[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35510-35544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10840]



[[Page 35509]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 112

June 10, 2020

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 35510]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE10


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops 
floridanus) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). Approximately 
598,261 hectares (ha) (1,478,333 acres (ac)) in portions of 10 Florida 
counties fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the 
Act's protections to this species' critical habitat. We also announce 
the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed 
designation.

DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic 
analysis that are received or postmarked on or before August 10, 2020. 
Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 
July 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments on the proposed 
rule or draft economic analysis by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click 
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the 
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the 
Proposed Rules box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by 
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Document availability: The draft economic analysis is available at 
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, and at the South Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated for this proposed critical habitat designation are available 
at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, and at the South Florida Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Supporting 
documents, consisting of supplemental information and details relating 
to conservation lands, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. Any additional tools or supporting 
information that we may develop for this critical habitat designation 
will also be available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website 
and field office listed below, and may also be included in the preamble 
below and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559; telephone 
772-562-3909. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a proposed rule. Under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (``Act''; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when 
we determine that any species is an endangered or threatened species, 
we are required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be 
completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This document proposes a designation of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, an endangered species, 
in portions of 10 Florida counties.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, if we determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species we must, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and 
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he 
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 
determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the 
failure to designate such area will result in the extinction of the 
species.
    Economic analysis. We have prepared a draft analysis of the 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. We are 
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) with 
the publication of this proposed rule and are seeking public review and 
comment on the DEA as well as on the proposed rule.
    We are seeking peer review. We are seeking comments from 
independent specialists to ensure that our critical habitat proposal is 
based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We have invited these 
peer reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions 
in this proposed rule.

Uncommon Acronyms Used in this Proposed Rule

    For the convenience of the reader, listed below are some of the 
acronyms used in this proposed rule:

APAFR = Avon Park Air Force Range
BCNP = Big Cypress National Preserve
DoD = Department of Defense
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
ENP = Everglades National Park
FLUCCS = Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System
FNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory
FPNWR = Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
FSPSP = Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
IEM = incremental effects memorandum
INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan
PBFs = physical or biological features
PSSF = Picayune Strand State Forest
RCW = red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
UF = University of Florida
WMA = Wildlife Management Area

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate 
and as

[[Page 35511]]

effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information 
from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, 
industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. 
We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act including information 
to inform the following factors that the regulations identify as 
reasons why a designation of critical habitat may be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Florida bonneted bat habitat.
    (b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the Florida bonneted bat.
    (c) Where these features are currently found.
    (d) Whether any of these features within areas we are proposing as 
critical habitat may require special management considerations or 
protection, including managing for the potential effects of climate 
change.
    (e) What areas, that may be considered occupied at the time of 
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species, should be included in the 
designation.
    (f) Whether occupied areas may be inadequate for the conservation 
of the species, and if so, we particularly seek comments regarding:
    (i) What areas not occupied at the time of listing may be essential 
for the conservation of the species; and
    (ii) Specific information regarding whether such unoccupied areas 
will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the 
species and contain at least one physical or biological feature 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    (g) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species, 
i.e., south and central Florida, that should be included in the 
designation because they (1) are occupied at the time of listing and 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    (h) Whether we have determined the most appropriate size and 
configuration of our proposed critical habitat units.
    (i) Whether any delineated area within the proposed critical 
habitat appears to be a result of occupancy data associated with 
artificial structures, and any support for the area's inclusion or 
omission. (Our analyses were based on habitat requirements, natural 
roosts, and presence data, and due to the species' large foraging 
distance, it is unlikely that any areas were included solely due to the 
presence of an artificial structure; nonetheless, we seek comment on 
this.)
    (j) Whether artificial structures that provide roosting sites, 
particularly bat houses, and structures that may provide roost sites, 
such as bridges, may be essential for the conservation of the species 
and why.
    (k) Whether agricultural lands that may provide foraging habitat 
are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities (e.g., 
proposed development, wind energy projects, etc.) in the subject areas 
and their possible impacts on the Florida bonneted bat and proposed 
critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Florida bonneted bat and proposed critical 
habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding areas 
that may be impacted.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
    (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if 
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We particularly seek comments regarding 
lands that could be considered for exclusion based on a conservation 
program or plan, and why. These may include Federal, Tribal, State, 
County, local, or private lands with permitted conservation plans 
covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans, 
safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements, or non-permitted 
conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. Detailed 
information regarding these plans, agreements, easements, and 
partnerships is also requested, including:
    (a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement, 
easement, or partnership;
    (b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;
    (c) Who holds or manages the land;
    (d) What management activities are conducted;
    (e) What land uses are allowable; and
    (f) If management activities are beneficial to the Florida bonnet 
bat and its habitat.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this 
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), our final designation may not include all areas 
proposed, may include some additional areas, and may exclude some areas 
if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this 
proposal, as long as: (1) We base the decisions on the best scientific 
and commercial data available and take into consideration the relevant 
impacts; (2) we articulate a rational connection between the facts 
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our 
conclusion; and (3) we base removal of any areas on a determination 
either that the area does not meet the definition of ``critical 
habitat'' or that the benefits of excluding the area will outweigh the 
benefits of including it in the designation. You may submit your 
comments and materials concerning this

[[Page 35512]]

proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    All comments submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov will be presented on the website in their entirety 
as submitted. For comments submitted via hard copy, we will post your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on 
http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold personal information such as your street address, 
phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for the Florida bonneted bat prior to October 4, 
2012, are outlined in our proposed listing rule for the bat (77 FR 
60750), which was published on that date. On October 2, 2013, after 
consideration of available scientific information, and peer review and 
public comments on the proposed listing rule, we published a final rule 
listing the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species (78 FR 
61004).

Background

    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.
    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 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 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 and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, 
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the 
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, roost 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.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we may 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. On August 27, 2019, we published final revised regulations 
outlining the criteria for designating critical habitat (84 FR 45020). 
We stated that, when designating critical habitat, the Secretary will 
first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to 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,

[[Page 35513]]

our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources 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) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. 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, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation 
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    We find that none of the aforementioned factors above apply to the 
Florida bonneted bat. First, there is currently no imminent threat of 
take attributed to collection for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes (see Factor B, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)). However, humans often consider bats as ``nuisance'' 
species and seek their removal when they occur in or around human 
dwellings or infrastructure (see Factor D and Factor E, final listing 
rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). The Florida bonneted bat is at 
risk of take in the form of inadvertent or purposeful removal, 
displacement, and disturbance wherever it occurs in or near human 
dwellings or structures (see Factor D and Factor E, final listing rule 
(78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). Designation of critical habitat could 
result in an increased threat of taking of individuals in some areas, 
through publication of maps and a narrative description of specific 
habitat units in the Federal Register. However, this factor is not 
expected to appreciably increase the degree of threat to the species 
because it would presumably apply only to individuals under certain 
circumstances (e.g., where bats are roosting in or near human dwellings 
or structures and where humans are intolerant of bat presence) where 
risks from humans already exist. Therefore, identification and mapping 
of critical habitat are not expected to initiate new threats or 
significantly increase existing threats.
    Additionally, while some threats to the species' habitat may stem 
from sea level rise or other effects of climate change that may not be 
addressed through management actions under section 7(a)(2), the Florida 
bonneted bat was listed as an endangered species due largely to both 
historical and ongoing habitat loss and degradation associated with 
development and agricultural practices. Therefore, actions causing this 
habitat loss and degradation may include those that can be addressed 
through management actions resulting from consultations under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act (e.g., loss of roost sites and foraging habitat, 
development associated with human population growth and agriculture; 
see especially Factor A and Factor E, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)).
    Further, this species does not occur outside the United States, in 
fact its range is restricted to south and central Florida. Specific 
areas within this range meet the definition of critical habitat (see 
above), and the best scientific data available indicates a benefit of 
designating critical habitat.
    The potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in 
which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur 
because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy 
is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most 
essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to 
State or county governments or private entities; and (4) reducing the 
inadvertent harm to the species caused by people.
    Therefore, we find designation of critical habitat is prudent for 
the Florida bonneted bat.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat 
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    In our proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750, October 4, 2012), we 
found that critical habitat was not determinable because the biological 
needs of the species were not sufficiently well known to permit 
identification of areas as critical habitat. Our final listing rule (78 
FR 61004, October 2, 2013), summarized much of the new information and 
data that had been

[[Page 35514]]

obtained following publication of the proposed listing rule. We 
announced that we would continue to work closely with researchers, 
agencies, and other partners to seek new information about the species 
and its habitat needs to determine its critical habitat.
    Since that time, we have reviewed the available information 
pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat 
characteristics where the species is located. Substantial new 
scientific information has been obtained by researchers, agencies, 
conservation organizations, industry, and other partners. Where 
information gaps on the Florida bonneted bat remain, we rely on 
available information on other Eumops, other molossids (free-tailed 
bats), and other comparable bat species. To fulfill the requirements of 
the Act, we are now proposing the designation of critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features 
(PBFs) 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 might include gravel of a particular 
size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, 
protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire 
that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. 
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, 
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 
fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with 
conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In 
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the 
species, the Service 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; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.
    In general, important and basic components of bat conservation 
include: Protection of roosting habitat; protection of foraging 
habitat; and protection of the prey base (Humphrey 1975, pp. 321-346; 
Fenton 1997, entire; Pierson 1998, pp. 309-325; O'Donnell 2001, entire; 
Agosta 2002, pp. 188-193; Sparks et al. 2005, entire; Knight and Jones 
2009, entire; Hagen and Sabo 2011, p. 759). Both the amount and spatial 
distribution of roosting and foraging habitat likely influence the 
survival and reproduction of Florida bonneted bats. Successful 
dispersal is likely essential to maintaining genetic and demographic 
connections among populations across the range of the species.
    The ecology and long-term habitat requirements of the Florida 
bonneted bat are not fully understood (Robson 1989, p. 2; Robson et al. 
1989, p. 81; Belwood 1992, p. 219; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; 
Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240; 2018, p. 1121; Ober et al. 2016, 
p. 1; Bailey et al. 2017a, entire). Habitat for the bat mainly consists 
of foraging areas and roosting sites, including artificial structures. 
As of May 2019, researchers had found 19 natural roost sites in live 
trees and snags and determined that 6 roost trees had fallen or were 
too damaged for future use by bats, 3 were confirmed active, 3 were 
inactive, and 7 were unknown (Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2019a). Only 
very limited information on historical sites is available. Recent 
information on habitat has been obtained largely through: Acoustical 
surveys, designed to detect and record bat echolocation calls; limited 
tracking using radio-transmitters, GPS satellite tags, and other 
techniques; and other studies (e.g., guano (excrement) analysis) (see 
Life History and Habitat, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013)).
    The Florida bonneted bat uses forests and a variety of other 
natural and developed areas, within south, southwest, and south-central 
Florida (see Life History, Habitat, and table 1, final listing rule (78 
FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). They have been recorded in a wide array of 
habitat types, including: Pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, cypress, 
hardwood hammocks, mangroves, wetlands, rivers, lakes, ponds, canals, 
other natural areas, rural and agriculture lands, including groves, 
tropical gardens, crop-based agriculture; as well as residential and 
urban areas (Arwood, pers. comm., 2008a-b, 2012a, 2013a-c, 2014a-d; 
Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 13-14; 2008b, pp. 2-5; 2008c, pp. 1-28; 
2012, pp. 1-22; Smith 2010, entire; Snow, pers. comm., 2011a-b, 2012a-
g, 2013; in litt. 2012; Owen, pers. comm., 2012; Rau, pers. comm. 2012; 
Maehr 2013, entire; Maehr, pers. comm., 2013a-b; Relish, pers. comm., 
2013; Ridgley, pers. comm., 2013a-d; 2014a-c; Scofield, pers. comm., 
2013a-f; Smith, pers. comm., 2013; Ober 2015, p. 3; Braun de Torrez, 
pers. comm., 2015a; Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, entire; Bailey et al. 
2017a, entire). Florida bonneted bats at Big Cypress National Park 
(BCNP) are generally more active near places with permanent open water 
(Arwood, pers. comm., 2013c). At Florida Panther National Wildlife 
Refuge (FPNWR), the species uses forested areas, open water, and 
wetlands (Maehr 2013, entire).
    We used a series of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analyses 
to examine all available location data associated with Florida bonneted 
bat presences from 2003 through 2014 (i.e., confirmed recorded call 
data (taken through acoustical devices), audible call data (heard by 
experts), and occupied bat houses) and land use/land coverages to 
better understand habitat use as described in the PBF discussion below 
(see also Habitat Analyses under Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat, below). Examining land coverages within 1.6 km (1 mi) around 
all confirmed presences suggested that wetland forest (35 percent), 
open freshwater wetland (16 percent), and wet shrub (11 percent) were 
the predominant habitat types used. A similar analysis using presence 
data from natural areas only and examining land covers within this same 
distance suggested that wetland forest (40 percent), open freshwater 
wetland (18 percent), wet shrub (13 percent), upland forest (11 
percent), and upland shrub (5 percent) were the predominant habitat 
types used. Examination of habitat use

