prey for the Florida bonneted bat may not 
possess the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and would not meet the definition of 
critical habitat. These areas are ``excluded by text'' from the 
designation. However, the Zoo Miami property does include areas that 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted as well as features essential to 
five other species with designated critical habitat within the Zoo 
Miami area.
    Also, critical habitat designations do not affect activities by 
private landowners unless projects have a Federal nexus (e.g., on 
Federal property, using Federal funding, authorized or carried out by a 
Federal agency). Furthermore, any regulatory burden related to updating 
or improving exhibits or expanding the developed areas of Zoo Miami to 
maintain accreditation would be associated with the species' listing, 
not the critical habitat designation. Therefore, since the designation 
of critical habitat is unlikely to have a negative effect on the 
ability of Zoo Miami to continue AZA accreditation and any foreseen 
regulatory burden would be purely associated with listing, we did not 
conduct an analysis to determine whether the benefits of potentially 
excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that 
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Neither the Act nor the 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 require the Secretaries to 
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape 
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30 
(D.D.C. 2010)). Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether 
to conduct that analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider 
exclusion of any particular area, no additional analysis is required.
    (27) Comment: We received comments from the Division of Charlotte 
County Mosquito Control and the Collier Mosquito Control District 
requesting that the areas of critical habitat overlapping their 
respective mosquito control districts be excluded from critical 
habitat; we also received comments expressing concern about designating 
the portions of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte Counties for which taxes 
fund mosquito control services. Commentors expressed concerns that the 
designation of critical habitat would restrict their ability to conduct 
mosquito control practices within critical habitat, resulting in 
negative impacts to public health, suppression of economic growth, and 
reductions in land value.

[[Page 16636]]

    Our Response: We considered this request for exclusion under our 
2016 section 4(b)(2) policy. No specific information was provided to 
enable us to conduct an analysis to balance or weigh the benefits of 
excluding the areas against the benefits of including the areas in the 
designation. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis to determine 
whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area 
outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. Neither the Act nor the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 require the Secretaries to conduct a discretionary section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape Hatteras Access 
Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2010)). 
Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether to conduct that 
analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider exclusion of any 
particular area, no additional analysis is required.
    The lands included in this critical habitat designation are all 
considered occupied by the Florida bonneted bat. Therefore, regardless 
of any critical habitat designation, activities that may take Florida 
bonneted bat are subject to prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. We 
would recommend protective measures be established for the Florida 
bonneted bat regardless of critical habitat designation within mosquito 
control districts because of potential impacts to the species, but this 
critical habitat designation does not limit or stop mosquito control 
operations or reduce efforts to protect communities from mosquito-borne 
viruses.
    (28) Comment: Miami-Dade County and several other commenters 
requested clarification regarding the areas that are excluded from 
designation ``by text,'' specified at paragraph (3) in the regulatory 
text of the critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat, 
and what meets the characteristics of natural habitats at the time of 
critical habitat designation. Commenters also stated their views that 
some areas within Unit 9 in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
designation should not be included in the final designation because 
they should be considered developed or because they do not contain the 
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Our Response: As specified at paragraph (3) of the regulatory text 
in this rule (see Regulation Promulgation, below), critical habitat 
does not include human-made structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, 
runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are 
located. These types of structures and lands that are within critical 
habitat units on the effective date of this final rule (see DATES, 
above) are excluded from designation ``by text.'' Areas within 
delineated critical habitat units that (1) are not human-made 
structures or the land on which they are located and (2) include any of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Florida bonneted bat are designated critical habitat. These areas 
could include human-altered areas such as areas near buildings or 
pavement with any type of vegetation that could provide roosting 
habitat or could support insect populations that provide prey for the 
Florida bonneted bat. Where specific areas were identified by 
commenters, we evaluated and determined that removal from the final 
designation was not appropriate or required because the areas would 
already be excluded from the designation under paragraph (3) of the 
regulatory text or because they have at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species that 
requires special management considerations or protection (and, thus, do 
meet our criteria for designating critical habitat). Questions 
regarding whether other specific areas are included in the designation 
should be directed to the Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Even absent critical habitat designation, Federal agencies 
are still required to consult with the Service if any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed species, so impacts to 
Florida bonneted bats using these areas may still be considered during 
consultations for effects to the species.
    (29) Comment: One commenter requests an explanation of how the 
State of Florida's assumption of permitting authority under section 404 
of the Clean Water Act program affects the consideration of critical 
habitat in reviews of projects or actions impacting Florida bonneted 
bats.
    Our Response: Consistent with the biological opinion, which is 
titled, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Approval of Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection's Assumption of the 
Administration of the Dredge and Fill Permitting Program under Section 
404 of the Clean Water Act'' (Service 2020, entire), and a memorandum 
of understanding between the Service, Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide technical assistance to FDEP 
to ensure that no State 404 permit action jeopardizes the continued 
existence of federally listed species or adversely modifies or destroys 
critical habitat, pursuant to 40 CFR 233.20(a). We continue to consult 
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer on permits they issue pursuant to 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
    (30) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should prepare 
an environmental impact statement to comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for every 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. The commenter also stated that the Service should have 
included an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with the proposed 
rule to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.). The commenter further stated that the Service has not 
accurately represented the significant impact that this critical 
habitat rule will have on a substantial number of small entities.
    Our Response: 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 NEPA in connection with 
designating critical habitat under 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)). 
Therefore, it is appropriate that we did not prepare an environmental 
impact statement for this designation of critical habitat. See also 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), below.
    As required by the RFA, we evaluated the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself. Under section 7 of the Act, only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to this specific regulatory requirement 
imposed by critical habitat designation. Therefore, because no small 
entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that 
this critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. See Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), below, for more detail.
    (31) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, two commenters noted that the 
information necessary to evaluate the impacts of critical habitat 
(e.g., Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines, shapefile for 
critical habitat maps) were not available or difficult to

[[Page 16637]]

obtain during the comment period for the revised proposed rule, thus 
making it difficult to fully review and provide comment on the revised 
proposed rule.
    Our Response: We agree that sharing the supporting documents for 
proposed rules during the comment period is important for providing the 
public the ability to fully review and comment on a proposed rule. 
During the comment period for the November, 22, 2022, revised proposed 
critical habitat rule, all supporting documents, with the exception of 
shapefiles (which are not supported by the platform), were made 
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106, as noted in the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466; November 
22, 2022). During the comment period for the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule, the Florida Ecological Services Field Office website was 
undergoing updates, and we were unable to make some information 
directly available from the office website, although much of it was 
available in the docket for the revised proposed rule on https://www.regulations.gov. However, the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
rule also provided our contact information to the public for questions, 
and we did, upon being contacted, provide the link to the critical 
habitat shapefile directly to the commenter and all other individuals 
and partners who requested this information.
    (32) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter suggested that the 
Service should be more transparent with the data we consider in the 
designation of critical habitat, making data and information publicly 
accessible unless we risk compromising sensitive information and 
sharing peer reviews we receive on proposed rules.
    Our Response: We agree that transparency is important and always 
strive to share with the public the information that supports our 
proposed and final rules where prudent to do so. As noted in (31) 
Comment, we made supporting documents publicly available concurrent 
with the publication of the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 
2022, revised proposed rules, with the exception of shapefiles, which 
we shared upon request. Included in these supporting documents were the 
DEA, conservation strategy, a list of conservation lands that overlap 
with the proposed designation, conservation and natural resource 
management plans for areas we were considering for exclusion, a summary 
of the habitat analysis conducted to inform delineation of the revised 
proposed critical habitat units, and a list of all literature cited in 
the rule with references available as attachments. 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 objectives for achieving recovery of the Florida bonneted bat. 
This document was prepared based on input and information from 
researchers and species experts. Additionally, we have provided the 
Recovery Outline for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) (see 
Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on 
https://www.regulations.gov) concurrent with publication of this final 
rule. The 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 species' final listing under 
the Act and completion of a recovery plan.
    We also agree that it is important to provide the public access to 
the peer review responses we receive on proposed rules. In accordance 
with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we summarize peer review in this final 
rule. Prior to the publication of the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule, we also shared all peer review comments on the June 10, 
2020, proposed rule and the accompanying conflict of interest forms 
completed by the peer reviewers; these peer reviews and conflict of 
interest forms were made available at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on September 29, 2020. Concurrent with 
the publication of this final rule, we have made available the most 
recent peer review and accompanying completed conflict of interest form 
on the revised proposed critical habitat rule at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
    (33) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule, we received two comments that raised 
concerns that the peer review of the proposed rule was flawed, 
specifically, that there were not enough reviewers, reviewers were 
unqualified, and that a peer reviewer had an undisclosed conflict of 
interest.
    Our Response: The Service has long been committed to the use of 
best available science in decision[hyphen]making and to the use of peer 
review to improve such science. The Service solicited independent 
scientific reviews of both the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 
2022, revised proposed rules in accordance with our joint policy on 
peer review (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), and our August 22, 2016, 
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing 
actions under the Act.
    The policy and memo direct us to solicit an independent scientific 
review from a minimum of three reviewers; accordingly, we sent the June 
10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule to six reviewers and the 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rule to five 
reviewers. In response, we received two reviews of the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule and one review of the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
rule.
    As directed in our August 22, 2016, memorandum, we selected 
qualified reviewers with, ``expertise and/or experience relevant to the 
scientific questions and determinations addressed in our actions.'' 
Peer reviewers were selected based on their ability to act as an 
independent reviewer and on their expertise related to the Florida 
bonneted bat and its habitat and threats. Peer reviewers were asked to 
review the science applied to the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 
22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rules, and the peer reviews 
they submitted did indeed focus on critique of the science rather than 
policy. One peer reviewer who provided comments on the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule is a Service employee but does not work within Florida, 
did not contribute otherwise to the development of this rule, and is a 
subject matter expert (bats); thus, we think this person meets the 
standards set forth by our peer review policy and clarified in our 
August 22, 2016, memorandum. Additionally, we solicited peer review 
from five other external experts.
    Per our August 22, 2016, memorandum, peer reviewers were required 
to complete a conflict of interest form, and we assessed potential 
conflicts of interest by examining financial and business relationships 
and consulting arrangements, using applicable standards issued by the 
Office of Government Ethics. As noted in our August 22, 2016, 
memorandum, ``Divulging a conflict of interest does not invalidate the 
comments of the reviewer; however, it will allow for transparency to 
the public regarding the reviewer's possible biases or associations.'' 
In instances where a reviewer has a substantial conflict of interest, 
we will evaluate their comments in light of that conflict;

[[Page 16638]]

however, we did not determine that any of the three peer reviewers who 
submitted comments on the two proposed rules have a substantial 
conflict of interest.
    (34) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Service should 
notify private landowners if their land overlaps a proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: We strive for good communication with the public, 
including communicating our intent to designate critical habitat and 
making available proposed critical habitat rules, which include the 
specific locations where critical habitat is proposed. Section 4(b)(5) 
of the Act requires us to, not less than 90 days before the effective 
date of the regulation, publish a general notice and the complete text 
of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register. For the June 10, 
2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat 
rules for the Florida bonneted bat, we notified the public via 
publication in the Federal Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510), and 
November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71466), respectively. On June 9, 2020, we 
posted a press release notifying the public of the publication of the 
June 10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule on our Regional website, 
and on November 21, 2022, we also posted a press release notifying the 
public of the publication of the November 22, 2022, revised proposed 
critical habitat rule at https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-11/florida-bonneted-bat. For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, newspaper 
notices inviting general public comment were published in the Orlando 
Sentinel, Ft. Myers News-Press, Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Miami 
Herald newspapers. For the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, a 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was again published in 
the Miami Herald newspaper. For the proposed and revised proposed 
rules, we also disseminated notice of the publication on various social 
media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, and sent notices to 
several interested parties, including nongovernmental organizations and 
interested industry and property-holding entities. Accordingly, we make 
every attempt to ensure the public is well-informed of proposed 
regulations that may affect it.

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in 
section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources

[[Page 16639]]

may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

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 
which 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 absence of 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 October 4, 2012, 
proposed rule to list the Florida bonneted bat (77 FR 60750), and the 
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see Supporting and Related 
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov)). We summarize below the more important habitat 
characteristics, particularly those that support the description of 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Florida bonneted bat. 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 or biological features to 
delineate the critical habitat.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Due to the spatial variability of its prey, its large size, and its 
wing morphology, the Florida bonneted bat 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 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 more than 24 mi (39 km) from their roosts 
and more than 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 the morphology of 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 are also frequently detected in 
agricultural areas and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire) and 
are known to feed on insects associated with crops (Webb 2018, pp. 12, 
61).
    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, including agricultural areas, may be used as well 
(Bailey et al. 2017a, entire), and freshwater forested

[[Page 16640]]

wetlands, including areas with longer hydroperiods and deeper water, 
may be more important to the species than previously thought (FWC and 
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) 2023, pp. 15-24). 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; also see the Florida Bonneted 
Bat Conservation Strategy under Supporting and Related Material in 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). 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. 
2016, 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, longleaf pine, bald cypress, and 
royal palm (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 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.
    Relative to surrounding trees, Florida bonneted bat roost trees 
tend to have greater overall height (average of 58 feet (ft) (17.7 
meters (m)) with a range of 34 to 93 ft (10.4 to 28.2 m)), diameter 
(average of 15 inch (in) (38 centimeter (cm)) diameter at breast height 
(dbh) with a range of 7.4 to 27 in (19 to 69.5 cm) dbh), and canopy 
height relative to the surrounding trees (average of 19.8 ft (6 m) with 
a range of -2.6 to 49 ft (-0.8 to 15 m)) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, 
entire; Hoyt 2023a, b, pers. comm.). The species also appears to 
require sufficient unobstructed space for emergence, with cavities high 
above the ground (average of 49 ft (14.9 m) with a range of 27.5 to 77 
ft (8.4 to 23.5 m)) and roost trees set apart from the nearest tree (by 
an average of 12 ft (3.8 m) with a range of 2 to 39 ft (0.6 to 11.9 m)) 
(Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire; Hoyt 2023a, pers. comm.), often 
in open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities may require a 
minimum of approximately 27.5 ft (8.4 m) of ground clearance (i.e., 
cavity height above the ground) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire; 
Hoyt 2023a, 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. 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 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)). While artificial roosts can provide valuable 
alternative, long-term, and hurricane-resilient roosting habitat for 
the species where roosting habitat is limited (Braun de Torrez 2022, 
pers. comm.), these are imperfect surrogates for natural roosting 
habitat and are not on their own a habitat feature essential for the 
species' survival. Therefore, natural roosts (i.e., live or dead trees 
and tree snags, especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, and 
royal palm, taller than 34 ft (10.4 m) and greater than 7.4 in (19 cm) 
dbh and having unobstructed space for emergence) are important habitat 
characteristics for this species.

[[Page 16641]]

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, below). 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) 
with males exhibiting resource defense polygyny (dominant males defend 
the roost from other males) (Ober et al. 2017, p. 382; Braun de Torrez 
et al. 2020a, pp. 10-12). This type of social organization, together 
with evidence of high roost-site fidelity, underscores the importance 
of roosts to this species for population maintenance, population 
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

    The Florida bonneted bat's precise foraging habits and long-term 
requirements are unknown (Belwood 1992, p. 219). However, because the 
species is active year-round and aseasonally polyestrous (i.e., having 
more than one period of estrous in a year, not restricted to one 
season) (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9; 
Ober et al. 2016, entire), the Florida bonneted bat likely needs 
constant and/or multiple sources of prey to support its high 
metabolism. Energy demands of the Florida bonneted bat probably 
fluctuate seasonally (e.g., assumed higher demands during cold weather 
as the species does not have periods of torpor (a state of decreased 
physiological activity in an animal, including decreased body 
temperature, heart rate, and metabolism)) and during sensitive times 
(e.g., maternity, nursery, supporting offspring). The maternity season 
is a time of particular sensitivity, with increased energy demands and 
risks as females leave young in roosts while making multiple foraging 
excursions to support lactation (Kurta et al. 1989a, entire; Kurta et 
al. 1990, entire; Kunz et al. 1995, entire; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 
8-9; Ober et al. 2016, entire). Exploitation of insects in patches that 
yield high-energy returns for pregnancy and lactation is important 
(Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). Reduced insect populations in urban areas 
may make it difficult for females to successfully raise offspring to 
maturity (Kurta et al. 1990, entire; Kurta and Teramino 1992, p. 260).
    Most insectivorous bats eat large quantities of insects (Ross 1967, 
entire; Black 1974, entire; Kunz 1974, entire; Kunz et al. 1995, 
entire; Kurta and Whitaker 1998, entire; Lee and McCracken 2002, pp. 
306-313; 2005, entire; Leelapaibul et al. 2005, entire; Kunz et al. 
2011, entire). Insectivorous bat activity and diversity are strongly 
correlated with arthropod abundance (Racey and Swift 1985, pp. 210-211, 
214; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, 
pp. 987-992), suggesting that bats seek out areas of concentrated prey 
sources (Kunz et al. 2011, p. 5). Foraging behavior is tied in part to 
insect abundance, availability, and density (Anthony and Kunz 1977, 
entire; Racey and Swift 1985, p. 212; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp. 
987-992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire). Exploitation of insects 
in patches that yield high-energy returns appears to be important for 
meeting the energy needs associated with prolonged flights as well as 
pregnancy and lactation (Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). In general, bats 
foraging from continuous flight must encounter prey at relatively high 
rates and successfully attack many individual items (Fenton 1990, p. 
416). Since Florida bonneted bats are thought to employ this feeding 
strategy, areas with higher insect abundance, more (multiple) prey 
sources, and diverse natural habitats that produce prey diversity are 
essential for suitable foraging habitat.
    Like other molossids (e.g., Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida 
brasiliensis)), the species may be a generalist predator, capable of 
opportunistically exploiting available resources (McCracken et al. 
2012, entire). Limited information from guano analyses indicates 
Florida bonneted bats feed on flying insects of the following orders: 
Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (true bugs), 
Lepidoptera (moths), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (Belwood 1981, p. 
412; 1992, p. 220; Marks 2013, entire; Marks and Marks 2015, pp. 2-3). 
Like other large molossids, the Florida bonneted bat's physiological 
characteristics (e.g., large size, broad jaws, big teeth, large ears) 
and lower frequency echolocation make it well equipped for finding and 
taking relatively larger insects and harder prey items (Freeman 1979, 
entire; 1981, pp. 166-173; Obrist et al. 1993, entire; Aguirre et al. 
2003, p. 207; Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 855-857; Mora and Torres 
2008, p. 12).
    It is not clear if insect availability is limiting or sufficient; 
however, if the Florida bonneted bat is similar in its needs to other 
insectivorous bats, then reduced prey abundance or density could 
negatively affect the species, affecting survival, growth, and 
reproduction. We find that foraging habitat sufficient to support 
insect populations and the seasonal nutritional needs of the bat are 
essential to its conservation. Protecting natural habitats conducive to 
insect diversity (Marks 2013, p. 2) is also essential to the Florida 
bonneted bat's survival.
    Sources of drinking water are important for most insectivorous bat 
species (Kurta et al. 1989b, entire; 1990, pp. 59, 63; Adams and Hayes 
2008, pp. 1, 6). Water sources and wetlands also provide important 
sources and concentrations of prey (Belwood and Fenton 1976, entire; 
Swift and Racey 1983, entire; Barclay 1991, pp. 174-176; Brigham et al. 
1992, entire; Sullivan et al. 1993, entire; Racey et al. 1998, pp. 200-
201; Russo and Jones 2003, pp. 197, 201; Nam et al. 2012, p. 1095; 
Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, p. 1289; Fukui et al. 2006, entire).
    Water sources (for drinking, prey, and structure) are important 
habitat components for the Florida bonneted bat. This species forages 
over ponds, streams, and wetlands and drink when flying over open water 
(Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4; 2008c, p. 3). For

[[Page 16642]]

example, in Big Cypress National Preserve the vast majority of Florida 
bonneted bat calls were recorded in 2014 at one remote pond surrounded 
by wetland forest (Arwood 2014a-c, pers. comm.). At Picayune Strand 
State Forest (PSSF), all sites where the species has been detected were 
located near canals (Smith 2013, pers. comm.). At Florida Panther 
National Wildlife Refuge, the highest detection of Florida bonneted bat 
calls occurred in areas with the largest amount of open water (Maehr 
2013, pp. 7-11; 2013a-c, pers. comm.). In the Miami area (Richmond pine 
rocklands (Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, and the Martinez 
Preserve)), the species has been detected in a variety of habitat 
types, but peak activity occurred in areas of artificial freshwater 
lakes adjacent to intact pine rocklands (Ridgley 2013a-d, pers. comm.).
    We find that open water and wetlands provide drinking water, open 
foraging areas, and concentrations of prey that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. During dry seasons, bats become more 
dependent on remaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging 
purposes, making these precious resources essential (Marks and Marks 
2008c, p. 4; 2008d, p. 3). Because the Florida bonneted bat, like other 
Eumops, appears to be confined to foraging in open spaces due to its 
wing morphology (Norberg and Rayner 1987, pp. 399-400; Voigt and 
Holderied 2012, entire), larger water bodies and more open wetlands in 
general may be structurally better foraging habitat than smaller, more 
confined areas.
    The Florida bonneted bat's physiological or behavioral responses to 
abiotic factors, such as artificial lighting, have not been 
specifically studied; however, some information about other bat 
species' responses to artificial lighting is available for closely 
related bats and bat species with edge and open space foraging 
behaviors, similar to those of the Florida bonneted bat. Although edge 
and open space foraging bat species are considered to generally be more 
tolerant of artificial lighting than those species foraging in forests, 
tolerance to artificial light appears to vary among bat species with 
similar foraging strategies and flight techniques (Rowse et al. 2016, 
pp. 200-202). Responses to artificial light can vary depending on the 
development intensity, land use type, and vegetation community where 
artificial light occurs (Rowse et al. 2016, pp. 200-202; Voigt et al. 
2020, pp. 190, 197-199). However, even open space foraging species that 
are considered to be light-tolerant can be impacted by artificial 
light, as evidenced by delays in night-time foraging activity and 
reduced abundance at foraging sites (Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 6-8). 
Additionally, urban habitats with artificial lights can act as 
ecological traps with lower habitat quality for reproduction and 
potential for lower survival in bat species that are more frequent or 
abundant in urban habitats (Russo and Ancillotto 2015, pp. 209-210).
    Artificial light aversion has been documented in other species 
closely related to Florida bonneted bat (i.e., within Molossidae and/or 
Eumops) (Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 147-148; Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568-
571). Despite increases in research of Florida bonneted bat ecology 
since the species' listing in 2013, there has been no evidence that 
Florida bonneted bats exploit artificial light sources, and the highest 
Florida bonneted bat activity within an urban matrix has been 
associated with large, dark, open areas with tree cover (Bat 
Conservation International 2022, p. 18; Ridgley 2023, unpublished data; 
Ridgley and Gamba-Rios 2023, unpublished data). Artificial lighting has 
been demonstrated to also have broadscale negative effects on insects 
and insect populations (e.g., reduced abundance; altered larval 
development, reproduction, and other behaviors) (van Grunsven et al. 
2020, entire; Boyes et al. 2021, entire; Pennisi 2021, entire), 
potentially reducing the availability of prey (Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 
2, 7) and the quality of foraging habitat for Florida bonneted bats. In 
addition to effects on foraging habitat, artificial lighting can impact 
roosting habitat quality because light at emergence is thought to 
disrupt emergence cues and increase predation risk (or perceived 
predation risk) at emergence for other open-space-foraging and 
insectivorous bats (Rydell et al. 1996, pp. 249, 251; Mariton et al. 
2022, p. 8). Therefore, areas where roosting, foraging, and other 
natural behaviors, such as commuting, can occur with limited or no 
impacts from artificial light are important in considering the 
conservation of the species.
    Similarly, temperature requirements and tolerances for the Florida 
bonneted bat are not fully understood. The species is active year-round 
and considered semi-tropical (Ober et al. 2016, entire). Florida 
bonneted bats have been detected in Polk and Osceola Counties (Bailey 
et al. 2017a, p. 1589), but future surveys in additional counties are 
needed to help determine the limit of the northern extent of the range. 
There are low probabilities of occurrence of bonneted bats in areas 
where historical mean minimum temperatures dropped below 15 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C) (59 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), which suggests that 
the species may be limited to southern Florida due to temperature 
(Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). At this time, the most northern known 
roost sites are located at Avon Park Air Force Range and its vicinity 
(Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; Webb 
2018, pers. comm.). Mean monthly temperatures at this location range 
from 15 to 28 [deg]C (60-83 [deg]F), with an average low of 8.3 [deg]C 
(47 [deg]F) (January) and an average high of 33.9 [deg]C (93 [deg]F) 
(July). Prolonged cold temperatures resulted in bonneted bat 
mortalities at one known colony site in North Fort Myers, Florida, 
during a severe cold snap in 2010 (Trokey 2010a-b, pers. comm.; 2012a, 
pers. comm.; see also the discussion of Factor E factors in the final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)). Limited 
data at survey sites in south Florida indicated reduced bat activity 
under conditions of lower ambient temperatures (Arwood 2014d, pers. 
comm.). In general, molossids that inhabit the warmer temperate and 
subtropical zones incur much higher energetic costs for 
thermoregulation during cold weather events than those inhabiting 
northern regions (Arlettaz et al. 2000, pp. 1004-1014; see also the 
discussion of Factor E factors in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)). As a result, we recognize the 
species' requirement of subtropical climate conditions for its long-
term persistence.
    This species is suspected to seasonally vary its use of the 
northern and southern extent of its known range. This may relate to 
temperature sensitivity (as described above), different nutritional 
needs during peak reproductive seasons, or changes in prey 
availability. Florida bonneted bat detection is positively influenced 
by Julian date and minimum temperature of the survey night; thus, 
future monitoring efforts should be focused on warm nights later in the 
spring to maximize detection probabilities (Bailey et al. 2017a, pp. 
1589, 1591). Florida bonneted bats were also ``more common in areas 
with higher historical mean annual rainfall but seemed to prefer areas 
with lower rainfall during the spring'' (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). 
The authors concluded that higher detection probabilities observed were 
likely a result of increased insect abundance due to increased 
temperatures, humidity, and precipitation influencing the bats' 
activity (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). Therefore, we find that 
seasonal

[[Page 16643]]

differences and these other climatological conditions, in addition to 
temperature, likely influence the species' distribution, habitat 
requirements, and foraging opportunities, thereby affecting its 
conservation. Differences in these environmental conditions may occur 
seasonally or on finer temporal scales.

Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance Regimes

    The Florida bonneted bat not only requires healthy and ecologically 
diverse habitat, it 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 and 
Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov) 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 with sufficient darkness 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 sufficiently large 
(in diameter) and tall and that have cavities of a sufficient size for 
roosts; and
    (b) Live or dead trees and tree snags with sufficient cavity 
height, spacing from adjacent trees, and relative canopy height to 
provide unobstructed space 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 sufficiently dark 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.
    (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 essential 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 that may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
threats that are related to inadvertent impacts from land management 
practices are discussed below.

[[Page 16644]]

Habitat Loss

    Habitat loss, degradation, and modification from human population 
growth and associated development (including infrastructure and energy 
development) and agriculture have impacted the Florida bonneted bat and 
are expected to further curtail its limited range (see the Factor A 
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 
61026-61030); Bailey et al. 2017a, entire). Based on the expected rates 
of human population growth and urbanization in southern Florida, nearly 
all agricultural and private natural lands are predicted to be 
converted to developed land by 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 15, 18). 
Of this, approximately 2.6 percent of designated critical habitat 
(30,716 ac (12,430 ha)) is predicted to be converted to developed land 
by 2070 (Carr and Zwick 2016, entire). The species occurs, in part, on 
publicly owned lands that are managed for conservation, ameliorating 
some of these threats (see Conservation Lands Within Florida Bonneted 
Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation under Supporting and Related 
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). However, any unknown extant populations of the 
bat or suitable habitat on private lands or non-conservation public 
lands are vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation. Retaining a 
habitat network of large and diverse natural areas for conservation 
purposes in a spatial configuration throughout the Florida bonneted 
bat's range and actively managing those lands will likely be essential 
to conservation. In addition, conservation efforts on private lands can 
help reduce the threats of habitat loss, increasing the potential for 
long-term survival.
    Natural roosting habitat appears to be limiting, and competition 
for tree cavities is high (see Competition for Tree Cavities under the 
Factor E discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013, p. 61034)). To help conserve the Florida bonneted bat, efforts 
should be made to retain tall trees, cavity trees, trees with hollows 
or other decay, and snags wherever possible to protect habitat, reduce 
competition for suitable roosts, and bolster or expand populations 
within the species' known range (Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 187; 
Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, pp. 235, 240; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). The 
use of artificial structures for the Florida bonneted bat may also be 
beneficial in some locations, especially where roosting structures are 
lacking or deficient (see Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) in 
the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61010)).
    Substantial losses in suitable foraging habitats are expected to 
occur in the coming decades as natural and agricultural areas are 
converted to other uses and as areas become urbanized (Carr and Zwick 
2016, entire; Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). Conservation of natural 
and semi-natural habitats and restoration with native plants is 
imperative to help maintain sufficient prey base. Natural habitats 
conducive to insect diversity should be protected and any pesticides 
should be used with caution (for more information, see the final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) under Life History (pp. 
61005-61006), and Pesticides and Contaminants in the Factor E 
discussion (pp. 61035-61036).

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

    The effects resulting from climate change, including sea level 
rise, saltwater intrusion, and coastal squeeze, are expected to become 
severe in the future and result in additional habitat losses, including 
the loss of roost sites and foraging habitat (see the Factor A 
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 
61026-61030)). Within the species' range, low-lying areas along the 
coast are most vulnerable to inundation, and additional areas are 
likely to experience changes in plant species composition (decline in 
forested habitat such as cabbage palm forests, pine rockland, and 
coastal hardwood hammocks). Occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat 
located near the coast in south Florida (e.g., Collier, Lee, Miami-
Dade, Monroe, Charlotte, Desoto, and Sarasota Counties) will be 
vulnerable to inundation and/or saltwater intrusion as sea levels rise. 
Based on source data used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise map viewer, an estimated 8.7 
percent (100,840 ac (40,809 ha)) of the designated occupied habitat 
area is projected to be inundated by 6 feet of salt water around 2070 
(sea level rise plus tidal flooding; Sweet et al. 2017, entire; Sweet 
et al. 2018, entire; Sweet et al. 2019, entire; Sweet et al. 2022, 
entire). In addition, data from Florida's statewide digital elevation 
model (University of Florida (UF) GeoPlan Center 2017, entire) indicate 
that an additional 14.3 percent (166,257 ac (67,282 ha)) of designated 
occupied habitat outside of the areas mapped by NOAA are at or below 6 
feet in elevation and may also be affected by sea level rise (this does 
not include area in Unit 1 due to the unlikelihood of sea level rise 
impacts). Although we are unable to accurately estimate the extent of 
other climate change-related effects, we expect additional occupied 
habitat will be impacted by saltwater intrusion, drier conditions, and 
increased variability in precipitation, likely resulting in changes to 
vegetation composition and prey availability, decreased forest 
regeneration, and potential increases in wildfire frequency, severity, 
and scale (for more information, see the final listing rule (78 FR 
61004; October 2, 2013) under the discussion of Factor A in Land Use 
Changes and Human Population Growth (pp. 61026-61027) and Climate 
Change and Sea Level Rise (pp. 61028-61029)). The trend toward higher 
temperatures and lower rainfall (or shifts in rainfall patterns) could 
result in the degradation of wetlands and other important open water 
habitats, or complete loss of affected foraging areas if drought-like 
conditions persist. Actual impacts may be greater or less than 
anticipated based upon high variability of factors involved (e.g., sea 
level rise, human population growth) and assumptions made.
    As a result of these impacts and other causes of habitat loss and 
degradation, the essential physical or biological features for the 
Florida bonneted bat may no longer be available in some areas, and the 
amount of suitable occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat is likely to 
shrink dramatically in the future. Habitat loss from sea level rise and 
saltwater intrusion will be greatest in areas closer to the coast and 
is likely to result in the loss of some bonneted bat populations, such 
as those in eastern Miami-Dade County, reducing the species' ability to 
withstand catastrophic events (i.e., redundancy). We anticipate 
additional populations near the coast will be reduced in size, such as 
those in Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and remaining areas in Miami-
Dade Counties, resulting in decreased overall health and fitness (i.e., 
resiliency) of those populations. Further, most of the remaining bat 
populations face similar threats and pressures (e.g., development 
pressure, effects of climate change, coastal squeeze, droughts, 
hurricanes) that are expected to reduce their resiliency. This limits 
the species' ability to recover from population declines when many 
populations are similarly affected. However, we lack certainty as to 
the severity of impacts the effects of sea level rise may have on the 
Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat.
    Directly addressing sea level rise is beyond the control of 
landowners or managers. However, while landowners or land managers may 
not be able prevent these events, they may be able

[[Page 16645]]

to respond with management or protection. Management actions or 
activities that could ameliorate the effects of sea level rise on the 
Florida bonneted bat (i.e., loss and degradation of habitats that 
provide for roosting or foraging, especially those areas closer to the 
coast) include providing protection of inland or higher elevation 
suitable habitats (e.g., in the northern portion of the bat's range) 
that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected by sea level rise, 
or habitat restoration or enhancement of these areas.

Environmental Stochasticity

    Hurricanes, storm surges, and other catastrophic and stochastic 
events are of significant concern (for more information, see final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) under the discussion of 
Factor E in Environmental Stochasticity (pp. 61037-61039) and Aspects 
of the Species' Life History and Climate Change Implications (p. 
61039)). In 2017 alone, at least four known roost trees were impacted 
by Hurricane Irma. While landowners or land managers cannot prevent 
these events, they may be able to respond with protection or management 
that can help reduce some effects or facilitate recovery from these 
events. Retention of large trees and snags wherever possible in 
multiple locations can help provide valuable roosting habitat 
throughout the species' range (Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, pp. 235, 
240; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). Management actions or activities that 
could enhance forest recovery following storms may include hand or 
mechanical removal of damaged vegetation or prescribed fire, if or when 
conditions are suitable. If large trees, cavity trees, trees with 
hollows or other decay, or snags need to be removed due to safety 
issues, visual or other inspection should occur to ensure that active 
roosts are not removed in this process.
    Artificial structures could potentially help provide roosting 
opportunities in areas impacted by stochastic events or where suitable 
natural roosts are lacking or deficient. More research on the role of 
bat houses in bonneted bat conservation is needed, especially given the 
bat's social structure (FWC 2013, pp. 11-12; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). 
If used, bat houses should be appropriately designed, placed, 
maintained, and monitored; such structures may also need to be 
reinforced and duplicated to prevent loss. If an occupied area is 
severely impacted, causing major losses of suitable natural roosts, the 
use of artificial structures could be explored as one possible option 
to help regain lost roosting capacity.

Pesticides and Contaminants

    More study is needed to fully assess the risk that pesticides 
(particularly insecticides) and contaminants pose to the Florida 
bonneted bat (see Pesticides and Contaminants under the Factor E 
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 
61035-61036)). Although data are lacking, the species may be exposed to 
a variety of compounds through multiple routes of exposure. Areas with 
intensive pesticide activity may not support an adequate food base. 
Foraging habitat can be enhanced, in part, by limiting the use of 
pesticides, including agrochemicals (chemicals used in agriculture) 
(Russo and Jones 2003, pp. 206-207; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp. 
991-992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire). While exposure to some 
contaminants (e.g., mercury) may be beyond the realm of what 
individuals or agencies can rectify, risks from pesticides can be 
partially reduced at the local level. For example, landowners and land 
managers can help reduce some risks of exposure and improve foraging 
conditions for the Florida bonneted bat by avoiding or limiting use of 
insecticides (e.g., mosquito control, agricultural), wherever possible, 
and especially in areas known to be occupied by the Florida bonneted 
bat. An increased occurrence of bonneted bats was found in agricultural 
areas and was attributed to a combination of insect abundance in these 
areas and the species' ability to forage in open spaces (Bailey et al. 
2017a, pp. 1589, 1591). It is reasonable to assume that prey base 
(i.e., availability, abundance, and diversity of insects) would be more 
plentiful with reduction of insecticides, where possible. If pesticides 
cannot be avoided, ways to reduce impacts should be explored. 
Protecting natural and semi-natural habitats that support insect 
diversity can also improve foraging conditions and contribute to 
conservation.

Ecological Light Pollution

    The Florida bonneted bat's behavioral response to ecological light 
pollution has not specifically been examined (see Ecological Light 
Pollution under the Factor E discussion in the final listing rule (78 
FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61036)); however, there is evidence of 
closely related and other open space foraging bat species avoiding 
artificial lighting and of the Florida bonneted bat preferring darker 
landscapes within an urban matrix (Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 147-148; 
Bat Conservation International 2022, p. 18; Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568-
571). Artificial lighting can impact roosting habitat quality as light 
at emergence can disrupt emergence cues and may increase predation risk 
(or perceived predation risk) for other open space foraging and 
insectivorous bats (Rydell et al. 1996, pp. 249, 251; Mariton et al. 
2022, p. 8). Similarly, lighting can restrict habitat connectivity and 
fragment foraging areas (Voigt et al. 2020, pp. 197-199).
    Artificial lighting can also affect the abundance and availability 
of insects (van Grunsven et al. 2020, entire; Boyes et al. 2021, 
entire; Pennisi 2021, entire; Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 2, 7), thereby 
reducing the quality of foraging habitat for Florida bonneted bats. 
Thus, at this time, we consider ecological light pollution a potential 
threat to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat. Management actions 
or activities that could ameliorate ecological light pollution include 
avoiding and minimizing the use of artificial lighting, retaining 
natural light conditions, and promoting the use of environmentally 
friendly lighting practices to minimize impacts to wildlife (e.g., 
Voigt et al. 2018, entire).