[[Page 35515]]

in separate geographical regions (i.e., west, southwest, southeast, and 
north-central Florida) reinforced the finding that forests are 
important habitat types, but suggested differences between geographic 
regions. For example, Florida bonneted bats may rely on wetland forests 
for roosting habitat in Collier County, but may rely on more upland 
forests for roosting in Charlotte County, where conditions are 
generally drier. Analysis of land covers within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the 
first known natural roost site (at Avon Park Air Force Range in Polk 
County) suggested that upland forest (61 percent) and upland shrub (30 
percent) were key land cover types for roosting.
    The analyses of land cover use described above were conducted 
shortly after the species' listing. New presence data, collected after 
these analyses through 2019, were found to be consistent with these 
earlier results.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    At the time of listing, core areas for the Florida bonneted bat 
were identified that included areas with consistent use by, or repeated 
detections of, the species and thereby assumed to possess 
characteristics fundamental to the species' ecology and be important 
for conservation and recovery (see detailed discussion under Core Areas 
in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). These areas, 
representing the most important sites for the bat known at the time, 
are located within Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade 
Counties. Polk and Okeechobee Counties were also identified in the 
final listing rule as being occupied, but were not considered core 
areas, primarily because we lacked adequate survey information at the 
time. We now consider Polk County to be a core area based on several 
roost sites discovered at APAFR after listing (see Cover or Shelter, 
below; Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; Webb, pers. comm. 2018b; 
Myers, pers. comm. 2018a). New survey and life history information 
further support the identification of these core areas as those that 
are important for conservation and recovery of the Florida bonneted 
bat. We also identified these areas as important to the species in its 
recovery outline (a precursor to a recovery plan) (Service 2019, p. 2). 
Conservation of bat habitat within these core areas is necessary to 
ensure the species maintains sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation. As such, we consider suitable habitat within these core 
areas (i.e., Polk, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade 
Counties) to be essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted 
bat.
    The Florida bonneted bat needs suitable roosting habitat (for 
shelter, to rear young, for protection from predators) with limited 
disturbance, suitable foraging habitat, sufficient prey base (to meet 
its daily and seasonal dietary requirements and energy demands), and 
opportunities to disperse, exchange information, find mates, and 
reproduce for population growth. While much has been learned since 
listing about the species' roosting preferences, foraging behavior, 
habitat affinities, dispersal capabilities, and home ranges, not all 
aspects of these are clearly understood. In the largest and most 
comprehensive acoustic study undertaken for this species, bonneted bats 
were detected in all land cover types investigated, including the four 
major categories of uplands, wetlands, agricultural, and developed 
lands (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire).
    In an analysis of land cover types within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the 
first four roosts discovered, we found high percentages of forested 
habitats around each of the four roost sites examined. As indicated 
above, land covers surrounding the roost site at APAFR in Polk County 
comprise 61 percent upland forest and 30 percent upland shrub. In 
Collier County, land cover types surrounding the roost at Fakahatchee 
Strand Preserve State Park (FSPSP) are 97 percent wetland forest and 2 
percent wetland shrub. Those surrounding the BCNP roost are 49 percent 
upland forest, 36 percent wetland forest, 11 percent wetland shrub, and 
4 percent freshwater wetlands. Similarly, land cover types surrounding 
the FPNWR roost comprise 48 percent upland forest, 47 percent wetland 
forest, 3 percent open freshwater wetlands, and 2 percent shrub. Using 
this information regarding land cover types associated with roost 
sites, we identified specific habitat types within these cover types 
that are essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
    In natural areas, wetland and upland forests, open freshwater 
wetlands, wetland and upland shrub, and open water appear to be key 
habitat types. Natural areas provide better overall habitat (e.g., 
adequate foraging habitat, less disturbance, more opportunities to 
disperse) than urban areas, and limited information suggests the 
species uses forested areas for roosting in natural habitats (see Cover 
or Shelter, below). In general, open freshwater and wetlands, and other 
open natural habitats provide prime foraging areas for bats, providing 
important sources of water, concentrations of prey, and conditions and 
structure for finding and capturing prey. Bonneted bats use a 
``hawking'' foraging method (i.e., pursue and catch prey in flight), 
and are capable of traveling at fast speeds due to their specialized 
wing morphology. Molossids generally incur high metabolic costs while 
hunting aerial insects and are less suited for maneuvering in more 
confined spaces due to their long and narrow wings; efficient foraging 
may be restricted to open spaces, shortly after sunset when numbers of 
high-flying insects are sufficiently high (Voigt and Holderied 2012, 
pp. 415, 423). Consequently, this species relies on speed and agility 
to catch target insects in the absence of background clutter, such as 
dense vegetation (Simmons et al. 1979, entire; Belwood 1992, p. 221; 
Best et al. 1997, p. 5; Voigt and Holderied 2012, entire). Foraging in 
open spaces, bonneted bats use echolocation to detect prey at 
relatively long range and high above the ground (Belwood 1992, p. 221; 
Best et al. 1997, p. 5; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5; Mora and Torres 
2008, p. 7). Due to the species' physiology, we have identified open 
areas of freshwater and natural habitats as a feature essential to the 
conservation of this bat.
    Limited data (i.e., from three bats, tracked for three nights each) 
indicated that bonneted bats generally stayed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of 
the bat houses on Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area (WMA) but had 
longer foraging bouts each evening, ranging from 2.4 to 11.3 km (1.5 to 
7 mi) (Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2015a; Ober 2015, p. 3). While at 
the time of listing, foraging and dispersal distances and home range 
sizes for the Florida bonneted bat had not been studied in great detail 
(Gillies, in litt. 2012; G. Marks, pers. comm. 2012; Ober, in litt. 
2012; Gore, pers. comm. 2013), additional studies have provided 
valuable insights (Ober 2016, entire; Webb, pers. comm. 2018a-b). The 
Florida bonneted bat flies considerable distances; individuals foraged 
far (39 km (24 mi) maximum) from capture sites and covered long 
distances in one night (91 km (56 mi) maximum) (Ober 2016, p. 3; Webb, 
pers. comm. 2018 2012;b). Given this, it seems likely that foraging 
areas may be located fairly long distances from roost sites (Ober, in 
litt. 2012). Further, the finding of only a few call sequences with 
substantial effort in close proximity to one known occupied active 
natural roost also suggests that bonneted bats may travel substantial 
distances from roosts and have very large home ranges. This finding 
aligns with relative

[[Page 35516]]

sizes of home ranges of comparable and related species (Vaughan 1959, 
p. 18; Marques et al. 2004, entire; Corbett et al. 2008, entire; Rhodes 
and Catterall 2008, entire; Bonaccorso 2010, p. 11; Koob 2012, p. 2; 
Noer et al. 2012, entire; Ober, pers. comm. 2013). Based upon these 
characteristics and data, bonneted bats are expected to routinely range 
long distances, up to 24 km (15 mi) or more on foraging bouts, similar 
to the Underwood's mastiff bat (E. underwoodi) in Arizona (Tibbitts et 
al. 2002, p. 11; Gore, pers. comm. 2013). Consequently, we consider 
divergent areas for foraging and roosting as essential to the 
conservation of this bat.
    Dispersal is important for bats for inbreeding avoidance, 
exploiting available resources, and maintaining a persisting population 
through changing landscapes. This aspect of their life history is 
particularly difficult to study, as the species is generally secretive, 
flies, and is nocturnal (Petit and Mayer 1999, p. 1717). Evidence of 
temporary emigration and disappearance of juveniles after 8 months 
suggests Florida bonneted bats disperse from natal roosts (Bailey et 
al. 2017b, p. 556). More research on the bat's specific needs during 
dispersal is needed; however, geographic distance and ecological 
barriers (i.e., habitat fragmentation) are generally known to limit 
population expansion and gene flow within and among populations, and 
can block species movement required to adjust to environmental and 
habitat changes due to the dynamic nature of ecological systems, as 
well as habitat loss and climate change (Hilty et al. 2006, pp. 108-
112). Consequently, we consider connectivity of suitable habitat 
necessary for natural and adaptive movements and thereby essential to 
the conservation of this 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, 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 sources and/or multiple 
sources of prey to support its high metabolism. Energy demands of the 
bonneted bat probably fluctuate seasonally (e.g., assumed higher 
demands during cold weather as it 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 2008c, p. 4; 2008d, p. 3). For example, in BCNP the 
vast majority of Florida bonneted bat calls were recorded in 2014 at 
one remote pond surrounded by wetland forest (Arwood, pers. comm. 
2014a-c). At Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF), all sites where the 
species has been detected were located near canals (Smith, pers. comm. 
2013). At FPNWR, the highest detection of Florida bonneted bat calls 
occurred in areas with the largest amount of open water (Maehr 2013, 
pp. 7-11; Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a-c). In the Miami area (Richmond pine

[[Page 35517]]

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, pers. comm. 2013a-d).
    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 better foraging habitat, structurally, than smaller, 
more confined areas.
    The Florida bonneted bat's physiological or behavioral responses to 
abiotic factors, such as climate and artificial lighting, have not been 
specifically studied. Needs and requirements may be similar to those 
for other insectivorous species in semitropical or temperate 
environments. Light levels (and other environmental factors) trigger, 
in part, both the activity of bats and insects. Of factors influencing 
times of emergence in temperate bats, the overwhelming conclusion has 
been that light is the most important factor (Kunz 1974, p. 707). 
Artificial lighting (i.e., ecological light pollution) can have 
demonstrable effects on behavioral and population ecology of organisms, 
including bats and insects (Longcore and Rich 2004, pp. 193-195; see 
Factor E, Ecological Light Pollution, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)). Therefore, we find that natural habitats that are 
largely devoid of artificial lighting are likely most conducive to 
bonneted bat conservation.
    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). Bailey et al. 
(2017a, p. 1589) detected bonneted bats at the northern portion of 
their study area (i.e., Polk and Osceola Counties) and suggested future 
surveys in additional counties to help determine the limit of the 
northern extent of the range. They found 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)) and suggested 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 APAFR and 
vicinity (Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; Webb, pers. comm., 2018b; 
Myers, pers. comm., 2018a). 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, pers. comm. 2010a-b; 2012a) 
(see also Factor E, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). 
Limited data at survey sites in south Florida indicated reduced bat 
activity under conditions of lower ambient temperatures (Arwood, pers. 
comm. 2014e). 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 Factor 
E, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). 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 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.