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 or invasive plant control, can be detrimental 
to the species. For example, 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. 2000, 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

[[Page 16646]]

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)).
    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); and
    (5) Developing and implementing specific guidelines (see the 
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines under Supporting and 
Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov) to minimize impacts of activities associated with 
hurricane clean-up, prescribed fire, invasive species management, 
forest management, and development.

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 designating 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 unoccupied 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 or 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 or 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 or 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 or 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 under Supporting and Related Material in 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). 
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 FWC, 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 
(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;

[[Page 16647]]

    (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 Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis under Supporting 
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). 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 Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat 
Analysis under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). 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. For full details of our methodology 
and results, including links to data sources used, see the Florida 
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis under Supporting and Related Material in 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    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 critical 
habitat designation.
    When determining 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 rule have been excluded by 
text and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 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 are designating as critical habitat areas that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species. 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 critical habitat unit contains all the 
identified physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    The 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 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 bonneted bat species web page at https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating nine units as critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute 
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we 
designate 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 Rocklands Unit. All nine units are occupied by 
the species. Table 1, below, shows the units and the approximate area 
of each unit/subunit within each land ownership category.

[[Page 16648]]



   Table 1--Final 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          State          County           Local       Private/other   Unidentified        (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kissimmee............................              99         137,283             834               0          35,455           2,065         175,735
                                                    (40)        (55,556)           (338)                        (14,348)           (836)        (71,118)
    1A..................................              90         136,846             629               0          29,701           2,065         169,331
                                                    (36)        (55,380)           (255)                        (12,020)           (836)        (68,526)
    1B..................................               9             437             205               0           5,753              <1           6,404
                                                     (4)           (177)            (83)                         (2,328)                         (2,592)
2. Peace River..........................              32           6,369             710             165          18,874           1,897          28,046
                                                    (13)         (2,577)           (287)            (67)         (7,638)           (768)        (11,350)
    2A..................................               0               0               0               0           2,603               0           2,603
                                                                                                                 (1,053)                         (1,053)
    2B..................................               0               0               0               0           5,478             200           5,678
                                                                                                                 (2,217)            (81)         (2,298)
    2C..................................               0               0               0               0           2,029               2           2,031
                                                                                                                   (821)             (1)           (822)
    2D..................................              32           6,369             710             165           8,765           1,694          17,734
                                                    (13)         (2,577)           (287)            (67)         (3,547)           (686)         (7,177)
3. Babcock..............................               0         108,748           1,843              19          23,739             328         134,677
                                                                (44,009)           (746)             (8)         (9,607)           (133)        (54,502)
    3A..................................               0          80,238             782              19           7,193             328          88,559
                                                                (32,471)           (316)             (8)         (2,911)           (133)        (35,839)
    3B..................................               0          28,510           1,062               0          16,546               0          46,118
                                                                (11,538)           (430)                         (6,696)                        (18,663)
4. Fisheating Creek.....................               0           7,689              <1               0           5,300               6          12,995
                                                                 (3,112)                                         (2,145)             (2)         (5,259)
5. Corkscrew............................               0          26,313           5,188               0          17,324              41          48,865
                                                                (10,648)         (2,100)                         (7,011)            (16)        (19,775)
6. Big Cypress..........................         533,227         152,559           8,421             229          16,011           3,638         714,085
                                               (215,789)        (61,738)         (3,408)            (93)         (6,480)         (1,472)       (288,980)
7. Everglades Tree Islands..............          16,596               1               4               0               2               1          16,604
                                                 (6,716)             (1)             (2)                             (1)             (1)         (6,719)
8. Long Pine Key........................          25,147           2 (1)               0               0             187               0          25,337
                                                (10,177)                                                            (76)                        (10,253)
9. Miami Rocklands......................             603             785           2,458           8 (3)             381              46           4,281
                                                   (244)           (318)           (995)                           (154)            (19)         (1,732)
    9A..................................               0               0              52               0               0               1              53
                                                                                    (21)                                            (<1)            (21)
    9B..................................               0               0             104               0               0               1             104
                                                                                    (42)                                            (<1)            (42)
    9C..................................               0               0               5               0               0               0               5
                                                                                     (2)                                                             (2)
    9D..................................               0               0               0               0              28              <1              28
                                                                                                                    (11)                            (12)
    9E..................................               0              21             230              <1              13               2             267
                                                                     (9)            (93)                             (5)             (1)           (108)
    9F..................................             140               0              <1               0              <1               0             140
                                                    (57)                                                                                            (57)
    9G..................................               0               8               0               0              19              <1              28
                                                                     (3)                                             (8)                            (11)
    9H..................................               0             235               0               0               0               3             238
                                                                    (95)                                                             (1)            (96)
    9I..................................               0               0              22               0               0               0              22
                                                                                     (9)                                                             (9)
    9J..................................               0              60              <1               8              28               3              99
                                                                    (24)                             (3)            (11)             (1)            (40)
    9K..................................               0              26              11               0               0               0              37
                                                                    (10)             (4)                                                            (15)
    9L..................................               0              77              <1               0              <1               0              77
                                                                    (31)                                                                            (31)
    9M..................................               0               0             123               0               0               0             123
                                                                                    (50)                                                            (50)
    9N..................................               0              28               0               0              <1               0              28
                                                                    (11)                                                                            (11)
    9O..................................             462               0           1,215               0              22               1           1,700
                                                   (187)                           (492)                             (9)            (<1)           (688)
    9P..................................               0              48               0               0              13              <1              61
                                                                    (19)                                             (5)                            (25)
    9Q..................................               0              <1               7               0               7               0              14
                                                                                     (3)                             (3)                             (6)
    9R..................................               0              36              22               0              14               8              80
                                                                    (15)             (9)                             (6)             (3)            (32)
    9S..................................               0              34              63               0              35               2             135
                                                                    (14)            (26)                            (14)             (1)            (55)
    9T..................................               0              10               0               0              25              <1              36
                                                                     (4)                                            (10)                            (14)
    9U..................................               0              18               4               0               1              <1              23
                                                                     (7)             (2)                            (<1)                             (9)

[[Page 16649]]

 
    9V..................................               0               0               0               0              30               1              31
                                                                                                                    (12)             (1)            (13)
    9W..................................               0               9             103               0              <1              <1             112
                                                                     (4)            (42)                                                            (45)
    9X..................................               0               0              10               0              20              <1              30
                                                                                     (4)                             (8)                            (12)
    9Y..................................               0               0              18               0              11               4              32
                                                                                     (7)                             (4)             (1)            (13)
    9Z..................................               0               0              28               0              <1               3              31
                                                                                    (11)                                             (1)            (13)
    9AA.................................               0              22              24               0              37               0              84
                                                                     (9)            (10)                            (15)                            (34)
    9BB.................................               0               0              19               0              23               1              43
                                                                                     (8)                             (9)            (<1)            (17)
    9CC.................................               0               0               9               0              15              <1              24
                                                                                     (4)                             (6)                            (10)
    9DD.................................               0              19               0               0               0               0              19
                                                                     (8)                                                                             (8)
    9EE.................................               0              12              <1               0               1               5              18
                                                                     (5)                                            (<1)             (2)             (7)
    9FF.................................               0               0              39               0              <1               0              39
                                                                                    (16)                                                            (16)
    9GG.................................               0              81             240               0              28               1             351
                                                                    (33)            (97)                            (12)            (<1)           (142)
    9HH.................................               0              22               0               0              <1               0              22
                                                                     (9)                                                                             (9)
    9II.................................               0              18               5               0              10               6              39
                                                                     (7)             (2)                             (4)             (2)            (16)
    9JJ.................................              <1               0             105               0               0               2             108
                                                                                    (42)                                             (1)            (44)
        Total...........................         575,703         439,750          19,459             421         117,272           8,021       1,160,625
                                               (232,979)       (177,960)         (7,875)           (170)        (47,458)         (3,246)       (469,688)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    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 175,735 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 (137,283 ac (55,556 ha)) and private 
lands (35,455 ac (14,348 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 Conservation Lands Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 
Critical Habitat Designation under Supporting and Related Material in 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). We 
excluded approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Tribal lands (Miccosukee 
Tribe of Florida) that occur within Subunit 1B from this final critical 
habitat designation (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, 
below).
    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 the unit 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).

Unit 2: Peace River Unit

    Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee, 
DeSoto, and

[[Page 16650]]

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 (18,874 
ac (7,638 ha)) and State-owned conservation lands (6,369 ac (2,577 
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 Conservation Lands Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical 
Habitat Designation under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov).
    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 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 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 134,677 ac (54,502 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 
(108,748 ac (44,009 ha)) and private lands (23,739 ac (9,607 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 Conservation Lands Within 
Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation under 
Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on 
https://www.regulations.gov).
    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 a large 
population of Florida bonneted bats and many of the 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/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 Unit 3 and areas to the north and east, and, along with Unit 2, 
this unit adds ecological diversity (natural river corridors) to the 
overall 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 (26,313 ac (10,648 ha)) and private lands (17,324 ac 
(7,011 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 Conservation 
Lands Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation 
under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 
on https://www.regulations.gov).
    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

[[Page 16651]]

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 714,085 ac (288,980 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 (533,227 ac (215,789 ha)) and State-
owned (152,559 ac (61,738 ha)) conservation lands. The largest 
landholdings within this unit are Big Cypress National Preserve, 
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve 
State Park, and Picayune Strand State Forest; other smaller 
conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more information, 
see Conservation Lands Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical 
Habitat Designation under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). We excluded 
approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of Tribal lands (Seminole Tribe of 
Florida) that occur within Unit 6 from this final critical habitat 
designation (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, below).
    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, a large Florida bonneted bat population 
has been documented in 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).

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; 16,596 ac (6,716 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 (Units 8 and 9), allowing gene 
flow between these populations. It also includes areas identified as 
having HCV. Despite 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 (10,253 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 (25,147 ac (10,177 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 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 4,281 ac (1,732 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 
(2,458 ac (995 ha)), State (785 ac (318 ha)), and Federal (603 ac (244 
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 Conservation Lands 
Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation under 
Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on

[[Page 16652]]

https://www.regulations.gov). We excluded approximately 104 ac (42 ha) 
from Unit 9 associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP from this final 
critical habitat designation (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Impacts, below).
    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).

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.
    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.
    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 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, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) 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; (c) 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 written 
concurrence; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. The 
reinitiation requirement applies only to actions that remain subject to 
some discretionary Federal involvement or control. As provided in 50 
CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species 
listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain 
agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the Bureau of 
Land Management in certain circumstances).

Application of the ``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.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that

[[Page 16653]]

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 we 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; water diversion, 
drainage, or wetland loss or conversion; and excessive alteration of 
natural lighting (that disrupts roosting, movements, or foraging 
conditions or impacts prey). 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 the species' 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: Vegetation removal conducted in a manner that leads to significant, 
irreversible diminishment of physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. Habitat management or 
restoration activities that are intended to benefit Florida bonneted 
bat critical habitat (e.g., habitat or hydrologic restoration, 
prescribed burning and other forest management activities, or removal 
of invasive plants), following state and federal guidelines, and with 
previously approved management plans, under most circumstances would 
not significantly adverselyalter designated critical habitat. 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, excessive pesticide applications, or excessive alteration 
of natural lighting that impact prey or alter foraging behavior or 
movement. These activities could significantly modify habitat that 
currently provides adequate prey and space for foraging for the Florida 
bonneted bat (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.
    When conducted with guidance from the Service or using established 
best management practices (BMPs) that prevent or minimize impacts, the 
actions mentioned above 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 impacts from 
development projects, habitat alteration, and habitat conversion. 
General guidance has already been developed and is in use (see the 
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines, appendices D and E, and 
the Florida Bonneted Bat Avoidance and Minimization Measures under 
Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on 
https://www.regulations.gov); additional guidance is under development 
to address habitat management practices on conservation lands.
    Other activities that the Service may consider 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 the essential physical 
or biological features within that 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 integrated natural resources management plan (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

[[Page 16654]]

(DoD), 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 
critical habitat designation for 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 DoD lands with 
completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the 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 Exemptions in the 
proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020, p. 35531).
    For discussion of the approved INRMP for Homestead Air Reserve Base 
(Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit--Subunits KK, LL; 280 ac (113 ha)), see 
Exemptions in the revised proposed critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466, 
November 22, 2022, p. 71480).
    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 Homestead Air Reserve 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 final 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 based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions 
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, 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.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction of 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 Florida bonneted bat and the importance of habitat 
protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 
protection for the Florida bonneted bat due to the protection from 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation or in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships. Additionally, continued implementation of an ongoing 
management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a 
critical habitat designation would reduce the 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 exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.