Cover or Shelter

    Bats spend over half their lives within their roost environments 
(Kunz 1982, p. 1). Roosting sites for bats generally include both day 
and night roosts, and sites for various uses (e.g., seasonal, 
maternity, nursery, bachelor roosts). Roosts provide sites for resting, 
digestion of food, social interaction, mating, rearing of young, as 
well as providing microclimate stability, protection from predators, 
and protection from sunlight and adverse weather (Kunz 1982, entire; 
Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130-135; Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4; Dechmann 
et al. 2010, pp. 1-7) (see also Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring, below). In addition, roosts 
function as areas where information is shared among colony members for 
many species of bats (e.g., the velvety free-tailed bat (Molossus 
molossus), see Dechmann et al. 2010, entire; Bohn, in litt. 2012).
    The availability of suitable roosts is an important limiting factor 
for most bat species (Humphrey 1975, pp. 341-343). Suitable natural 
roost sites in south Florida appear limited, and competition for 
available tree cavities among native and non-native wildlife may be 
greater now than historically (see Factor E, Competition for Tree 
Cavities, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013); also 
Belwood 1992, p. 220; Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012; Ludlow, in litt. 2012). 
Consequently, retaining suitable roost structures (trees and snags with 
cavities or loose bark) throughout the species' range is fundamental to 
this species' conservation (Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240). 
Specifically, more roost structures may be needed to support dispersing 
subadult males (Ober et al. 2016, p. 7).
    Bats in south Florida roost primarily in trees and human-made 
structures (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8). Bonneted bats are closely 
associated with forested areas because of their tree-roosting habits, 
and old, mature trees are considered essential roosting sites (Robson 
1989, p. 2; Belwood 1992, p. 220; Eger 1999, p. 132). However, specific 
information concerning roost sites was limited at the time of listing 
(see Use of Forests and Other Natural Areas, Habitat, and Life History, 
final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). One of the few 
historical roost sites used by a small colony of Florida

[[Page 35518]]

bonneted bats was a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) cavity that had 
been excavated by a red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) 
and later enlarged by a pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus); the 
cavity was 4.6 meters (m) (15.1 feet (ft)) above the ground (Belwood 
1981, p. 412).
    More recent information suggests that the Florida bonneted bat may 
prefer large pines (live and dead) with woodpecker activity for 
potential roosting, at least in some areas (Braun de Torrez, pers. 
comm. 2019b; Webb, pers. comm. 2017a). However, other large, tall trees 
with suitable structure (e.g., hollows, loose bark) may also be 
suitable. The species has also been reported to use leaf shafts of 
royal palm (Roystonea regia) (Belwood 1992, p. 219) and rocky crevices 
and outcrops on the ground (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 860; see 
Habitat, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). Similar 
roosting habitats (i.e., use of tree cavities, foliage of palms, 
crevices) have been reported for closely related species in other areas 
(Robson 1989, p. 2; Belwood 1992, pp. 219-220).
    Since the species was listed in 2013, a total of 19 natural roosts 
have been located, of which 12 were found in pines (Angell and Thompson 
2015, entire; Webb, pers. comm. 2017a; Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 
2019b). As of May 2019, of the 19 roosts found, 6 have fallen or are 
too damaged to house bats; however, we have used data collected from 
all known natural roosts to identify common essential features (e.g., 
tree height, tree size, cavity height, tree species) (Scofield, pers. 
comm. 2013g-i; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 185; Braun de Torrez, pers. 
comm. 2015b, 2016, 2019a-b; Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 239; 
Hershberger, pers. comm. 2017; Webb, pers. comm. 2017a; Aldredge, pers. 
comm. 2018; Miller, pers. comm. 2018; Pitcher, pers. comm. 2019). Based 
on these natural roosts, Florida bonneted bats appear to roost in trees 
greater than 10 m (33 ft) in height, greater than 20 cm (8 in) diameter 
at breast height, with cavities greater than 5 m (16 ft) high off the 
ground (Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2019c).
    The Florida bonneted bat also uses non-natural environments for 
roosting (see Use of Parks, Residential Areas, and other Urban Areas, 
final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)) and artificial 
structures, particularly bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8; Morse 
2008, entire; Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a-b; see Use of Artificial 
Structures (Bat Houses), final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013)). Many of the known active roosting sites for the species are bat 
houses (two at a private residence in Lee County; three to seven 
separate roosts at Babcock-Webb WMA in Charlotte County; seven at or 
near Zoo Miami in Miami-Dade County) (Myers, pers. comm. 2013a-b, 
2014a-d; 2015; Gore, pers. comm. 2017, 2018; Ridgley, pers. comm. 
2019).
    Bonneted bats have also been found roosting in abandoned and 
occupied human dwellings in Miami-Dade County (Bohn, pers. comm. 2014; 
Zambrano, pers. comm. 2015; Hosein and Salazar 2017, entire). In 2017, 
several roosts were found by tracking tagged bonneted bats; all of 
these were located in abandoned and occupied houses in urban Miami 
(Webb, pers. comm. 2017b-e). Another roost was found by tracking a 
bonneted bat back to a 50 60-ft high utility pole in Polk County (Webb, 
pers. comm. 2017a). Historically, bonneted bats had been documented to 
use buildings and barrel tile roofs (Jennings 1958, p. 102; Belwood 
1992, pp. 219-220). In Coral Gables, tracked bonneted bats were using 
utility poles, chimneys, pine trees, and royal palms, but were not 
found using barrel tile roosts in limited observations (Gore et al. 
2015, entire). Particularly in urban and suburban areas (see Use of 
Parks, Residential Areas, and other Urban Areas, final listing rule (78 
FR 61004, October 2, 2013)), the Florida bonneted bat may use bridges, 
buildings, rock crevices, and other structures resembling natural 
molossid roosts (Wilkins 1989, pp. 5-6; Milner et al. 1990, p. 3; Best 
et al. 1996, p. 5; Best et al. 1997, p. 4; Keeley and Tuttle 1999, pp. 
9, 28; Avila-Flores and Fenton 2005, entire; Marks and Marks, pers. 
comm. 2008; Gore et al. 2015).
    More research on the role of bat houses in the conservation of the 
species is needed (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
(FWC) 2013, pp. 11-12). The use of such structures by the Florida 
bonneted bat may be beneficial in some locations, especially where 
cavity trees are limiting. However, artificial structures may not be 
sufficient replacements for natural roosts (e.g., existing dead or 
hollow trees) due to site fidelity and specific roosting requirements 
(Ormsbee et al. 2007, p. 145). Artificial structures may be more likely 
to be disturbed, may be more prone to vandalism, and may or may not be 
maintained.
    The Florida bonneted bat is suspected to have high roost site 
fidelity. For example, one natural roost at APAFR remained active (with 
some periods of inactivity, once due to a nesting northern flicker 
taking over the cavity) for more than 5 years (Scofield, pers. comm. 
2013g-h; 2014a-b; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Myers, pers. comm. 
2018b, Aldredge, pers. comm. 2019a). Several bat houses at Babcock-Webb 
WMA have been occupied by bonneted bats since 2008 (Myers, pers. comm. 
2013a), and a roost in an abandoned house remained active for 20 years 
(likely with some periods of inactivity), even after an exclusion was 
conducted (Bohn, pers. comm. 2014; Hosein, pers. comm. 2016; Webb, 
pers. comm. 2017d; Gore et al. 2015, p. 183). The loss of a roost site 
may cause greater hardship to this species than the loss of a roost 
site for other, less site-faithful species (Ober, in litt. 2012).
    Roost sites are clearly vital resources for this species, and the 
protection of natural and artificial roost sites in natural areas is 
essential. Due to the dynamic nature of ecological processes (e.g., 
growth and regeneration of forests), forests of different age-classes 
are needed to ensure that the bat continues to have sufficient roost 
sites over time. In forested and other natural areas, old, large, 
mature trees (live or dead) with cavities, hollows, or loose bark 
provide important natural roosts. Known active roosts include several 
artificial structures (bat houses), but their capacity to perform all 
functions of natural roosts is unknown. Therefore, we find that the 
characteristics and features of natural roost sites are essential for 
Florida bonneted bat conservation.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    As with other aspects of Florida bonneted bat biology, precise site 
requirements and habitat conditions for successful reproduction and 
growth are not fully understood. Most natural behaviors related to 
breeding, reproduction, and carrying for young occur within the Florida 
bonneted bats' roosts. Optimal roosting habitat depends upon suitable 
structures (e.g., tree cavities and hollows) (see Cover or Shelter, 
above), but it is at least partly tied to other factors, such as 
position in the landscape (e.g., nearby foraging habitat, water 
sources) (see Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal 
Behavior, above). Access to sufficient foraging habitat is also 
critical for the rearing of young (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4; see 
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements, above).
    Sites supporting the Florida bonneted bats' breeding activities 
appear to be required year-round (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober 
et al. 2016, p. 8; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see Life History, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013); see Food,

[[Page 35519]]

Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological 
Requirements, above). Adults are reproductively active during all three 
capture sessions (August, December, and April), and non-volant (not 
capable of flying) pups were found in roosts from May through December 
(Ober et al. 2016, pp. 6, 8-9; Gore, pers. comm. 2017; Scofield, pers. 
comm. 2014b; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Myers, pers. comm. 
2018a; Ridgley, pers. comm. 2015). In the first work on providing 
demographic estimates for the Florida bonneted bat, Bailey et al. 
(2017b, entire) suggested that recruitment is occurring year-round.
    This species' long reproductive season makes non-volant bonneted 
bats more vulnerable to disturbance for a greater portion of each year, 
compared to other bat species (Ober et al. 2016, p. 8). For example, 
Florida bonneted bat pups were considered to be very likely present in 
bat houses during April 16-August 15, and quite possibly present from 
August 15 through December 31 in bat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA (Gore, 
pers. comm. 2017). Pups were not likely to be present from January 1 
through April 15 (Gore, pers. comm. 2017). Based upon these data, 
flightless young bonneted bats are vulnerable to disturbance for nearly 
9 months of the year in the Charlotte County area. This duration may be 
further extended in southern portions of the range or curtailed in 
northern portions of the range.
    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 Factor E, Inadvertent and 
Purposeful Impacts from Humans, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)). For many species, maternity roosts are commonly used 
as night roosts by lactating females and newly volant (capable of 
flying) young (see details in Kunz 1982, p. 39). Due to the apparent 
limitations in flight for pregnant and lactating females and newly 
volant young, retaining suitable night roosts and maternity roosts is 
especially important.
    In addition, in a new study examining social organization at bat 
houses at Babcock-Webb WMA, researchers found the species roosted in 
relatively small groups, with an average size of 10 individuals, in a 
harem structure (Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). The finding of a harem 
structure is particularly relevant from a conservation standpoint for 
several reasons, as it suggests: (1) The importance of males and 
maintenance of social groups; (2) that disturbance of the roost at any 
time can alter social dynamics and impact reproductive success; (3) 
that augmenting the number of available small roost sites may be 
necessary to bolster populations (since harem structure may mean small 
colony sizes, defensible by a dominant male); and (4) additional roost 
structures may be necessary for dispersing sub-adult males attempting 
to establish new harems (Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). Based on the 
information outlined above, we find that suitable roosting habitat is a 
year-round necessity for the breeding and rearing of offspring and 
required for the conservation of this species.

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Otherwise Representative of the 
Historical Geographical and Ecological Distributions of the Species

    The Florida bonneted bat occurs in habitats that are protected from 
human-generated disturbances. These include Federal, State, local, and 
private conservation lands and other private (non-conservation) lands 
that retain natural areas and implement conservation measures 
benefitting the species. Babcock-Webb WMA and APAFR are two examples of 
such areas, both supporting populations with known roosting and 
reproduction. These properties, each approximately 40,470 ha (100,000 
ac), represent relatively functional ecosystems, and buffer wildlife 
from human-related threats and threatening processes. The species does 
appear somewhat tolerant of some level of human disturbances, the 
extent to which is unknown. For example, APAFR is an active military 
base, where bonneted bats are exposed to disturbances such as periodic 
missions and training exercises, some within a mile of roosts 
(Aldredge, pers. comm. 2019b). Similarly, individuals occupying bat 
houses at Babcock-Webb WMA are exposed to, and apparently tolerant of, 
active land management and recreational activities (e.g., prescribed 
fire, hunting). The species also occurs in agricultural areas and in 
urban, suburban, and residential areas (see Use of Parks, Residential 
Areas, and Other Urban Areas, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 
2, 2013)). We conclude, however, that large patches of habitat, which 
are relatively free of human disturbances, are necessary for the 
stability of core populations, and therefore essential to the 
conservation of this species. Specifically, based on Florida bonneted 
bats' heavy use of Babcock-Webb WMA and APAFR, we consider areas of 
habitat 40,470 ha (100,000 ac) or greater as essential to the 
conservation of this species.
    More specifically, the Florida bonneted bat is dependent upon tall, 
mature trees and dynamic forest processes (e.g., growth, decay, 
regeneration, openings in the canopy, natural fire regimes, and other 
disturbances such as storms that contribute to roosting structures or 
make habitat accessible). Healthy forested areas with trees of various 
age classes and natural processes (i.e., allowing for trees to grow, 
mature, decay, and regenerate) help provide the necessary continual 
supply of potential roosting structure (e.g., day roosts, night roosts, 
maternity sites). Other natural habitats with open or semi-open canopy, 
canopy gaps, and edges help provide open space and relatively 
uncluttered conditions conducive to foraging, commuting, and general 
flight. Natural habitat types with diverse plant communities help 
provide a sufficient prey base and conditions for foraging, dispersal, 
and other life-history functions. Both natural disturbances (e.g., fire 
and storms) and land management actions (e.g., prescribed fire) help 
maintain overall habitat suitability and suitable conditions (e.g., 
structure). Braun de Torrez et al. (2018, entire) suggest that bats are 
attracted to increased availability of insect prey immediately 
following burns. Based upon their research, they suggest that 
prescribed fire can have short-term positive effects on bonneted bats 
and that restoring fire to fire-dependent forests may improve foraging 
habitat for the species (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018, entire). 
Therefore, we find that fire and other natural disturbance regimes 
maintain suitable habitat conditions and are essential to the 
conservation of this species.
    Retaining natural habitats will become more important in the future 
with the anticipated habitat losses from development, climate change, 
and coastal squeeze, which occurs when habitat is pressed between 
rising sea levels and coastal development that prevents landward 
movement (see Factor A, Land Use Changes and Human Population Growth, 
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, Alternative Future Landscape Models 
and Coastal Squeeze, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013)). The conditions of forests, wetlands, and other land covers are 
likely to be under increased development pressures and be affected by 
large-scale changes in climate in the future. Changing habitat 
conditions due to changes in climate and responses by humans may make 
the bonneted bat shift from its current range, possibly moving inland 
or north (Rebelo et al. 2010, entire; Sherwin et al. 2012, entire; S. 
Wolf and J. Lopez, in litt. 2012). One

[[Page 35520]]

model projects that the bonneted bat is likely to experience major 
range contraction both within Everglades National Park (ENP) and 
regionally by 2060 (Watling et al. 2014, p. 28). Similarly, work by 
Bailey et al. (2017a, entire) also suggests that predicted changes in 
land cover (i.e., urbanization of the majority of natural and 
agricultural lands in south, south-central, and southwest Florida) and 
climate will be threats to the species. We have attempted to account 
for these influences in our proposed designation of critical habitat by 
recognizing that habitat composition may change beyond the range of 
historical variation, and that climate changes may have unpredictable 
consequences for both peninsular Florida and bonneted bats. This 
proposed critical habitat designation recognizes that forest management 
and general land management practices that promote ecosystem health 
under changing climate conditions will be important for bonneted bat 
conservation.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derived the specific PBFs essential for the Florida bonneted bat 
from observations and available studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described above (see also Life History and 
Habitat, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). Where 
specific information was lacking or deficient, we relied on expert 
opinion and inferences based upon information from other Eumops, other 
molossids, or other comparable species (e.g., other fast-hawking 
insectivorous bats) as described above. Additional information can be 
found in 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) Representative forest types (all age classes) that support the 
Florida bonneted bat by providing roosting and foraging habitat within 
its core areas (i.e., Polk, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-
Dade Counties), including:
    (a) Pine flatwoods;
    (b) Scrubby pine flatwoods;
    (c) Pine rocklands;
    (d) Royal palm hammocks;
    (e) Mixed or hardwood hammocks;
    (f) Cypress;
    (g) Mixed or hardwood wetlands;
    (h) Mangroves (mature and pristine);
    (i) Cabbage palms; and
    (j) Sand pine scrub.
    (2) Habitat that provides 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 includes forest and other areas with tall or 
mature trees and other natural areas with suitable structures, which 
are generally characterized by:
    (a) Tall or mature live or dead trees, tree snags, and trees with 
cavities, hollows, crevices, or loose bark, including, but not limited 
to, trees greater than 10 m (33 ft) in height, greater than 20 cm (8 
in) diameter at breast height, with cavities greater than 5 m (16 ft) 
high off the ground;
    (b) High incidence of tall or mature live trees with various 
deformities (e.g., large cavities, hollows, broken tops, loose bark, 
and other evidence of decay);
    (c) Sufficient open space for Florida bonneted bats to fly; areas 
may include open or semi-open canopy, canopy gaps and edges, or above 
the canopy, which provide relatively uncluttered conditions; and/or
    (d) Rock crevices.
    (3) Habitat that provides 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 distances from roosting habitat. Foraging 
habitat consists of:
    (a) Sources for drinking water and prey, including open fresh water 
and permanent or seasonal freshwater wetlands, in natural or rural 
areas (non-urban areas);
    (b) Wetland and upland forests, open freshwater wetlands, and 
wetland and upland shrub (which provide a prey base and suitable 
foraging conditions (i.e., open habitat structure));
    (c) Natural or semi-natural habitat patches in urban or residential 
areas that contribute to prey base and provide suitable foraging 
conditions (i.e., open habitat structure); and/or
    (d) The presence and abundance of the bat's prey (i.e., large, 
flying insects), in sufficient quantity, availability, and diversity 
necessary for reproduction, development, growth, and survival.
    (4) A dynamic disturbance regime (natural or artificial) (e.g., 
fire, hurricanes) 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.
    (5) Large patches (more than 40,470 ha (100,000 ac)) of forest and 
associated natural or semi-natural habitat types that represent 
functional ecosystems with a reduced influence from humans (i.e., areas 
that shield the bat from human disturbance, artificial lighting, 
habitat loss and degradation).
    (6) Corridors, consisting of roosting and foraging habitat, that 
allow for population maintenance and expansion, dispersal, and 
connectivity among and between geographic areas for natural and 
adaptive movements, including those necessitated by climate change.
    (7) 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. The recovery of the Florida bonneted bat requires both 
habitat protection and management, where necessary, to provide 
sufficient high-quality habitat to allow for population growth and to 
provide a buffer against threats such as habitat loss, climate change, 
coastal squeeze, and other threats (see especially Factor A and Factor 
E, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). The Service has 
not drafted a recovery plan for the Florida bonneted bat, but any such 
plan will likely focus on maintaining and expanding suitable roosting, 
foraging, and dispersal habitat throughout the species' range and 
reducing threats. Meeting this goal will require special management 
considerations or protection of the PBFs including passive (e.g., 
allowing natural processes to occur without intervention) and active 
(e.g., taking actions to restore habitat conditions or address threats) 
management.
    The types of management or protections that may be required to 
achieve these goals and maintain the PBFs essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in occupied areas vary across the range of 
the species. In some areas of bat habitat, particularly in wetland 
forests, open freshwater wetlands, and areas of open water, efforts may 
need to focus primarily on protection of the essential features (e.g., 
habitat conservation, conserving trees

[[Page 35521]]

and snags, allowing natural processes to occur without intervention). 
However, other areas such as upland forests and degraded natural areas 
may need both protection and more proactive land management. For 
example, in coastal and fire-dependent regions of the species' range, 
habitat conditions may be more dynamic, and more active management may 
be required to reduce risks to the essential PBFs from wildfire, 
inadequate fire regimes, nonnative invasive plants, competition for 
tree cavities, pesticides, artificial lighting, inadvertent impacts 
from humans, hurricanes and storm surges, and sea-level rise.
    The PBFs essential to the conservation of this species may require 
special management considerations or protection to reduce the following 
threats:

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 Factor A, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013); 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). Of this, approximately 7.5 percent of the area 
in our proposed units (over 44,718 ha (110,500 ac)) are 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 Document 
Availability, Supporting Documents, above). 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 Factor E, Competition for Tree Cavities, 
final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). 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), final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)).
    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 (see Life History, and Factor E, Pesticides 
and Contaminants, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)).

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 Factor A, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013). 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. An estimated 16.4 percent (97,832 ha (241,748 ac)) 
of the occupied habitat area we propose for designation 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). 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 (see Factor A, Land Use Changes and 
Human Population Growth, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). 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, PBFs 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 
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 to respond with 
management or protection. Management actions or activities that could 
ameliorate the effects of sea-level rise on the Florida bonneted bat 
include providing protection of inland or higher elevation

[[Page 35522]]

suitable habitats that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected 
by sea-level rise, or habitat restoration or enhancement of these 
areas. Conserving areas in the northern portion of the range may be 
particularly important, as bats may respond to increases in 
temperatures and other changes in the environment, possibly becoming 
more heavily dependent upon these areas in the future.

Land Management Practices

    While land management practices are intended to mimic natural 
processes and benefit native species like the Florida bonneted bat by 
maintaining habitat quality, these activities can result in inadvertent 
negative impacts. For example, removal of old or live trees with 
cavities or hollows during activities associated with forest management 
(e.g., timber management including tree removal/thinning/pruning), fuel 
reduction, prescribed fire, non-native or invasive species treatment, 
habitat restoration, or trail maintenance may inadvertently remove 
roost sites, if such sites are not known (see Factor A, Land Management 
Practices, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). Also, 
while fire is a vital component in maintaining suitable habitat (Braun 
de Torrez et al. 2018, entire), cavity-roosting bats are generally 
susceptible to fire effects, and even a single, localized fire event 
could potentially impact individuals (Carter et al. 2000, p. 140). Loss 
of an active roost or removal during critical life-history stages 
(e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young) can have severe 
ramifications, considering the species' apparent small population size 
and low fecundity (see Factor E, Effects of Small Population Size, 
Isolation, and Other Factors, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 
2, 2013)). Risk from fire or other forest management practices may be 
minimized by conducting activities outside the bat's breeding season, 
though disturbance to roost sites at any time of the year may alter 
social dynamics and reproductive success (Blumstein 2010, pp. 665-666; 
Ober et al. 2016, p. 7).
    Conversely, forest management can help maintain important roosting 
and foraging habitat (see Use of Forests and Other Natural Areas, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)), and, in fact, a lack of 
forest management, including a lack of prescribed fire, can be 
detrimental to the species. Management practices that include retaining 
large-cavity trees and snags, wherever possible, may help reduce 
competition for tree cavities (see Factor E, Competition for Tree 
Cavities, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)), enhance 
roosting opportunities, and help promote survival and the potential for 
population expansion over the long term. Prescribed fire has been found 
to have short-term positive effects on Florida bonneted bats, and 
restoring fire to fire-dependent forests may improve foraging habitat 
for this species (e.g., alter vegetation and prey base; create openings 
and alter structure) or create snags (Carter et al. 2000, p. 139; 
Boyles and Aubrey 2006, entire; Lacki et al. 2009, entire; Armitage and 
Ober 2012, entire; FWC 2013, pp. 9-11; Ober and McCleery 2014, pp. 1-3; 
Braun de Torrez et al. 2018, entire).

Wind Energy

    Wind power is one of the fastest growing sectors of the energy 
industry (Horn et al. 2008, p. 123; Cryan and Barclay 2009, p. 1330), 
and the development of wind energy facilities in Florida may be of 
particular concern for the Florida bonneted bat as demand increases 
(see Proposed Wind Energy Facilities, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)). Wind turbines kill large number of bats across North 
America, through direct contact with blades or towers as well as due to 
barotrauma (which involves tissue damage to air-containing structures 
such as lungs, caused by rapid or excessive pressure changes that can 
result when wind turbine blades create zones of low pressure as air 
flows over them). Wind turbine facilities are being planned for sites 
east and west of Lake Okeechobee, and wind energy development companies 
have indicated that areas around Lake Okeechobee are the most suitable 
sites in Florida for wind development (Tucker, in litt. 2012). If 
successfully developed, additional sites could be proposed, increasing 
the risk of impacts from wind energy to the Florida bonneted bat 
(Tucker, in litt. 2012).
    While bat fatalities from wind energy facilities are well 
documented, potential impacts to the Florida bonneted bat are difficult 
to evaluate at this time, partly due to the uncertainty involving many 
factors (e.g., location of facilities, operations). Certain aspects of 
the species' status and life history may increase vulnerability to 
impacts from wind energy facilities. The species' small population and 
low fecundity make any additional potential sources of mortality cause 
for concern. The species' high and strong flight capabilities and fast-
hawking foraging behavior may increase risk. Conversely, as the species 
is non-migratory, potential impacts from wind energy facilities may not 
be as great in magnitude as perhaps other bat species that are 
migratory. Implementation of the Service's land-based wind energy 
guidelines may also help to avoid and minimize some impacts (Service 
2012, pp. 1-71).