Exclusions Based on 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. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an IEM and screening analysis, including a memo addressing supplemental 
information on land values, which, together with our narrative and 
interpretation of effects, we consider our economic analysis of the 
critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2021a, b, 
entire). The original DEA, dated February 14, 2020, and the memo 
providing supplemental data supporting the original DEA, dated February 
6, 2020, were made available for public review from June 10 through 
August 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020). The IEM and the economic 
analysis were revised prior to publication of the November 22, 2022, 
revised proposed rule, and the revised analyses, both dated September 
1, 2021, were made available for public review from November 22, 2022, 
through January 23, 2023 (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022). The economic 
analysis addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation for Florida bonneted bat. Following the close of the 
comment period on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we 
reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during both comment 
periods that may pertain to our consideration of the probable

[[Page 16655]]

incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. 
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic 
impacts of critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat is 
summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the 
Florida bonneted bat (IEc 2021a, entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    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 
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. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat will be incorporated into the existing 
consultation process.
    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 
designation of critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat 
consists of nine units, all occupied by the species, totaling 1,160,625 
ac (469,688 ha) and including lands under Federal, State, county, 
local, and private ownership (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
     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 this designation are estimated to be less than 
$70,800 per year, with the highest costs expected in Unit 6 (IEc 2021a, 
pp. 2, 25). While the designated 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.

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Rights-of-Way

    Based on a request for exclusion from FDOT, we are examining the 
benefits of inclusion or exclusion of areas of critical habitat that 
overlap with FDOT rights-of-way in all critical habitat units (Units 1-
9). FDOT requested exclusion because they expect this critical habitat 
designation to significantly increase consultation actions for the 
regular and frequent activities for work FDOT conducts within its 
transportation rights-of-way, thus resulting in an undue economic 
hardship to FDOT. Because all critical habitat units are occupied, any 
inclusion of rights-of-way would be occupied areas. FDOT receives 
Federal agency funding and has assumed responsibility for environmental 
reviews from the Federal Highway Administration. It also receives 
authorization (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for many of their 
activities along their rights-of-way.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
also consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed 
species and ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to 
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the 
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these 
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. In 
some cases, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because 
effects to critical habitat will often result in effects to the 
species. This would generally be in cases where the species is 
considered present in the action area and may be affected by the 
proposed action and when any voluntary or required measures to avoid 
jeopardy are the same as those measures to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat; that is the case here. Additionally, 
there may be educational benefits associated with the designation of 
critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat designation may provide 
greater benefits to the recovery of a species than listing would alone.
    Critical habitat designation is expected to provide some benefit 
(although likely less of a benefit than if the units were unoccupied) 
through the conservation measures associated with future section 7 
consultations associated with FDOT actions that involve a Federal 
nexus. Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat 
is public and agency education regarding the potential conservation 
value of these areas. For FDOT actions without a

[[Page 16656]]

Federal nexus, there is no requirement to consider effects to critical 
habitat, but there is still a requirement to consider potential effects 
to the species itself (e.g., take of a listed species). Designation of 
critical habitat would provide educational benefits by informing 
Federal agencies and the public about the presence of listed species 
within FDOT rights-of-way. Florida bonneted bats are typically 
associated with a diversity of ecological communities, including pine 
rocklands, cypress communities, hydric pine flatwoods, mesic pine 
flatwoods, and high pine, but they also occur in a variety of other 
habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging (e.g., 
freshwater edges and freshwater herbaceous wetlands, prairies, wetland 
and upland shrub communities, and wetland and upland forests), 
including habitat edges adjacent to roads and mowed areas (see Physical 
or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species, 
above). FDOT rights-of-way contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, and these rights-of-way 
overlap designated critical habitat units, all of which are occupied by 
Florida bonneted bats.
    Including FDOT rights-of-way in designated critical habitat 
provides an opportunity to highlight FDOT rights-of-way as important 
for the conservation of the species, thus increasing awareness of the 
species and its habitat use and needs. Therefore, we foresee 
educational value that a designation would be expected to provide to 
FDOT, Federal agencies, and the public. There is also the possible 
benefit that additional funding could be generated for habitat 
improvement by an area being designated as critical habitat. Some 
funding sources may rank a project higher if the area is designated as 
critical habitat.
    We also evaluated whether there were any conservation plans or 
other conservation measures that may reduce the benefits of including 
FDOT rights-of-way in this designation of critical habitat. However, 
there are no specific Florida bonneted bat management plans, habitat 
plans, or specific conservation measures that have been developed by 
FDOT that would provide a conservation benefit to the Florida bonneted 
bat in these areas.
    Thus, we find that inclusion of areas that overlap with FDOT 
rights-of-way in designated critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 
bat would provide: (1) A regulatory benefit when there is a Federal 
nexus; and (2) significant educational benefits for the Florida 
bonneted bat and its habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation or in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships. We expect to continue to work with FDOT on efforts to 
conserve the Florida bonneted bat and other co-occurring federally 
listed species. Working with our Federal partners or, in the case of 
FDOT, entities that have assumed some responsibility from a Federal 
partner, there are opportunities to develop section 7(a)(1) 
conservation strategies and programmatic section 7(a)(2) consultations 
to streamline regulatory procedures and benefit listed species. There 
are also opportunities to develop conservation plans for non-Federal 
actions to streamline regulatory compliance.
    We also considered the potential economic impact of designating 
critical habitat. The total number of future section 7 consultations 
expected over the next 10 years are modest at approximately 4 formal 
consultations, 19 informal consultations, and 2 technical assistance 
actions (IEc 2021a, p. 2); however, it is anticipated that all FDOT 
projects would result in only informal consultation on Florida bonneted 
bat critical habitat, each of which is estimated to have a total cost 
of $2,600 compared to estimated costs of $5,300 for a formal 
consultation or $9,800 for a programmatic consultation (IEc 2021a, pp. 
10, 12-15, 18, 24). There is not expected to be any difference between 
a jeopardy analysis and a destruction or adverse modification analysis 
conducted as part of the consultation because threats to the Florida 
bonneted bat are largely habitat related. Because all areas of critical 
habitat are occupied, there would always be a consultation due to the 
presence of the species when there is a Federal nexus, and the 
designation of critical habitat would then result in only minor 
additional administrative economic costs due to the additional analysis 
required for the destruction or adverse modification analysis. The 
Service has developed a consultation area map (see Florida Bonneted Bat 
Consultation Guidelines under Supporting and Related Material in Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov), which is 
routinely used by FDOT, that can help streamline consultation and 
reduce the administrative burden associated with consultation. The 
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines alert managing agencies 
about the location of the species and its habitat. Agencies can use the 
consultation guidelines to screen projects for potential impacts to the 
species; to determine whether additional consultation with the Service 
is required; and, where appropriate, to reach a determination that an 
action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, designated 
critical habitat. Prior to publication of this final rule, the Service 
updated the consultation guidelines to include critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat, which increases the usefulness of this tool to 
FDOT for section 7 consultations involving Florida bonneted bat 
critical habitat. Therefore, we anticipate that this will help 
streamline consultation for FDOT and reduce the administrative burden 
associated with consultation, thus reducing the overall cost of 
consultation to FDOT associated with this critical habitat designation.
    The total estimated cost of considering destruction or adverse 
modification of Florida bonneted bat critical habitat during all 
section 7 consultations will result in incremental costs of 
approximately $70,800 per year, of which approximately $50,800 are the 
incremental costs associated with all informal consultations (IEc 
2021a, p. 25). Incremental costs for FDOT are expected to only comprise 
a portion of the annual estimated incremental costs, although FDOT is 
one of several agencies most likely to consult with the Service with 
regard to the Florida bonneted bat over the next 10 years. It is 
estimated that approximately 62 FDOT projects may intersect with 
critical habitat in Units 1 through 6; there are no planned FDOT 
projects in or near Units 7 through 9 (IEc 2021a, p. 8). Thus, 
excluding the rights-of-way could moderately reduce costs for FDOT.
Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Exclusion
    In weighing the benefits of including versus the benefits of 
excluding FDOT rights-of-way in our critical habitat designation, we 
find that the benefits of inclusion of these lands outweigh the 
benefits of exclusion of these lands in the designation. The benefits 
of exclusion are small and are primarily the avoidance of potential 
future costs due to section 7 consultation. Because the entire critical 
habitat designation is occupied by the Florida bonneted bat, any 
consultation would result from the presence of a listed species; there 
would be an additional minor administrative cost for the destruction or 
adverse modification analysis. Any project modifications to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification would likely be

[[Page 16657]]

the same as those modifications already undertaken to avoid jeopardy; 
thus, we anticipate that conducting a destruction or adverse 
modification analysis would have only a minor administrative cost 
beyond the cost of the analysis that would already be conducted to 
avoid jeopardy.
    In contrast, the benefits of inclusion are higher than those of 
exclusion because of educational opportunities and the regulatory 
benefit of potential section 7 consultations. Because critical habitat 
is one conservation tool that can contribute to the recovery of the 
species, the recovery of the Florida bonneted bat is best served by the 
inclusion of FDOT rights-of-way in critical habitat units. Further, 
there are no specific Florida bonneted bat management plans, habitat 
plans, or specific conservation measures that have been developed by 
FDOT that would provide a conservation benefit to the Florida bonneted 
bat in these areas. Therefore, we conclude that the benefits of 
inclusion are greater than the benefits of exclusion, and we are 
including FDOT rights-of-way in the designation of critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat.

Florida Power and Light (FPL) Power Line Easements and Rights-of-Way

    Based on a request for exclusion from FPL, we are examining the 
benefits of inclusion or exclusion of areas of critical habitat in 
Units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 that overlap with FPL power line easements 
and rights-of-way. FPL requested exclusion because they expect this 
critical habitat designation to significantly increase costs and time 
to conduct activities associated with existing and potential future 
facilities within its power line easements and rights-of-way, thus 
resulting in an undue economic hardship to FPL. Because all critical 
habitat units are occupied, any inclusion of power line easements and 
rights-of-way would be occupied areas. In total, FPL has approximately 
73 mi (118 km) of transmission lines and 46 mi (74 km) of distribution 
lines within power line easements and rights-of-way that overlap with 
critical habitat, with 21 mi (33 km) of transmission lines and 2.5 mi 
(4 km) of distribution lines in Unit 2, 40 mi (64 km) of transmission 
lines and 12 mi (20 km) of distribution lines in Unit 3, 10 mi (16 km) 
of transmission lines and 3 mi (5 km) of distribution lines in Unit 5, 
15 mi (24 km) of distribution lines in Unit 6, 0.05 mi (0.07 km) of 
distribution lines in Unit 8, and 2 mi (4 km) of transmission lines and 
13 mi (21 km) of distribution lines in Unit 9. FPL maintains existing 
facilities on Federal lands and receives Federal agency funding (e.g., 
U.S. Department of Energy) or authorization (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers) for many of their activities within their power line 
easements and rights-of-way.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
also consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed 
species and ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to 
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the 
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these 
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. In 
some cases, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because 
effects to critical habitat will often result in effects to the 
species. This would generally be in cases where the species is 
considered present in the action area and may be affected by the 
proposed action and when any voluntary or required measures to avoid 
jeopardy are the same as those measures to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat; that is the case here. Additionally, 
there may be educational benefits associated with the designation of 
critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat designation may provide 
greater benefits to the recovery of a species than listing would alone.
    Critical habitat designation is expected to provide some benefit 
(although likely less of a benefit than if the units were unoccupied) 
through the conservation measures associated with future section 7 
consultations associated with FPL actions that involve a Federal nexus. 
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is 
public and agency education regarding the potential conservation value 
of these areas. For FPL actions without a Federal nexus, there is no 
requirement to consider effects to critical habitat, but there is still 
a requirement to consider potential effects to the species itself 
(e.g., take of a listed species). Designation of critical habitat would 
provide educational benefits by informing Federal agencies and the 
public about the presence of listed species within FPL power line 
easements and rights-of-way. Florida bonneted bats are typically 
associated with a diversity of ecological communities, including pine 
rocklands, cypress communities, hydric pine flatwoods, mesic pine 
flatwoods, and high pine, but they also occur in a variety of other 
habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging (e.g., 
freshwater edges and freshwater herbaceous wetlands, prairies, wetland 
and upland shrub communities, and wetland and upland forests) (see 
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species, above). FPL power line easements and rights-of-way are within 
these ecological communities and habitats occupied by Florida bonneted 
bat; contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species; and overlap designated critical habitat 
units, all of which are occupied by Florida bonneted bats.
    Including FPL power line easements and rights-of-way in designated 
critical habitat provides an opportunity to highlight these areas as 
important for the conservation of the species, thus increasing 
awareness of the species and its habitat use and needs. Since the 
publication of the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, communication between 
the Service and FPL has increased, and designating critical habitat may 
continue to encourage communication that provides an educational value. 
Therefore, we anticipate that a critical habitat designation including 
FPL power line easements and rights-of-way would provide continued 
educational value to FPL, Federal agencies, and the public. There is 
also the possible benefit that additional funding could be generated 
for habitat improvement by an area being designated as critical 
habitat. Some funding sources may rank a project higher if the area is 
designated as critical habitat.
    We also evaluated whether there were any conservation plans or 
other conservation measures that may reduce the benefits of including 
FPL power line easements and rights-of-way in this designation of 
critical habitat. Before initiating work at a utility pole location, 
FPL follows a well-established process for managing and protecting 
migratory bird nests, including inspecting poles for migratory bird 
nests, such as active woodpecker cavities. FPL plans to continue this 
best practice and expand it to include determining the presence or 
absence of any Florida bonneted bat or Florida bonneted bat active 
roost. If a Florida bonneted bat or Florida bonneted bat roost is 
confirmed within an FPL pole or on any FPL equipment during pre-removal 
inspection, FPL will promptly notify and coordinate with the