Environmental Stochasticity

    Hurricanes, storm surges, and other catastrophic and stochastic 
events are of significant concern (see Factor E, Environmental 
Stochasticity and Aspects of the Species' Life History and Climate 
Change Implications, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013)). 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 and 
contaminants pose to the Florida bonneted bat (see Factor E, Pesticides 
and Contaminants, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). 
Although data are lacking, the species may be exposed to a variety of 
compounds through multiple routes of exposure. Areas with intensive 
pesticide activity

[[Page 35523]]

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 been examined; thus, the effects are not known (see 
Factor E, Ecological Light Pollution, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013)). The effects of artificial lighting on other bats and 
their prey have been partially studied. Artificial lighting may affect 
insect abundance or availability and prey base, thereby altering 
foraging conditions and community structure. Artificial lighting can 
also alter the normal movements and behaviors of bat species, 
negatively affecting the energy reserves of individuals (Longcore and 
Rich 2004, pp. 193-195). 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.

Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts From Humans

    Inadvertent or purposeful impacts by humans caused by intolerance 
or lack of awareness (e.g., removal of bats, landscaping activities, 
and bridge or infrastructure maintenance) can lead to mortality or 
destruction and disturbances to roosts during sensitive times 
(maternity season) (see Factor E, Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts 
From Humans, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). Single 
or repeated disturbances to roosts or disturbances at sensitive times 
may cause abandonment or other negative impacts. The Florida bonneted 
bat may be somewhat tolerant of human disturbances, in some 
environments, but the extent of that tolerance is unknown. Agencies, 
land managers, and landowners can help avoid impacts to roosting 
habitat by implementing some of the following proactive or mitigative 
measures: Raising awareness of the species' abilities to use artificial 
structures as roosts; conserving natural roosting sites, including 
forested habitat and areas with mature trees; minimizing disturbance of 
roosting sites during sensitive times of the year; using care during 
landscaping if vegetation provides suitable or potential roosts; 
implementing protective measures when conducting bridge maintenance and 
repair; using care when replacing or repairing utility poles; and 
employing other best management practices, whenever possible.
    Many species of bats use highway structures either as day or night 
roosts (Keeley and Tuttle 1999, p. 9). Although Eumops has not been 
documented to use bridges or culverts, the genus can potentially use 
such structures (Keeley and Tuttle 1999, p. 28; Marks and Marks, pers. 
comm. 2008). If the Florida bonneted bat is found to use these 
structures, agencies could explore opportunities for creating roosting 
habitat in new or existing highway structures, when projects are 
planned and as repairs on infrastructure are needed (Keeley and Tuttle 
1999, pp. 18-20). Roadways with structures passing through public 
conservation lands may be especially suitable for such habitat 
enhancement projects (Keeley and Tuttle 1999, p. 18). Retrofitting 
projects can help enhance habitat for bats, can be inexpensive, and can 
also benefit agriculture, as bats play important roles in arthropod 
suppression, helping to naturally control agricultural pests and reduce 
the need for pesticide use (Keely and Tuttle 1999, pp. 18-20; Jones et 
al. 2009, pp. 97-98; Kunz et al. 2011, entire). In addition to 
minimizing environmental damage from infrastructure projects, other 
mitigation may include providing alternative roosts on-site or 
artificial structures off-site (Keely and Tuttle 1999, p. 21).

Occupancy at the Time of Listing

    The geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing is defined at 50 CFR 424.02 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). To make 
reasonable determinations about occupancy, we used all data and 
information available on the Florida bonneted bat (see also Space for 
Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, above). The 
best available scientific data for Florida bonneted bat occurrences 
date from 2003, reflecting the beginning of recent survey efforts. The 
Florida bonneted bat appears to have a relatively long lifespan, 
assuming a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for bats of this size (Wilkinson 
and South 2002, entire). Thus, bats documented between 2003 and 2013 
may still be alive and using the general locations where originally 
located. Adult Florida bonneted bats appear to also have high site 
fidelity (Ober et al. 2016, pp. 4-7), and more recent data are 
consistent with those from previously surveyed areas. Accordingly, it 
is reasonable to conclude these areas were still inhabited by bonneted 
bats when the species was listed in 2013 (see also Occupied and 
Potential Occupied Areas, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013)). Therefore, we considered areas with documented presence of 
bonneted bats since 2003 (11 years prior to its listing) as occupied at 
the time of listing.
    For this same reason, we considered areas with documented presence 
of bonneted bats from October 2013 through 2019 as occupied at the time 
of listing. Again, 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 2019 would have been inhabited by bonneted bats 
when the species was listed in 2013. The confirmed presence data 
received after listing (through 2019) corresponded well with previous 
data and generally reinforced our understanding of occupied areas.
    We also conclude that areas surrounding point locations of 
confirmed presences at time of listing

[[Page 35524]]

were occupied by bonneted bats at that time (see also detailed 
discussion in Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal 
Behavior, above). Due to the species' morphological characteristics and 
flight capabilities, bonneted bats use areas within reasonable flight 
distances from the locations where they were recorded or otherwise 
documented. Data from satellite-tagged Florida bonneted bats (few bats 
inhabiting one site) indicated that individuals foraged as far as 39 
kilometers (km) (24 miles (mi)) from their capture sites (Ober 2016, p. 
3; Webb, pers. comm. 2018a-b). However, roost locations (the center 
point of bat activities) related to these data were unknown. Therefore, 
as a conservative estimate of foraging distance, we used a 19-km (12-
mi) radius from documented presences (i.e., assuming a normal 
distribution of activity 0 to 24 miles from the center point). Although 
flight distances appear to differ based upon sex and season (Webb, 
pers. comm. 2018b), and may vary based on habitat quality and available 
food resources, for the purposes of this effort, based on the best 
available science and to conservatively target areas most essential to 
the species' recovery, we considered areas within a 19-km (12-mi) 
distance or radius from confirmed presences to be occupied at the time 
of listing.
    We further acknowledge that areas for which we lack data may also 
have been occupied at the time of listing. Limited confirmed presence 
data (see proposed and final listing rules (77 FR 60750, October 4, 
2012; 78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013) are confounded by the difficulties 
in detection, due in part to the following factors: The species' 
general rarity; aspects of the species' ecology (e.g., flies high, 
travels long distances, is nocturnal); limitations in survey equipment 
(e.g., recording distance of acoustic devices), design (e.g., lack of 
randomization (selection of a random sample)), or effort (e.g., 
insufficient listening periods, recordings not taken from sunset to 
sunrise); and other limitations (e.g., large areas not surveyed due to 
lack of resources or access, surveys primarily conducted on public 
lands) (see also Acoustical Survey Efforts as Indicators of Rarity, 
proposed and final listing rules; Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations, final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)).
    Overall, (1) bonneted bats are rare on the landscape, meaning they 
are difficult to detect; (2) bonneted bats are elusive (e.g., they fly 
high and fast over large distances) and nocturnal by nature, again 
making them difficult to detect; and (3) repeated, intensive, and 
systematic surveys on lands within the species' range are generally 
lacking, meaning that a lack of detection does not necessarily indicate 
the species' absence (given the data available). Therefore, there is 
uncertainty as to whether or not other areas (i.e., those areas not 
surveyed and those areas that have been surveyed but lack confirmed 
presence data) were also occupied at the time the bonneted bat was 
listed. Large expanses of the bonneted bat's range have not been 
systematically surveyed or, if surveyed, they have not been surveyed 
rigorously enough to confirm absence (e.g., surveyed on a single or 
partial night, insufficient number of acoustic devices used, survey not 
repeated). We recognize that the available occurrence data, largely 
obtained through acoustical surveys, are limited in several regards 
(e.g., not randomized, conducted largely on public lands, employed 
insufficient listening periods, had different detection rates, used 
different devices and methods, large areas not surveyed). Due to the 
survey limitations and constraints, it should be noted that confirmed 
presences were more likely to be detected in preferred habitats, on 
public lands, and in accessible areas. Due to both the limited number 
of surveys undertaken and the overall lack of rigor (e.g., effort 
insufficient to fully document presence or suggest absence), it is 
reasonable to assume that other areas where suitable habitat exists 
within the geographic range may also have been occupied at the time of 
listing. However, for the purposes of this proposed designation, we 
relied on confirmed presence data including a radius of areas the bat 
uses around those points.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    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 that could be 
considered for designation as critical habitat.
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat units that we have 
determined, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, to be occupied at the time of listing (see Occupancy at 
the Time of Listing, above). Thus, the areas being proposed for 
designation contain one or more of the PBFs that are essential to 
support life-history processes of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection pursuant to section 
3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. As a highly social species, the Florida bonneted 
bat likely exhibits a metapopulation life-history model (a group of 
spatially separated populations that interact at some level), and 
although the species appears to exhibit strong roost site-fidelity, 
individuals within populations can and do move through suitable habitat 
to take advantage of changing conditions (e.g., availability of prey, 
roost sites) in a dynamic fashion through space and time (Ober et al. 
2016, entire). We included areas that are expected to help maintain 
suitable roosting habitat and that include certain forested features we 
believe provide for connectivity and dispersal between geographic areas 
and/or subpopulations (see Population Estimates and Status and Factor 
E, Effects of Small Population Size, Isolation, and Other Factors, 
final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). However, at any 
given moment, not all areas within each unit are being used by the 
species because, by definition, individuals within metapopulations move 
in space and time. Therefore, within the current range of the species, 
to the best of our knowledge, some portions of these units may or may 
not be actively used by individuals, colonies, or extant bat 
subpopulations or populations, but we consider these areas to be 
occupied at the scale of the geographic range of the species.
    For this proposed rule, we employed the following basic steps to 
delineate potential critical habitat (detailed methods follow below):
    (1) We compiled all available data from confirmed observations, 
acoustical recordings, and other records of the Florida bonneted bat 
(see Data Sources, below).
    (2) Using the best available science, including confirmed presence 
data from 2003 through 2014, and reasonable inferences regarding home 
range sizes and flight distances of other Eumops and other comparable 
species, we conducted habitat analyses to better understand Florida 
bonneted bat habitat use at multiple spatial scales (see Habitat 
Analyses, below).
    (3) Based on the results of our habitat analyses and using the best 
available scientific information, including confirmed presence data 
from 2003 to 2019, and foraging distance data, we evaluated occupied 
areas for suitability, identified areas containing the PBFs that

[[Page 35525]]

may require special management considerations or protection, and 
circumscribed boundaries of potential proposed occupied critical 
habitat units (see Mapping Critical Habitat Units, below).
    Specific criteria and methodology used to determine proposed 
critical habitat unit boundaries are discussed below.

Data Sources

    For our habitat analyses and unit delineations, we used confirmed 
presence data from 2003 through 2019 (see Occupancy at the Time of 
Listing, above). Only confirmed presences (i.e., not suspected bat 
calls) with specific location information were used. Only data for 
which we had a high degree of confidence and detailed location 
information were used. As such, we included data from the following 
sources:
    (a) Range-wide surveys conducted in 2006-2007, to determine the 
status of the Florida bonneted bat following the 2004 hurricane season, 
and follow-up surveys in 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 1-16 and 
appendices; 2008b, pp. 1-6);
    (b) Surveys conducted in 2008 along the Kissimmee River and Lake 
Wales Ridge, as part of bat conservation and land management efforts 
(Marks and Marks 2008c, pp. 1-28; 2008d, pp. 1-21; Morse 2008, p. 2);
    (c) Surveys conducted within BCNP in 2003 and 2007 (Snow, pers. 
comm. 2012f), and surveys conducted in BCNP in 2012-2014 (Arwood, pers. 
comm. 2012a-b, 2013a-c; 2014a-d);
    (d) Surveys conducted in 2011-2012 in ENP (Snow, pers. comm. 2012b-
e; in litt. 2012);
    (e) Surveys conducted in 2010-2012, to fill past gaps and better 
define the northern and southern extent of the species' range (Marks 
and Marks 2012, entire);
    (f) Surveys conducted at APAFR in 2013 (Scofield, pers. comm. 
2013a-f);
    (g) Surveys conducted at FPNWR in 2013 (Maehr 2013, entire; Maehr, 
pers. comm. 2013b);
    (h) Surveys conducted at Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, 
and Martinez Preserve in 2012 and 2013 (Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-d; 
2014a-c); and
    (i) Surveys conducted at PSSF, multiple years (Smith, pers. comm. 
2013).
    Additional details regarding the above surveys are described in the 
proposed and final listing rules (77 FR 60750; 78 FR 61004). All 
relevant new occurrence data received since the final rule was 
published (October 2, 2013) through May 2014 were also considered in 
the habitat analyses. The most significant of these was the discovery 
of an active natural roost site, within an enlarged cavity in a live 
longleaf pine at APAFR (Scofield, pers. comm. 2013g-i; 2014a-b; Angell 
and Thompson 2015, entire) (see specifics in Cover or Shelter, above).
    More recent occurrence data (collected June 2014 through 2019) 
confirmed earlier data and further informed our understanding of how 
bats use their landscape. For the reasons stated above (see Occupied at 
the Time of Listing), we conclude it is reasonable to assume that bats 
occupying specific areas in 2014 to 2019, occupied those areas at the 
time of listing in 2013. We incorporated these data into our 
determination of which areas may contain the PBFs. Together, this 
information guided our mapping of critical habitat units, and were used 
to verify areas of high-quality habitat we previously identified. These 
data included the following:
    (a) Range-wide surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015 to determine 
Florida bonneted bat distribution and habitat use (Bailey et al. 2017a, 
entire);
    (b) Ongoing telemetry studies to identify natural roost sites and 
foraging habits (Webb, pers. comm. 2017a-e; Braun de Torrez, pers. 
comm. 2019a-e);
    (c) Surveys conducted from 2014 to 2019 on private lands by private 
consultants (unpublished data, various sources); and
    (d) Surveys conducted from 2014 to 2019 within conservation and 
public lands (unpublished data, various sources; including, for 
example, APAFR, BCNP, FPNWR, FSPSP).
    For our habitat analyses and subsequent unit delineations, we used 
a variety of data sources that provide information regarding land 
cover/habitat type and condition, as described below. We obtained 
vegetation cover types and land uses from the Florida Land Use and 
Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) GIS database (FWC and Florida 
Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2015). FLUCCS categories were grouped to 
condense more than 100 different vegetation cover/land use classes into 
10 major land cover categories. These included: Wetland forest, wetland 
shrub, upland forest, upland shrub, open freshwater wetlands, saltwater 
wetlands, grasslands/open land, agricultural, urban, and water. We used 
0.8-km (0.5-mi) grid cells to examine land cover types within south and 
central peninsular Florida, encompassing the entirety of the species' 
known historical, current, and suspected range. Percentages of each of 
the 10 major land cover categories in each 0.8-km (0.5-mi) grid cell 
were calculated using the area tool in ArcGIS; these were then used for 
a series of habitat analyses.
    We used available RCW data layers (mainly active and inactive 
cavity trees), based upon suggestions from FWC and evidence indicating 
that Florida bonneted bats use enlarged woodpecker cavities for 
roosting (Angell and Thompson 2015, entire) (see Cover or Shelter, 
above). Although Florida bonneted bats likely use various structures 
for roosting, active and inactive RCW cavity trees were selected as an 
appropriate indicator to evaluate potential roosting habitat 
(especially in areas where bat surveys were lacking). RCW cavity trees 
are also a good surrogate for roosting habitat because the RCW is 
tracked due to its State and Federal status (i.e., agencies have 
current and reliable data on RCWs, but not necessarily other non-listed 
cavity nesters). Data included locations of RCW cavity trees from 
various sources. Where in-house data were outdated, more recent 
information was obtained through the assistance of FWC and other 
agencies. This included information from the following locations and 
sources:
     Babcock-Webb WMA--locations where Florida bonneted bats 
were recorded near RCW clusters (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013b);
     Corbett WMA--locations of active and inactive RCW trees 
(P. Miles, pers. comm. 2013);
     DuPuis Wildlife and Environmental Area--locations of 
active and inactive RCW trees (V. Sparling, pers. comm. 2014);
     Big Cypress WMA--locations of active and inactive RCW 
trees (R. Scott, pers. comm. 2014); and
     PSSF--locations of RCW cavity trees (e.g., active and 
inactive cavity trees, enlarged cavity entrance trees, dead standing 
cavity trees) (Sowell, pers. comm. 2013, 2014). For areas within BCNP 
and ENP, we also used areas searched for the ivory-billed woodpecker 
(Campephilus principalis) and other woodpeckers (i.e., areas that 
contained large-cavity trees) as part of Cornell University's study 
(Lammertink et al. 2010, entire).
    We used ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (collected 
December, 2010) and Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (1-m true 
color; collected 2004) of select areas to cross-check FLUCCS and ensure 
the presence of PBFs. We used the most recent county-supplied imagery 
datasets available at the time of the habitat analysis. To identify 
high-value areas (i.e., high-

[[Page 35526]]

quality habitat expected to have conservation value now or in the 
future), we used the FNAI Florida Conservation Lands dataset. In Miami-
Dade County, we also used the Institute for Regional Conservation's 
Natural Forest Community delineation, exclusive of ENP (IRC 2006). 
Lastly, we used the most recent available county parcels layers for 
regions intersecting critical habitat units to identify ownership.

Habitat Analyses

    We conducted a series of GIS analyses to better understand habitat 
use along different spatial scales (i.e., across the landscape, by 
geographic region, and by specific locations (e.g., natural roost 
site). To best represent those habitat conditions which provide the 
PBFs for Florida bonneted bats, we first identified four geographic 
regions to focus on in our habitat analysis based on confirmed presence 
data: (1) West (Charlotte/Lee Counties), (2) southwest (Collier/Monroe/
Lee/Hendry Counties), (3) southeast (Miami-Dade County), and (4) north-
central (Polk/Okeechobee and adjacent counties). These geographic 
regions may represent subpopulations or multiple subpopulations within 
a metapopulation (see Population Estimates and Status and Factor E, 
Effects of Small Population Size, Isolation, and Other Factors, final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)).
    Based on limited tracking data (Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2015a; 
Ober 2015, p. 3) indicating that, in some situations, bonneted bats may 
spend more time within 1.6-km (1-mi) of their roosts, we applied this 
distance as a radius around confirmed presences to analyze habitat 
types. Habitat within these circular areas around Florida bonneted bat 
presence locations was analyzed based on FLUCCS land cover types, which 
we grouped and applied to 0.8-km (0.5-mi) grid cells (see Data Sources, 
above).
    Using this approach, we identified the top five cover types in 
terms of area (i.e., highest percentage of total area) as being the 
most important cover types, based upon limited data and analyses. In 
natural landscapes, wetland forest, open freshwater wetland, wetland 
shrub, upland forest, and upland shrub comprised the top five land 
cover types when examining habitats within 1.6 km (1 mi) of confirmed 
presences. When analyzing habitat within the geographic regions, top 
habitat types were similar, although the most prevalent land cover type 
varied based on the geographic area. In the vicinity of the one active 
natural roost known at the time of our analysis, upland forest and 
upland shrub comprised approximately 90 percent of the surrounding 
habitat, while at another select location (Annette's Pond in BCNP), 
wetland forest represented over half of the habitat within 1.6 km (1 
mi).

Mapping Critical Habitat Units

    Using results from our habitat analyses, and available occurrence 
and movement data, we evaluated habitat suitability for the Florida 
bonneted bat. This species likely uses roosting sites that are located 
within reasonable distances from their confirmed presences (i.e., 
``central-place foraging''; Rainho and Palmeirim 2011). Similarly, 
given their social nature, bonneted bats are presumed to use habitats 
near where they have been detected to perform other activities; hence 
these habitats are considered important to fulfill essential life 
functions. It should be recognized that actual habitat used by Florida 
bonneted bats may be removed in time and space from point locations 
identified during one-time surveys. The underlying uncertainty 
associated with point encounters means that it is difficult, and 
possibly inaccurate, to use bounded home ranges from empirical data 
when site-specific information regarding habitat use at surveyed areas 
is lacking. Foraging, roosting, breeding, dispersal, emigration, and 
recolonization require movements through habitats across generations, 
which may venture well beyond estimated single-night or single-season 
home ranges or movement distances. To account for this, we considered 
the distribution of suitable habitat features in relation to confirmed 
presence locations and the ability of bats to move along good habitat 
corridors. It is evident that other Eumops and other molossids can, 
over the course of a night, move through several kilometers of habitat 
(if the intervening habitat or conditions are suitable) (Tibbitts et 
al. 2002, entire; Ober 2015, p. 3; Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2015a; 
Ober 2016, p. 3; Webb, pers. comm. 2018a-b). Habitat connectivity is 
particularly important for the Florida bonneted bat given its limited 
geographic range and need for dispersal and expansion as the species 
responds to numerous threats.
    Therefore, given observed flight distances from data available on 
comparable species at the time of our habitat analyses, we first 
evaluated natural habitats within 12 km (7.5 mi) of confirmed 
detections from 2003 through May 2014 to guide our identification of 
important occupied areas. This radius was selected as a conservative 
distance representing the midpoint of 24 km (15 mi), which we 
determined to be a reasonable estimate of foraging distance based on 
one-way distance data for related and comparable species available at 
the time of our habitat analyses (Tibbitts et al. 2002, p. 11; Gore, 
pers. comm. 2013). While more recent data indicate bonneted bats can 
fly much farther than this (Ober 2016, p. 3; Webb, pers. comm. 2018a-b; 
see also Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal 
Behavior and Occupancy at the Time of Listing, above), we chose to 
retain the 12-km (7.5-mi) radius as a more suitable analysis distance 
to focus conservation of high-quality foraging habitat nearer to 
roosts. Natural habitats within this radius of confirmed presences were 
evaluated unless some other habitat parameter (as outlined in the PBFs 
above) suggested low habitat utility or practical dispersal barriers 
(e.g., urban habitat, areas devoid of natural cover or insects). In 
some cases, high-quality habitats beyond the 12-km (7.5-mi) radius were 
included, if habitats were contiguous and adjoining (e.g., adjoining 
forest within BCNP) or a natural corridor.
    To identify areas containing the PBFs for Florida bonneted bats 
that may require special management considerations or protection, we 
applied the findings of our habitat analyses to evaluate occupied 
habitat using both FLUCCS and images from aerial photography in GIS. We 
determined that grid cells (see Data Sources, above) with at least 80 
percent of the top five cover types (see Habitat Analyses, above) 
qualified as suitable habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. This 
threshold was chosen after comparing with other values over 50 percent 
(i.e., values representing grid cells having a majority of habitat 
within the top five cover types). We found that despite a large amount 
of overlap between these values, using the relatively less inclusive 
80-percent threshold resulted in the best balance of identifying high-
quality habitat that have PBFs and excluding low-quality areas that do 
not, based on site-specific knowledge. Thus, concentrations of grid 
cells that contained at least 80 percent of the top five important 
cover types within each geographic region were generally retained as 
areas that may contain PBFs. We included areas of water within the 12-
km (7.5-mi) radius as well as aggregations of adjacent forested areas 
that were contiguous yet beyond 12 km (7.5 mi), if these areas 
contained significant upland or wetland forest (i.e., met 80-percent 
threshold, using applied 0.8-km (0.5-mi) grids). We also