[[Page 16658]]

Service. However, there are no specific Florida bonneted bat management 
plans, habitat plans, or formalized conservation measures that have 
been developed by FPL that would provide a conservation benefit to the 
Florida bonneted bat or its habitat in these areas. Thus, we find that 
inclusion of areas that overlap with FPL power line easements and 
rights-of-way in the critical habitat designation for the Florida 
bonneted bat would provide: (1) A regulatory benefit when there is a 
Federal nexus; and (2) significant educational benefits for the Florida 
bonneted bat and its habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation or in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships. We expect to continue to work with FPL on efforts to 
conserve the Florida bonneted bat and other co-occurring federally 
listed species. Working with our Federal partners, there are 
opportunities to develop section 7(a)(1) conservation strategies and 
programmatic section 7(a)(2) consultations to streamline regulatory 
procedures and benefit listed species. There are also opportunities to 
develop conservation plans for non-Federal actions to streamline 
regulatory compliance.
    We also considered the potential economic impact of designating 
critical habitat. The total number of future section 7 consultations 
expected over the next 10 years are modest at approximately 4 formal 
consultations, 19 informal consultations, and 2 technical assistance 
actions (IEc 2021a, p. 2). However, we estimate only approximately one 
future FPL utility project-related action would require informal 
consultation in each critical habitat unit annually over the next 10 
years in addition to consultations forecast from their consultation 
history for Florida bonneted bat in or near proposed critical habitat 
areas (IEc 2021a, pp. 10-13, 15, 18-22). There is not expected to be 
any difference between a jeopardy analysis and a destruction or adverse 
modification analysis conducted as part of the consultation because 
threats to the Florida bonneted bat are habitat-related. Because of 
this, there would always be a consultation due to the presence of the 
species when there is a Federal nexus, and the designation of critical 
habitat would then result in only minor additional administrative 
economic costs due to the additional analysis required for the 
destruction or adverse modification analysis. The Service has developed 
a consultation area map (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation 
Guidelines under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov), which is routinely used 
by FPL, that can help streamline consultation and reduce the 
administrative burden associated with consultation. The Florida 
Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines alert managing agencies about the 
location of the species and its habitat. Agencies can use the 
consultation guidelines to screen projects for potential impacts to the 
species; to determine whether additional consultation with the Service 
is required; and, where appropriate, to reach a determination that an 
action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, designated 
critical habitat. Prior to publication of this final rule, the Service 
updated the consultation guidelines to include critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat, which further increases the usefulness of this 
tool to FPL for section 7 consultations involving Florida bonneted bat 
critical habitat. Therefore, we anticipate that this will help 
streamline consultation for FPL and reduce the administrative burden 
associated with consultation, thus reducing the overall cost of 
consultation to FPL associated with this critical habitat designation.
    The total estimated cost of considering destruction or adverse 
modification of Florida bonneted bat critical habitat during section 7 
consultation will result in incremental costs of approximately $70,800 
per year throughout the entirety of designated critical habitat (IEc 
2021a, p. 25); however, incremental costs for FPL are expected to only 
comprise a portion of these annual estimated incremental costs. Thus, 
excluding FPL's power line easements and rights-of-way could moderately 
reduce costs for FPL.
Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Exclusion
    In weighing the benefits of including versus the benefits of 
excluding FPL power line easements and rights-of-way in our critical 
habitat designation, we find that the benefits of inclusion of these 
lands outweigh the benefits of exclusion of these lands in the 
designation. The benefits of exclusion are small and are primarily the 
avoidance of potential future costs due to section 7 consultation. 
Because the entire critical habitat designation is occupied by the 
Florida bonneted bat, any consultation would result from the presence 
of a listed species; there would be an additional minor administrative 
cost for the destruction or adverse modification analysis. Any project 
modifications to avoid destruction or adverse modification would likely 
be the same as those modifications already undertaken to avoid 
jeopardy; thus, we anticipate that conducting a destruction or adverse 
modification analysis would have only a minor administrative cost 
beyond the cost of the analysis that would already be conducted to 
avoid jeopardy.
    In contrast, the benefits of inclusion are greater than those of 
exclusion. This is primarily because of the regulatory benefit 
associated with future section 7 consultations when FPL undertakes 
actions with a Federal nexus. In addition, as discussed above under 
Benefits of Inclusion, in this instance we also expect significant 
educational benefits from designating critical habitat along FPL power 
line easements and rights-of-way. The clear mapping of critical habitat 
provides helpful information to FPL to better understand where 
additional management actions may be appropriate (with or without a 
Federal nexus). FPL has no current Florida bonneted bat habitat 
conservation plans or other management plans or agreements with the 
Service in place to rely upon at this time. Therefore, coordination 
with the Service would be expected to provide education about critical 
habitat that would help FPL understand how to accomplish their needs 
while supporting conservation of the Florida bonneted bat and its 
habitat. This education would also be expected to result in better 
regulatory coordination with the Service both when there is a Federal 
nexus and when there is not a Federal nexus. The recovery of the 
Florida bonneted bat is best served by the inclusion of FPL power line 
easements and rights-of-way in designated critical habitat. Therefore, 
we conclude that the benefits of inclusion are greater than the 
benefits of exclusion, and we are including FPL power line easements 
and rights-of-way in the designation of critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat.
    As discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the 
critical habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is

[[Page 16659]]

in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly listed species or a 
species previously not covered). If a particular area is not covered 
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or homeland-security 
concerns are not a factor in the process of determining what areas meet 
the definition of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider 
impacts on national security, including homeland security, on lands or 
areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always 
consider for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD, 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has 
requested exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or 
homeland-security concerns.
    We consulted with DoD and DHS on this designation. Neither agency 
identified any potential national-security impact nor requested an 
exclusion from critical habitat based on potential national-security 
impacts. Additionally, we did not receive any new information or public 
comments regarding our intended determination to not exclude DHS and 
DoD lands in Subunit 9O identified in the November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed rule (87 FR 71466). Consequently, the Secretary is not 
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation 
based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. 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, or candidate conservation 
agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are non-permitted 
conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged 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, social, or other impacts that might occur 
because of the designation.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that 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 Florida bonneted bat and the importance of habitat 
protection and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 
protection for the Florida bonneted bat due to protection from 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation, or in the continuation, strengthening, or 
encouragement of partnerships. Additionally, continued implementation 
of an ongoing management plan that provides equal to or more 
conservation than a critical habitat designation would reduce the 
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 exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
    Based on the information provided to us by entities seeking 
exclusion, as well as additional public comments we received, and the 
best scientific data available, we evaluated whether certain lands in 
all final critical habitat units (i.e., Units 1-9) are appropriate for 
exclusion from this final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 
If our 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. In the paragraphs below, 
we provide a detailed balancing analysis of the areas we are excluding 
from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

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 habitats. 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, specific land uses, 
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition 
under the agreements. We also provide 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, we will always consider areas covered by an approved CCAA/
SHA/HCP, and we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if 
incidental take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by 
the permit under section 10 of the Act and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all 
of the following three factors (see the 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy for 
additional details):
    a. The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and

[[Page 16660]]

is expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is, and has been, 
fully implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 
implementing agreement, and permit.
    b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that we extend to 
such an agreement depends on the degree to which the conservation 
measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect the habitat 
features of the similar species.
    c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP 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.

Coral Reef Commons (CRC) Habitat Conservation Plan

    CRC is a 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 were developed and issued, 
respectively, for the CRC development. We have determined that lands 
associated with the CRC HCP were included within the boundaries of our 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rule for the 
Florida bonneted bat. These lands include an on-site preserve and an 
off-site mitigation area, both of which overlap with proposed Subunit 
9O (composing approximately 6 percent of the subunit and approximately 
3 percent of the unit as a whole).
    Specifically, as part of the HCP and permit, the 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. An additional area within 
the University of Miami's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced 
Remote Sensing facility site comprises the off-site mitigation area for 
CRC. Portions of both the on-site preserve and the off-site mitigation 
area (approximately 48 ac (19 ha) and 56 ac (23 ha), respectively) are 
included in the area for proposed critical habitat designation and are 
being managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat using invasive, 
nonnative plant management; mechanical treatment; and prescribed fire. 
This management addresses both the habitat and conservation needs of 
the Florida bonneted bat.
    Within the HCP, biological goals, objectives, and success criteria 
of the HCP have been identified that apply to the on-site preserve and 
the off-site mitigation area. For the on-site preserve, success 
criteria that focus on restoration and conservation of pine rockland 
habitat have been established, with initial targets set for 5 years 
after initiation. For both the on-site preserve and the off-site 
mitigation area, the CRC HCP also includes a plan for implementing a 
long-term conservation program with mitigation measures to support 
specific listed species, including the Florida bonneted bat. Within the 
on-site preserve area, mitigation measures, some of which are designed 
to offset impacts to the Florida bonneted bat (e.g., implementing 
wildlife-friendly lighting, installing bat houses), are to be 
implemented during construction and within the resulting development.
    Since initiating the CRC HCP, pine rockland restoration efforts 
have been conducted within all of the management units in both the on-
site preserve and the off-site mitigation area. Currently, the on-site 
preserve meets or exceeds the success criteria described for 
restoration and conservation of pine rockland habitat within the HCP. 
However, partially because the site is still under construction, 
mitigation measures associated with implementation of the conservation 
program within the on-site preserve, such as incorporation of wildlife-
friendly lighting, have not been reported on or fully implemented. The 
Service and CRC partnership is strong and working well; we are 
currently communicating through the partnership to ensure full 
implementation of the HCP and permit and considering whether slight 
modifications to the conservation program would be possible under the 
adaptive management strategy described within the HCP.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
also consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed 
species and ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such species. Therefore, the primary benefit of 
including the on-site preserve and off-site mitigation area associated 
with the CRC HCP is the potential additional regulatory oversight due 
to section 7 consultations associated with future Federal actions. 
However, because the Florida bonneted bat is a covered species under 
the HCP and the pine rockland habitat management provisions in the HCP 
are being implemented, and because we do not expect any future actions 
in this area to be authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal 
agency, the additional benefits of the inclusion of these areas in 
designated critical habitat may be limited. Therefore, the benefit of 
the inclusion of these parcels in critical habitat is expected to be 
minimal.
    A secondary benefit to the inclusion of the on-site preserve and 
off-site mitigation area in the critical habitat designation for the 
Florida bonneted bat is an educational benefit through ensuring public 
awareness regarding the importance of these specific parcels to the 
Florida bonneted bat and its long-term conservation. Due to the high 
potential of human-wildlife interaction with this species in the area 
and the reliance of this species on the remaining pine rockland 
habitat, the relative importance of these parcels to the species is 
high; however, the added benefits of education from the designation of 
critical habitat are likely minimal as the public was previously aware 
of the area's importance due to the CRC HCP.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The Florida bonneted bat is a species included in the CRC HCP. As 
part of the HCP, the on-site preserve and off-site mitigation area were 
established to protect and conserve the species and its habitat. While 
some mitigation measures in the HCP that are important to Florida 
bonneted bat habitat have not been implemented, the primary goals for 
pine rockland habitat management and restoration established for these 
parcels as part of the HCP and section 10 permit are being fully 
implemented. The conservation partnership with the CRC development 
advocate is well-established and could be significantly harmed by the 
failure to acknowledge the conservation value of the HCP and the 
considerable efforts that have been made to implement many of the 
measures of the HCP and section 10 permit. Additionally, failure to 
acknowledge these agreements would most likely send a chilling effect 
to other potential conservation partners, which could render 
conservation efforts in south Florida for the Florida bonneted bat and 
other listed and at-risk