[[Page 35527]]

considered RCW data and conservation lands, where applicable (see Data 
Sources, above). Using this approach, we identified aggregations of 
important high-quality, mixed habitat types in geographic regions. We 
subsequently evaluated these areas of high-quality habitat using 
additional occurrence data (June 2014 through 2019) and found a high 
degree of overlap between these data and areas previously identified in 
our analyses. Most notably, all newly discovered natural roosts (i.e., 
those located in 2015 through 2019) were found in high-quality forested 
habitats within our identified areas.
    Using the approaches described above, we delineated a total of five 
areas considered to be occupied at the time of listing (see Occupancy 
at the Time of Listing, above) as critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat. One of these areas consists primarily of lands within 
APAFR, an area with well-documented occurrence and roosting, as well as 
areas surrounding the Kissimmee River, which are likely important for 
connectivity but lack general survey information. Due to the latter, we 
revised the boundaries of this area to conform to the boundaries of 
APAFR. APAFR is covered by an approved integrated natural resources 
management plan (INRMP) that provides benefits to the Florida bonneted 
bat and its habitat and thus will be exempted from the proposed 
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Exemptions, 
below). The four remaining critical habitat units proposed for 
designation are described below (see Proposed Critical Habitat 
Designation, below).
    We are not proposing to designate any areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
because we did not find any unoccupied areas to be essential for the 
conservation of the species. We determined that a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species is 
adequate to ensure the conservation of the species. The occupied areas 
identified for designation provide for the conservation of the Florida 
bonneted bat because they provide ecological diversity (i.e., 
representation), and duplication and distribution of populations across 
the range of the species (i.e., redundancy), allowing the species to 
withstand catastrophic events. Additionally, the areas are sufficiently 
large to allow for populations with adequate resiliency. All areas 
proposed as critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied 
by the bat at the time of listing and contain the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including large areas of agriculture or developed 
areas such as lands devoid of native vegetation or covered by 
buildings, pavement, and other structures due to the general lack of 
PBFs 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 developed lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded 
by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as 
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as 
proposed, a Federal action involving these developed 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 PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the proposed 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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106, on our internet sites http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and at 
the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate four units of occupied habitat as 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. All four units are 
occupied (at the time of listing and currently, based on the most 
recent data available; see description of occupancy status, above). 
Portions of three of these units overlap with areas that have already 
been designated as critical habitat for six other federally listed 
species (table 1).
    Table 1 lists the approximate area of each critical habitat unit, 
land ownership, and co-occurring listed species and critical habitat 
within each proposed critical habitat unit. Area values were computer-
generated using GIS software, summed within each ownership category, 
and then rounded to the nearest whole number. Ownership was classified 
into one of six categories--Federal, Tribal (including lands held in 
trust by the Federal Government), State, county, local, or private/
other (including nonprofit organizations)--by reviewing the most recent 
parcel ownership data provided by each county. Where ownership is 
classified as ``Unidentified,'' it means that ownership of that area 
could not be determined for one or more of the following reasons: (1) 
Records within parcel data missing ownership data or marked as no data, 
abandoned, no value, or reference only (may include roads of 
unidentified ownership), and (2) areas missing from parcel data for 
which ownership could not be determined and accurately calculated 
(e.g., some roads, rights-of-way, and surface waters).
    The four areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) Unit 1: Peace River and surrounding areas (Charlotte, DeSoto, 
Hardee, and Sarasota Counties);
    (2) Unit 2: Babcock-Webb WMA, Babcock Ranch, and surrounding areas 
(Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties);
    (3) Unit 3: Big Cypress and surrounding areas (Collier, Monroe, and 
Hendry Counties); and
    (4) Unit 4: Miami-Dade natural areas (Miami-Dade County).

[[Page 35528]]



  Table 1--Florida Bonneted Bat Proposed Critical Habitat Units, Including Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) by Land
       Ownership Type, and Co-Occurring Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Found in Each Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Co-occurring listed
                                                                                           species or existing
                                                                                          critical habitat (ha
               Unit                          Ownership               Area (ha (ac))     (ac)) for listed species
                                                                                           (E = endangered; T =
                                                                                               threatened)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--Peace River and            State........................        4,537 (11,212)  Audubon's crested
 surrounding areas.                County.......................             119 (295)   caracara (T); wood
                                   Local........................               13 (32)   stork (T); Britton's
                                   Private and Other............       14,087 (34,810)   beargrass (E); Lewton's
                                   Unidentified.................           793 (1,960)   polygala (E); pygmy
                                                                                         fringe-tree (E);
                                                                                         Florida panther (E);
                                                                                         eastern indigo snake
                                                                                         (T); West Indian
                                                                                         manatee (T, CH = 507 ha
                                                                                         [1,254 ac]).
                                                                 ----------------------
    Total........................  .............................       19,550 (48,310)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Babcock-Webb WMA, Babcock  Federal......................                 1 (3)  Florida panther (E);
 Ranch, and surrounding areas.     State........................      61,128 (151,050)   Audubon's crested
                                   County.......................         3,724 (9,203)   caracara (T); Florida
                                   Local........................                8 (21)   scrub-jay (T); red-
                                   Private and Other                   32,001 (79,077)   cockaded woodpecker
                                    Unidentified.                          642 (1,587)   (E); wood stork (T);
                                                                                         beautiful pawpaw (E);
                                                                                         eastern indigo snake
                                                                                         (T); West Indian
                                                                                         manatee (T).
    Total........................  .............................      97,505 (240,941)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--Big Cypress and            Federal......................     250,733 (619,573)  Audubon's crested
 surrounding areas.                Tribal.......................       10,527 (26,012)   caracara (T); Cape
                                   State........................      61,869 (152,882)   Sable seaside sparrow
                                   County.......................         3,384 (8,362)   (E); red-cockaded
                                   Local........................             173 (427)   woodpecker (E); wood
                                   Private and Other                   38,227 (94,460)   stork (T); Florida
                                    Unidentified.                        1,920 (4,745)   panther (E); eastern
                                                                                         indigo snake (T); West
                                                                                         Indian manatee (T, CH =
                                                                                         3,868 ha [9,557 ac]).
    Total........................  .............................     366,833 (906,462)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4--Miami-Dade natural areas.  Federal......................      71,385 (176,395)  West Indian manatee (T);
                                   Tribal.......................             326 (805)   Florida panther (E);
                                   State........................       26,159 (64,639)   Cape Sable seaside
                                   County.......................        4,210 (10,404)   sparrow (E, CH = 21,491
                                   Local........................             114 (281)   ha [53,104 ac]);
                                   Private and Other............       11,496 (28,408)   Everglade snail kite
                                   Unidentified.................           683 (1,688)   (E, CH = 2,000 ha
                                                                                         [4,941 ac]); wood stork
                                                                                         (T); eastern indigo
                                                                                         snake (T); Bartram's
                                                                                         scrub-hairstreak (E, CH
                                                                                         = 3,235 ha [7,994 ac]);
                                                                                         Garber's spurge [T];
                                                                                         American crocodile (T,
                                                                                         CH = 17,242 ha [42,606
                                                                                         ac]); Florida leafwing
                                                                                         (E, CH = 3,235 ha
                                                                                         [7,994 ac]); sand flax
                                                                                         (E); Blodgett's
                                                                                         silverbush (T); Miami
                                                                                         tiger beetle (E);
                                                                                         Florida bristle fern
                                                                                         (E).
                                                                 ----------------------
    Total........................  .............................     114,372 (282,620)
                                                                 ----------------------
        Total....................  .............................   598,261 (1,478,333)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: WMA = Wildlife Management Area.

    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: Peace River and Surrounding Areas (Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, 
and Sarasota Counties, Florida)
    Unit 1 consists of 19,550 ha (48,310 ac) of lands in Charlotte, 
DeSoto, Hardee, and Sarasota Counties, Florida. This unit is located 
along the Peace River and its tributaries (e.g., Charlie Creek), south 
of CR-64 with the majority generally west of US-17. Unit 1 consists of 
approximately 4,537 ha (11,212 ac) of State-owned land, 119 ha (295 ac) 
of County-owned land, 13 ha (32 ac) of locally owned land, 14,087 ha 
(34,810 ac) of private and other lands, and 793 ha (1,960 ac) of land 
of unidentified ownership (table 1). The largest landholding within 
this unit is the RV Griffin Reserve. Other smaller conservation lands 
also occur within this unit (see Conservation Lands, Supporting 
Documents). We consider this unit as occupied at the time of listing 
based on documented presence of bonneted bats within the unit (see 
Occupancy at the Time of Listing, above).
    Unit 1 contains five of the seven PBFs for the bonneted bat (i.e., 
PBFs 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7). While this unit contains representative forest 
types that support the species by providing roosting and foraging 
habitat, it consists of area primarily outside of the bat's core areas 
(i.e., does not possess all features described in PBF 1). Because of 
its relative small size, this unit also does not possess all features 
described in PBF 5. However, Unit 1 encompasses a known movement 
corridor (generally connecting individuals between Unit 2 and APAFR) 
and adds ecological diversity (a natural river corridor) to the overall 
proposed designated areas. In addition, the Peace River and adjacent 
forested lands maintain high habitat suitability, providing open water 
and likely abundant prey.
    The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 
in Unit 1 may require special management considerations or protection 
due to the following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation 
resulting from development and land conversion; impacts from land 
management practices (e.g., timber management and fuels reduction, 
prescribed fire, management of nonnative and invasive species, habitat 
restoration) or lack of suitable habitat management; wind energy; and 
pesticide use.

[[Page 35529]]

Unit 2: Babcock-Webb WMA, Babcock Ranch, and Surrounding Areas 
(Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida)
    Unit 2 consists of 97,505 ha (240,941 ac) of lands in Charlotte, 
Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 2 is located in 
Charlotte County, east of I-75; other portions are in northern Lee and 
western Glades Counties. This unit consists of approximately 1 ha (3 
ac) of Federal land, 61,128 ha (151,050 ac) of State-owned land, 3,724 
ha (9,203 ac) of County-owned land, 8 ha (21 ac) of locally owned land, 
32,001 ha (79,077 ac) of private and other lands, and 642 ha (1,587 ac) 
of land of unidentified ownership (table 1). The largest land holdings 
within this unit are Babcock-Webb WMA and Babcock Ranch Preserve; other 
smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (see 
Conservation Lands, Supporting Documents).
    Unit 2 represents the westernmost portion of the species' core 
areas. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently 
occupied, and contains all of the PBFs for the bonneted bat. Babcock-
Webb WMA and surrounding areas support the largest abundance known 
(approximately 79 bonneted bats), and the bulk of all known roost sites 
(Myers, pers. comm. 2015; Gore, pers. comm. 2016; Ober, pers. comm. 
2014; Braun de Torrez, pers. comm. 2016).
    The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 
in Unit 2 may require special management considerations or protection 
due to the following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation 
resulting from development (including oil and gas exploration) and land 
conversion; impacts from land management practices (e.g., timber 
management and fuels reduction, prescribed fire, management of 
nonnative and invasive species, habitat restoration) or lack of 
suitable habitat management; impacts from coastal squeeze; and 
pesticide use.
Unit 3: Big Cypress and Surrounding Areas (Collier, Monroe, and Hendry 
Counties, Florida)
    Unit 3 consists of 366,833 ha (906,462 ac) of lands in Collier, 
Monroe, and Hendry Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 3 is located 
in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder occurs in southern 
Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe County. This unit 
consists of approximately 250,733 ha (619,573 ac) of Federal land, 
10,527 ha (26,012 ac) of Tribal land, 61,869 ha (152,882 ac) of State-
owned land, 3,384 ha (8,362 ac) of County-owned land, 173 ha (427 ac) 
of locally owned land, 38,227 ha (94,460 ac) of private and other 
lands, and 1,920 ha (4,745 ac) of land of unidentified ownership (table 
1). The largest land holdings within Unit 3 are BCNP, PSSF, FSPSP, ENP, 
and FPNWR. Other smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit 
(see Conservation Lands, Supporting Documents). This unit was occupied 
at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and contains all of the 
PBFs for the bonneted bat.
    Unit 3 represents the southwestern portion of the species' core 
areas. The species has been documented to use many locations throughout 
the unit (specifically, within BCNP, PSSF, FSPSP, and FPNWR) (see table 
1 of the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013)). The 
discoveries of three natural roosts in 2015 and 2016 further 
demonstrate the relevance and importance of Unit 3.
    The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 
in Unit 3 may require special management considerations or protection 
due to the following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation 
resulting from development (including oil and gas exploration) and land 
conversion; impacts from land management practices (e.g., timber 
management and fuels reduction, prescribed fire, management of 
nonnative and invasive species, habitat restoration) or lack of 
suitable habitat management; impacts from climate change and coastal 
squeeze; and pesticide use.
    Approximately 10,527 ha (26,012 ac) of Tribal lands occur within 
Unit 3, including lands within the Seminole Big Cypress Reservation and 
the Miccosukee Sherrod Ranch. All or some of these lands may be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts 
under the Exclusions section of this rule).
Unit 4: Miami-Dade Natural Areas (Miami-Dade County, Florida)
    Unit 4 consists of 114,372 ha (282,620 ac) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Unit 4 consists mostly of conservation lands west of 
the Florida Turnpike. This unit consists of approximately 71,385 ha 
(176,395 ac) of Federal land, 326 ha (805 ac) of Tribal land, 26,159 ha 
(64,639 ac) of State-owned land, 4,210 ha (10,404 ac) of County-owned 
land, 114 ha (281 ac) of locally owned land, 11,496 ha (28,408 ac) of 
private and other lands, and 683 ha (1,688 ac) of land of unidentified 
ownership (table 1). The largest land holding within this unit is ENP; 
other smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (see 
Conservation Lands, Supporting Documents). This unit was occupied at 
the time of listing, is currently occupied, and contains all of the 
PBFs for the bonneted bat.
    Unit 4 represents the eastern portion of the species' core areas 
and includes the bulk of the remaining high-quality natural habitat in 
the species' former strongholds on the east coast (Belwood 1992, pp. 
216-217, 219; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 
2008, p. 1; Solari 2016, pp. 1-2; see Historical Distribution, proposed 
listing rule (77 FR 60750, October 4, 2012)). This area may be the last 
remaining predominantly natural occupied habitat on the east coast of 
Florida.
    The PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 
in Unit 4 may require special management considerations or protection 
due to the following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation 
resulting from development and land conversion; impacts from land 
management practices (e.g., timber management and fuels reduction, 
prescribed fire, management of nonnative and invasive species, habitat 
restoration) or lack of suitable habitat management; impacts from 
climate change and coastal squeeze; and pesticide use.
    Approximately 326 ha (805 ac) of Tribal lands occur within Unit 4, 
including lands that are part of the Miccosukee Resort and Gaming 
Center. All or some of these lands may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts under the Exclusions section 
of this rule).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.