[[Page 16661]]

species more difficult and potentially harm species and sensitive 
habitats.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We have found that, on balance, the benefits of excluding the on-
site preserve and off-site mitigation area associated with the CRC HCP 
outweigh the benefits of including the specific parcels in designated 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. We have determined that 
benefits of preserving the conservation partnership with CRC and the 
continued habitat management implemented on these parcels, including 
the ability to modify or amend the HCP to incorporate appropriate 
additional or improved mitigation measures for the Florida bonneted 
bat, outweigh the potential additional regulatory benefits associated 
with the inclusion of these parcels in the critical habitat 
designation. Additionally, the acknowledgement of the productive 
cooperative partnership is important for not only this species and 
situation, but for other existing and future conservation efforts, and 
to not exclude these lands given that there is a signed HCP that covers 
the species would have a detrimental effect on existing and future 
conservation partnerships. Further, while we find that the educational 
benefits associated with including the parcels in the final designation 
are valuable, we have determined that the public was educated about the 
importance of these parcels to pine rockland habitat in our detailed 
discussion of these areas and the HCP in our November 22, 2022, revised 
proposed critical habitat rule (see ``Private or Other Non-Federal 
Conservation Plans Related to Permits Under Section 10 of the Act'' and 
the Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act at 87 FR 
71466, November 22, 2022, pp. 71484-71486). Moreover, the public was 
highly engaged during the development of this HCP and, as such, is 
already aware of the areas' importance for multiple species because of 
the CRC HCP. Therefore, the existence of the HCP and the educational 
benefits it has already provided reduce the educational benefit of 
inclusion of these areas in designated critical habitat. We anticipate 
minimal further benefit if the areas were to be included in this final 
designation. Therefore, we are excluding those specific lands 
associated with the CRC HCP that are in the on-site preserve and off-
site mitigation area from this final designation of critical habitat 
for the Florida bonneted bat because we find that the benefit of 
excluding them from designated critical habitat outweighs the benefit 
of their inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    As discussed above, the habitat management provisions set forth in 
the CRC HCP to manage the on-site preserve and off-site mitigation area 
for the Florida bonneted bat and pine rockland habitat are being fully 
implemented. Mitigation measures important to the species have not been 
reported and have not been fully implemented; however, there is a 
record that the project proponent is a cooperating partner in the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat, and adaptive management 
strategies that are built into the HCP provide the flexibility to 
incorporate additional conservation measures. As a result, we do not 
find that the exclusion of these specific areas from designated 
critical habitat is a threat to the viability of the Florida bonneted 
bat. Further, because the Florida bonneted bat is listed as an 
endangered species and these areas are occupied, if at any time the 
parcels are no longer being managed appropriately, the species 
continues to be protected by the provisions of the Act and the permit 
for the HCP can be revisited. We conclude that the exclusion of these 
specific parcels from designated critical habitat will not result in 
the extinction of the Florida bonneted bat.
    We have further determined that there are no additional HCPs or 
other management plans for the Florida bonneted bat within the critical 
habitat designation.

Tribal Lands

    Several Executive Orders, Secretary's 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 Secretary's Order that applies to both the Service and 
NMFS--Secretary's 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 us 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 
us to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat 
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, 
and it requires us 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 424.19 and the 2016 section 
4(b)(2) policy 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. When we undertake a discretionary 4(b)(2) 
exclusion analysis, we always consider exclusion of Tribal lands, and 
give great weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of 
exclusion.
    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.
Unit 6 (Big Cypress)--Seminole Tribe of Florida
    We proposed 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of critical habitat in Unit 6 that 
occur on Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands. This area is considered 
occupied at the time of listing and meets the definition of critical 
habitat. However, the Seminole Tribe of Florida is recognized as a 
sovereign nation and as such is the

[[Page 16662]]

appropriate entity to manage natural resources on Seminole Tribal land. 
Further, the Seminole Tribe Wildlife Conservation Plan (see Supporting 
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov) covers these lands for the protection of listed 
and endangered species, including the Florida bonneted bat. The Service 
reviewed this plan, together with the Seminole Tribe Fire Management 
Plan and Forest Management Plan, and issued a non-jeopardy programmatic 
biological opinion on December 19, 2014, to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, which we amended on June 9, 2017 (see Supporting and Related 
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on https://www.regulations.gov). This biological opinion considered projects in 
development, land management, temporary construction, and maintenance 
categories, as described by the Tribe. 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., the first 
four identified essential physical or biological features for the 
species; see Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features, 
above) 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. We have a 
productive working relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and 
coordinated with them during the critical habitat designation process.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
also consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed 
species and ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such species. The difference in the outcomes of 
the jeopardy analysis and the destruction or adverse modification 
analysis represents the regulatory benefit and costs of critical 
habitat. Because the species occurs in the area, the regulatory 
benefits of a critical habitat designation are limited to the 
difference in consultation outcomes between avoidance of jeopardy and 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Designation of critical habitat on the Seminole Tribe of Florida 
Trust lands of proposed Unit 6 could potentially benefit the Florida 
bonneted bat because that area provides habitat for the species, 
encompasses features essential to conservation of the species, and is 
occupied by the species. However, section 7 consultations within the 
proposed critical habitat area are anticipated to be rare, due to a 
general lack of Federal actions requiring consultations in this area 
beyond the actions already covered in the programmatic biological 
opinion, and we do not expect this trend to change in the future (IEc 
2021a, p. 15). With few section 7 consultations anticipated, we 
anticipate limited regulatory benefits for the designation of critical 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat in this portion of proposed Unit 
6. Therefore, the effect of a critical habitat designation on these 
lands is minimized.
    In addition to the few anticipated Federal actions within the area, 
there is another regulatory process that applies to the proposed 
critical habitat area that overlaps Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust 
lands. The Seminole Tribe of Florida has created and implemented a 
regulatory process that mirrors that of the Service's section 7 
processes, but that has a greater level of review because they review 
all proposed projects, even those lacking a Federal nexus. Similar to 
the Service's section 7 process, they review projects to ensure that a 
project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
federally endangered or threatened species or to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of 
such species. They also examine conservation measures associated with 
the project for their value in the conservation of these listed 
species. The existence of this Tribal regulatory process reduces the 
benefits of including their lands in critical habitat, and, because 
this Tribal regulatory process is duplicative of ours, it makes our 
process redundant.
    A possible benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can 
serve to educate the landowner and public regarding the potential 
conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to 
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of 
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the 
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 
including other parties engaged in conservation activities, would be 
considered valuable. The Seminole Tribe of Florida is fully aware of 
the importance of Florida bonneted bat habitat and conservation, and 
their natural resource staff frequently provide education on these 
topics. Given that regulatory actions have already informed the public 
about the value of these areas and helped to focus potential 
conservation actions and that the Tribe is already providing education 
on these topics, the educational benefits from designating critical 
habitat would be small.
    Finally, there is the possible benefit that additional funding 
could be generated for habitat improvement by an area being designated 
as critical habitat. Some funding sources may rank a project higher if 
the area is designated as critical habitat. Tribes often seek 
additional sources of funding in order to conduct wildlife-related 
conservation activities. Therefore, having an area designated as 
critical habitat could improve the chances of receiving funding for 
Florida bonneted bat habitat-related projects.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from designated 
critical habitat are significant. We have determined that the primary 
benefits that would be realized by foregoing the designation of 
critical habitat on this area include: (1) Our deference to the Tribe 
as a sovereign nation to develop and implement conservation and natural 
resource management plans for their lands and resources, which may 
include benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that might 
not otherwise occur; and (2) the continuance and strengthening of our 
effective working relationships with the Tribe to promote conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat, as well as other federally 
listed species.
    We have found that fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on 
Tribal lands are better managed under Tribal authorities, policies, and 
programs than through Federal regulations wherever possible and 
practicable. As stated above, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has 
developed their Wildlife Conservation Plan with a primary goal to 
provide for sustainable use and protection of wildlife and other 
natural resources for the benefit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and 
its members. The plan

[[Page 16663]]

strives to balance management objectives so that conformity with the 
policy of the Act is achieved without the Tribe being faced with a 
disproportionate burden. The plan offers resource management protocols 
and measures for listed species and addresses: (1) Present conditions 
and practices on the reservations and Tribal land; (2) alternatives 
that allow the Tribe to continue growing while still protecting listed 
species; (3) alternatives for mitigation of effects to listed species 
for the continued growth of the Tribe; and (4) maintenance of the 
existing level of scientific knowledge regarding the reservation and 
its wildlife resources. The plan discusses the Florida bonneted bat and 
proposes conservation measures related to prescribed burning and home 
site/access road construction in the Big Cypress area. These 
conservation measures are generally expected to be compatible with, and 
benefit, conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. Overall, the 
commitments toward management of Florida bonneted bat habitat by the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida likely accomplish greater conservation than 
would be available through a designation of critical habitat.
    During this rulemaking process, we have communicated with the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida to discuss how they might be affected by the 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. As such, 
we have strengthened our existing beneficial relationship to support 
Florida bonneted bat conservation. As part of our relationship, we have 
provided technical assistance to the Seminole Tribe of Florida to 
refine measures to conserve the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat on 
their lands. These measures are contained within the Wildlife 
Conservation Plan developed by the Tribe. Therefore, consistent with 
our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, we place great weight on our working 
relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and determine that it 
would be better maintained if these lands are excluded from the 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. We view 
maintaining our partnership as a substantial benefit of exclusion.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of excluding this area from critical habitat include 
deference to the Tribe as a sovereign nation to manage its own lands, 
continuing and strengthening our effective working relationship with 
the Tribe, and working in collaboration and cooperation with the Tribe 
to promote conservation of the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat.
    The benefits of including Seminole Tribe of Florida lands in the 
critical habitat designation are limited to the incremental benefits 
gained through the regulatory requirement to consult under section 7 
and consideration of the need to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, agency and educational awareness, 
potential additional grant funding, and the implementation of other law 
and regulations. However, due to the rarity of Federal actions 
resulting in section 7 consultations within the proposed critical 
habitat area, the benefits of a critical habitat designation are 
minimal. The benefits of including these lands in this critical habitat 
designation are further reduced by the Tribe's regulatory process that 
mirrors the Service's section 7, as described above. In addition, the 
benefits of consultation are further minimized because any conservation 
measures that may have resulted from consultation are already provided 
through the conservation benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and its 
habitat from implementation of the Seminole Tribe Wildlife Conservation 
Plan. Additionally, through the already beneficial working relationship 
between the Service and the Tribe, the Service can provide technical 
assistance and easily communicate as needed to benefit the conservation 
of listed species, including the Florida bonneted bat. The Service's 
working relationship with the Tribe will be better maintained if this 
area located on Seminole Tribe of Florida lands in proposed Unit 6 is 
excluded from the designation. We view this as a substantial benefit 
since we are committed to cooperative relationships with Tribes for the 
mutual benefit of endangered and threatened species, including the 
Florida bonneted bat. For these reasons, we have determined that 
designation of critical habitat in this area would have few, if any, 
additional benefits beyond those that will result from the presence of 
the species.
    In summary, the benefits of including Seminole Tribe of Florida 
lands in critical habitat are low and are limited to insignificant 
educational benefits as well as the potential for additional funding 
for habitat improvement projects. Educational opportunities would 
predominately benefit members of the Tribe rather than the general 
public, and even this benefit would be minimal because the Tribe is 
already aware of the importance of Florida bonneted bat habitat and 
conservation. However, the ability of the Tribe to manage natural 
resources on their land without the perception of Federal Government 
intrusion is a significant benefit. This philosophy is also consistent 
with our published policies on Native American natural resource 
management. In this particular case, exclusion from critical habitat is 
consistent with Secretary's Order 3206, Executive Order 13175, and the 
relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the 
Interior (512 DM 2). The exclusion of this area will likely also 
provide additional benefits to the species that would not otherwise be 
available, such as ensuring continued cooperative working relationships 
with the Seminole Tribe of Florida. We find that the benefits of 
excluding this area from critical habitat designation outweigh the 
benefits of including this area and that these areas are not essential 
to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We have determined that exclusion of Seminole Tribe of Florida 
lands will not result in extinction of the species. As discussed above 
under Section 7 Consultation in the Effects of Critical Habitat 
Designation discussion, if a Federal action or permitting occurs, the 
known presence of Florida bonneted bat would require evaluation under 
the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, even absent the 
designation of critical habitat, and thus will protect the species 
against extinction. Furthermore, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has a 
long-term record of conserving species and habitat and is committed to 
protecting and managing their Tribal lands and species found on those 
lands according to their Tribal and cultural management plans and 
natural resource management objectives. In short, the Seminole Tribe of 
Florida is committed to greater conservation measures on their land 
than would be available through the designation of critical habitat. 
Additionally, the area we are excluding (14,455 ac (5,850 ha)) would 
have accounted for approximately 1 percent of areas we are designating 
as critical habitat. Accordingly, we have determined that all 14,455 ac 
(5,850 ha) of Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands within Unit 6 of 
the proposed critical habitat designation are excluded under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion and will not cause the extinction of the species.

Unit 1 (Kissimmee)--Miccosukee Tribe of Florida

    We proposed 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of critical habitat in Unit 1 that 
occurs on Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands.

[[Page 16664]]

This area is considered occupied at the time of listing and meets the 
definition of critical habitat. However, the Miccosukee Tribe of 
Florida is recognized as a sovereign nation and as such is the 
appropriate entity to manage natural resources on Miccosukee Tribal 
lands.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
also consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed 
species, and ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such species. The difference in the outcomes of 
the jeopardy analysis and the destruction or adverse modification 
analysis represents the regulatory benefit and costs of critical 
habitat. Because the species occurs in the area, the regulatory 
benefits of a critical habitat designation are limited to the 
difference in consultation outcomes between avoidance of jeopardy and 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Designation of critical habitat on the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 
fee lands of proposed Unit 1 could potentially benefit the Florida 
bonneted bat because that area provides habitat for the species, 
encompasses features essential to conservation of the species, and is 
occupied by the species. However, section 7 consultations within the 
proposed critical habitat area are anticipated to be rare, due to a 
general lack of Federal actions requiring consultations in this area, 
and we do not expect this trend to change in the future (IEc 2021a, p. 
10). With few section 7 consultations anticipated, we anticipate 
limited regulatory benefits for the designation of critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat in this portion of proposed Unit 1. Therefore, 
we would similarly expect limited additional conservation benefits 
through the section 7 process from the inclusion of Miccosukee Tribe of 
Florida fee lands in the final critical habitat designation.
    A possible benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can 
serve to educate the landowner and public regarding the potential 
conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to 
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of 
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the 
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 
including other parties engaged in conservation activities, would be 
considered valuable.
    Finally, there is the possible benefit that additional funding 
could be generated for habitat improvement by an area being designated 
as critical habitat. Some funding sources may rank a project higher if 
the area is designated as critical habitat. Tribes often seek 
additional sources of funding in order to conduct wildlife-related 
conservation activities. Therefore, having an area designated as 
critical habitat could improve the chances of receiving funding for 
Florida bonneted bat habitat-related projects.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from designated 
critical habitat are significant. We have determined that the primary 
benefits that would be realized by foregoing the designation of 
critical habitat on this area include: (1) Our deference to the Tribe 
as a sovereign nation to develop and implement conservation and natural 
resource management plans for their lands and resources, which may 
include benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that might 
not otherwise occur; and (2) the continuance and strengthening of our 
effective working relationship with the Tribe to promote conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat, as well as other federally 
listed species. We have found that fish, wildlife, and other natural 
resources on Tribal lands are better managed under Tribal authorities, 
policies, and programs than through Federal regulations wherever 
possible and practicable. Additionally, this critical habitat 
designation may compromise our working relationship with the Tribe, 
which is essential to achieving our mutual goals of managing for 
healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of populations of 
endangered and threatened species depend. Therefore, consistent with 
our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, we place great weight on our working 
relationship with the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida and determine that it 
would be better maintained if the Tribe's lands are excluded from the 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. We view 
maintaining our partnership as a substantial benefit of exclusion.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of excluding this area from critical habitat include 
deference to the Tribe as a sovereign nation to manage its own lands, 
continuing and strengthening our effective working relationships with 
the Tribe, and working in collaboration and cooperation with the Tribe 
to promote conservation of the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat.
    The benefits of including the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida in the 
critical habitat designation are limited to the incremental benefits 
gained through the regulatory requirement to consult under section 7 
and consideration of the need to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, agency and educational awareness, 
potential additional grant funding, and the implementation of other law 
and regulations. However, due to the rarity of Federal actions 
resulting in section 7 consultations within the proposed critical 
habitat area, the benefits of a critical habitat designation are 
minimal. The Service's working relationship with the Tribe will be 
better maintained if this area in proposed Unit 1 located on Miccosukee 
Tribe of Florida lands is excluded from the designation. We view this 
as a substantial benefit since we are committed to cooperative 
relationships with Tribes for the mutual benefit of endangered and 
threatened species, including the Florida bonneted bat. For these 
reasons, we have determined that designation of critical habitat at 
this site would have minimal additional benefits beyond those that will 
result from the presence of the species.
    In summary, the benefits of including Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 
lands in critical habitat are low and are limited to insignificant 
educational benefits and the potential for additional funding for 
habitat improvements projects. Educational opportunities would 
predominately benefit members of the Tribe rather than the general 
public. However, the ability of the Tribe to manage natural resources 
on their land without the perception of Federal Government intrusion is 
a significant benefit. This philosophy is also consistent with our 
published policies on Native American natural resource management. In 
this particular case, exclusion from critical habitat is consistent 
with Secretary's Order 3206, Executive Order 13175, and the relevant 
provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the Interior 
(512 DM 2). The exclusion of this area will likely also provide 
additional benefits to

[[Page 16665]]

the species that would not otherwise be available, such as ensuring 
continued cooperative working relationships with the Miccosukee Tribe 
of Florida. We find that the benefits of excluding this area from 
critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including this 
area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We have determined that exclusion of Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 
lands will not result in extinction of the species. As discussed above 
under Section 7 Consultation in the Effects of Critical Habitat 
Designation discussion, if a Federal action or permitting occurs, the 
known presence of Florida bonneted bat would require evaluation under 
the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, even absent the 
designation of critical habitat, and thus will protect the species 
against extinction. Furthermore, the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida has a 
long-term record of conserving species and habitat and is committed to 
protecting and managing their Tribal lands and species found on those 
lands according to their Tribal and cultural management plans and 
natural resource management objectives. In short, the Miccosukee Tribe 
of Florida is committed to greater conservation measures on their land 
than would be available through the designation of critical habitat. 
Additionally, the areas we are excluding (1.25 ac (0.5 ha)) would have 
accounted for an infinitesimal portion of the total area we are 
designating as critical habitat. Accordingly, we have determined that 
all 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe of Florida lands in Unit 1 of 
the proposed critical habitat designation are excluded under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion and will not cause the extinction of the species.

Summary of Exclusions

    As discussed above, based on the information provided by entities 
seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments we 
received, we evaluated whether certain lands in the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat were appropriate for 
exclusion from this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. We are excluding the following areas from critical habitat 
designation for the Florida bonneted bat: A total of 104 ac (42 ha) 
within the Coral Reef Commons HCP on-site preserve and off-site 
mitigation area in proposed Unit 9; a total of 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of 
Tribal lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida in proposed Unit 6; and a 
total of 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Tribal lands of the Miccosukee Tribe of 
Florida land in proposed Unit 1.

 Table 2--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit for the Florida Bonneted Bat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Areas meeting
                                                                                  the definition       Areas
                                                                                    of critical    excluded, in
                     Unit                                 Specific area             habitat, in        acres
                                                                                       acres        (hectares)
                                                                                    (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Kissimmee.............................  Miccosukee Tribe of Florida.....      1.25 (0.5)      1.25 (0.5)
Unit 6: Big Cypress...........................  Seminole Tribe of Florida.......  14,455 (5,850)  14,455 (5,850)
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands.......................  Coral Reef Commons..............        104 (42)        104 (42)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094)

    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, 
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. 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 rule in a manner consistent with these 
requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA in OMB waived E.O. 12866 review of this rule.

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 if 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

[[Page 16666]]

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 following 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 (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
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 will be 
directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that this critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment periods on the 
June 10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510) and the 
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466) that may pertain 
to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of 
this critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm 
our certification that this critical habitat designation will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and a 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 
critical habitat designation will significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. As most of the area included in this final 
critical habitat designation occurs on conservation lands 
(approximately 91 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 rule will 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 are not likely to 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 will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 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. By definition, 
Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although the 
activities they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small 
entities. Additionally, 91 percent of the areas within critical habitat 
units for the Florida bonneted bat are already managed for natural 
resource conservation. Further, 9 percent of the designated critical 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat overlaps with designated critical 
habitat for co-occurring federally listed species, which means that any 
actions with a Federal nexus proposed in those areas are already 
subject to the requirements of section 7 of the Act. Consequently, we 
do not believe that this critical habitat designation will 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Therefore, 
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 us to regulate private actions on private 
lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not

[[Page 16667]]

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 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat 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 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 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, this final rule does not 
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The 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 will 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 will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final 
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the 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.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do not require an environmental 
analysis under NEPA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This includes listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, 
as well as critical habitat designations. In a line of cases starting 
with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the 
courts have upheld this position.

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 federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's 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.
    The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians 
of Florida are the main Tribes whose lands and trust resources may be 
affected by this rule. There may be some other Tribes with trust 
resources in the area, but we have no specific documentation of this 
and have not received information with respect to other potential 
Tribes within the designation area. We briefed both Tribes on the 
development of the proposed critical habitat designation in October 
2019. We provided notice of the publication of the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule and the availability of the DEA to both Tribes in June 
2020, and we provided notice of the publication of the November 22, 
2022, revised proposed rule and the availability of the revised DEA to 
both Tribes in November 2022, to allow for the maximum time to submit 
comments. In these notifications, we also described the exclusion 
process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and offered to engage in 
further conversation. We offered both the Seminole Tribe and the 
Miccosukee Tribe opportunities for further conversation about the 
proposed and revised proposed critical habitat designations. We met 
with the Miccosukee Tribe to discuss the June 10, 2020, proposed 
critical habitat designation, but they did not request further 
conversation on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical 
habitat designation. We met with the Seminole Tribe in July 2020 and 
July 2021 to discuss the proposed critical habitat designation, and 
then again in December 2022 to discuss the revised proposed critical 
habitat designation. Neither Tribe requested Government-to-Government 
consultations. We considered these Tribal lands for exclusion from this 
final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with

[[Page 16668]]

the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and, subsequently, 
excluded the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of 
Indians of Florida lands from this final designation. After considering 
impacts of the critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, we are excluding approximately 14,457 ac (5,850 ha) of Tribal 
land from the final critical habitat designation (14,455 ac (5,850 ha) 
of Seminole Tribe of Florida lands and 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians of Florida lands; see Tribal Lands under Exclusions 
Based on Other Relevant Impacts, above).

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, above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 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.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we 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, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by revising the entry for ``Bat, Florida bonneted'' 
under MAMMALS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name               Scientific name        Where listed         Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bat, Florida bonneted............  Eumops floridanus..  Wherever found.....  E               78 FR 61004, 10/2/
                                                                                              2013; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.95(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 with sufficient darkness 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 sufficiently large 
(in diameter) and tall and have cavities of a sufficient size for 
roosts; and
    (B) Live or dead trees and tree snags with sufficient cavity 
height, spacing from adjacent trees, and relative canopy height to 
provide unobstructed space 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 sufficiently dark 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.

[[Page 16669]]

    (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 human-made 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 
April 8, 2024.
    (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 bonneted bat species web 
page at https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus, 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:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 1 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) Paragraph (5)

[[Page 16670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.000

    (6) Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and 
Okeechobee Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 encompasses 175,735 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 16671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.001

    (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 16672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.002

    (8) Unit 3: Babcock Unit; Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, 
Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 encompasses 134,677 ac (54,502 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 northern Lee and western Glades 
Counties.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 16673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.003

    (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 16674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.004

    (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 16675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.005

    (11) Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit; Collier, Hendry, and Monroe 
Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 6 encompasses 714,085 ac (288,980 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 16676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.006

    (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 16677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.007

    (13) Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,253 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:

[[Page 16678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.008

Figure 9 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (13)(ii)
    (14) Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 9 encompasses 4,281 ac (1,732 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:

[[Page 16679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.009

Figure 10 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 16680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.010

Figure 11 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 16681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR24.011

Figure 12 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph 
(14)(ii)
* * * * *

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-04053 Filed 3-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C