[[Page 35530]]

    We published a final regulation with a revised 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 
or authorized, 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 formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. Consultation should generally be reinitiated where 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, we 
have listed a new species or designated critical habitat that may be 
affected by the Federal action, the action has been modified in a 
manner that affects the species or critical habitat in a way not 
considered in the previous consultation, the amount of take has 
exceeded what was included in the incidental take statement, or new 
information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or their critical habitat in ways that were not considered. In 
such situations, Federal agencies may need to request reinitiation of 
consultation with us; however, the regulations provide an exception to 
the requirement to reinitiate consultation where a new species has been 
listed or critical habitat designated for certain land management 
plans. Please refer to the regulations for a description of that 
exception.

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 PBFs essential to the 
conservation of a listed species and other specific areas that are 
essential to 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 designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) 
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that 
may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter roosting, foraging, or 
dispersal habitat. Such activities may include, but are not limited to: 
Residential, commercial, or recreational development including 
associated infrastructure; clearcutting, deforestation or habitat 
conversion for large-scale or intensive agriculture, mining (e.g., oil/
gas exploration), industry (e.g., wind energy), or other development; 
water diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or conversion. These 
activities could destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting and foraging 
sites (necessary for shelter and reproduction); reduce habitat 
conditions below what is necessary for survival and growth; and/or 
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for successful reproduction, 
growth, dispersal, and expansion (see Physical or Biological Features, 
above).
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or 
composition. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: 
Removal of forest or other areas with large or mature trees and other 
natural areas with suitable structures (i.e., tall or mature live or 
dead trees, tree snags, and trees with cavities, hollows, or crevices); 
suppression of natural fires; prescribed fire conducted in a manner 
that does not insure protection of large trees and/or snags; timber 
management or fuel reduction (e.g., thinning); control of invasive 
nonnative vegetation; habitat conversions or restorations; creation or 
maintenance of trails or firebreaks; or clearing native vegetation for 
construction of residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, or 
recreational development and associated infrastructure. These 
activities could destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting sites; reduce 
foraging habitat and prey base; reduce habitat conditions below what is 
necessary for survival and growth; and/or eliminate or reduce the 
habitat necessary for successful reproduction, growth, dispersal, and 
expansion (see Physical or Biological Features, above).
    (3) Actions that would significantly reduce suitability of habitat, 
alter behavior or movement of the Florida bonneted bat, or impact prey 
base (e.g., availability, abundance, density, diversity). In addition 
to altering habitat, vegetation, or structure (given above), this 
includes, but is not limited to: Widespread application of pesticides; 
exposure to contaminants (e.g., direct or through drinking water or

[[Page 35531]]

food chain); excessive alteration of natural lighting (that disrupts 
movements or foraging conditions or impacts prey); introduction of 
biocontrol agents; creation and operation of wind energy facilities; 
non-natural changes in hydrology; or other disturbances (e.g., 
excessive noise, excessive temperature) that impact prey or alter 
behavior, movement, or ability to echolocate. These activities could 
alter conditions beyond the species' tolerance, adversely affect 
individuals and their life cycles, reduce habitat suitability, or 
impact prey base, thereby affecting conditions necessary for survival, 
reproduction, growth, dispersal, and expansion (see Physical or 
Biological Features, above).
    (4) Actions that would result in an increased competition for 
suitable roost sites or increased risk of predation. Possible actions 
could include, but are not limited to: Removal of suitable roosting 
structures (e.g., mature trees or snags); management actions that 
discourage the retention of suitable roosting structures either now or 
in the future; lack of management with regard to the release of 
nonnative or introduced species (e.g., nonnative snakes). These 
activities can increase competition for tree cavities or other limited 
roosting habitat, introduce disease or pathogens, or increase 
predation, thereby affecting conditions for survival, growth, and 
reproduction (see Physical or Biological Features, above).

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an INRMP by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates 
implementation of the military mission of the installation with 
stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP 
includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned 
or controlled by the Department of Defense (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 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat to 
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following area owned by DoD is 
covered by an INRMP within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR)
    The APAFR, located in Polk County, has a current and completed 
INRMP, signed by FWC and the Service in September 2017. The INRMP 
provides conservation measures for the species and management of 
important upland and wetland habitats on the base (U.S. Air Force 2017, 
pp. 9-10, 55-56, 74, 77, 90-91, 95, 97).
    APAFR's INRMP benefits the Florida bonneted bat through ongoing 
ecosystem management, and specifically active management of RCW 
habitat, which should provide habitat for the species (U.S. Air Force 
2017, pp. 9-10, 55). Some major goals identified in the plan that 
should benefit the bonneted bat include: (1) Maintaining and restoring 
ecosystem composition, structure, and function with a special emphasis 
on rare and endemic communities (e.g., pine flatwoods); (2) using 
ecological processes such as fire as the primary tool for restoring 
ecosystems; (3) managing or restoring hydrological function of 
floodplains, groundwater, lakes, riparian areas, springs, swamps, 
streams, and wetlands to protect and ensure their quality and 
ecological functions; (4) conserving, protecting, and recovering 
endangered and threatened species; and (5) identifying the presence of 
exotic and invasive species and implementing programs to control or 
eradicate those species from the installation (U.S. Air Force 2017, pp. 
9-10).
    In addition, AFAPR's INRMP includes the following specific projects 
to benefit the bonneted bat: (1) Annual acoustic surveys to determine 
presence of Florida bonneted bats, implemented on a 3-year rotation 
(covering one-third of the approximately 24,281 ha (60,000 ac) of 
available suitable habitat annually); (2) as-needed intensive acoustic 
and roost search surveys in areas identified during annual acoustic 
monitoring; (3) daily acoustic monitoring of all known roosts to 
provide long-term presence/absence and roosting activity measures; (4) 
retention of snags within known bonneted bat roosting habitat (except 
within firebreaks); and (5) invasive plant treatments, supplemented 
through the FWC Upland Invasive Species contracts and FWC Herbicide 
Bank (U.S. Air Force 2017, pp. 91, 95, and 97). The APAFR's INRMP also 
includes a commitment to investigate the feasibility of monitoring 
bonneted bat movement patterns using radio telemetry (U.S. Air Force 
2017, p. 91). As part of this effort, the Air Force has worked with UF 
and FWC to capture and radio track bats to find a total of five natural 
roosts as of July 2019 (R. Aldredge, pers. comm. 2019c). The bonneted 
bat will also benefit from APAFR's INRMP measures guiding fire 
management, including wildfire suppression and adaptive/proactive 
prescribed fire to meet species-specific conservation measures and 
habitat goals (U.S. Air Force 2017, pp. 90, 95).
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the APAFR's INRMP and that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the Florida bonneted 
bat and the features essential to the species occurring on the base. 
Therefore, lands within APAFR are exempt from critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including 
approximately 43,740 ha (108,082 ac) of habitat in this proposed 
critical habitat designation because of this exemption.

Exclusions

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

[[Page 35532]]

taking into consideration the economic impact, national security 
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical 
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless he 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 that determination, 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.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of 
the Florida bonneted bat, the benefits of critical habitat include 
public awareness of the presence of the bat and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for the bat due to protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat. 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. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist 
primarily on Federal lands or for projects funded by, undertaken by, or 
authorized by Federal agencies.
    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.
    We are considering whether to exclude the following areas under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation 
for the Florida bonneted bat: (1) In Unit 3, approximately 10,527 ha 
(26,012 ac) of Tribal lands, including lands within the Seminole Big 
Cypress Reservation and the Miccosukee Sherrod Ranch; and (2) in Unit 
4, approximately 326 ha (805 ac) of Tribal lands, including lands that 
are part of the Miccosukee Resort and Gaming Center.
    However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or 
exclusion of such areas or any other areas that may justify exclusion. 
In the paragraphs below, we provide a description of our consideration 
of these lands for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The 
final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the 
best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, 
including information obtained during the comment period and 
information about the economic impact of designation.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and 
related factors.
    Potential land use sectors that may be affected by the proposed 
critical habitat designation include agriculture; conservation/
restoration; residential, commercial, industrial or recreational 
development and associated infrastructure; dredging; fire management; 
forest management including silviculture/timber; grazing; recreation; 
transportation; Tribal lands; utilities; energy supply, distribution, 
and use; and water diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or conversion. 
There is a Federal nexus associated with each of these economic 
activities when they occur on Federal lands. However, some activities 
on State, County, private, or other lands may not have a Federal nexus 
and, therefore, may not be subject to section 7 consultations. These 
may include agriculture (including use of pesticides); development and 
utilities (including alteration of natural lighting); fire and forest 
management; grazing; recreation; and loss, diversion, or conversion of 
wetlands not regulated by the Clean Water Act. Exceptions may include: 
(1) Lands slated for large-scale private development, which may require 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits from the 
Environmental Protection Agency or section 404 permits from the Army 
Corps of Engineers; (2) road-related improvements that involve U.S. 
Department of Transportation funding; or (3) other land-disturbing 
actions that require section 404 permits.
    To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must 
first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may 
occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the 
impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on 
restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the 
benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We 
then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the 
species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to 
the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The 
probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is 
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and 
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing 
regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, 
or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of 
critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other 
Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the 
species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its 
habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). 
The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental 
impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical 
habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and 
associated impacts would not be expected without the designation

[[Page 35533]]

of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental 
costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical 
habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we 
use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 
particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should 
we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this designation, we developed an incremental effects 
memorandum (IEM; Service 2020) considering the probable incremental 
economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of 
critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to 
develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation 
of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (Industrial Economics, 
Incorporated (IEc) 2020). We began by conducting a screening analysis 
of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our 
analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental 
economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter 
out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is 
unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic 
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, 
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that 
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of 
the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of 
critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, 
the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating 
the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental 
economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis 
also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may 
require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of 
the critical habitat designation for the species which may incur 
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the 
information contained in our IEM are what we consider our DEA of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat and 
is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. Our IEM identified probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat associated 
with the following categories of activities: Development; oil and gas 
exploration; wind energy; land management; prescribed fire; timber 
management and fuels reduction; grazing; wildlife, game, or listed 
species management; habitat restoration; control of nonnative species; 
pesticide application; and recreational activities. We considered each 
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether 
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In 
areas where the Florida bonneted bat is present, Federal agencies 
already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the 
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the 
species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, 
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat would 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 PBFs 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 or harassment to constitute 
jeopardy to the Florida bonneted bat would also likely adversely affect 
the essential PBFs 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 proposed designation of critical habitat.
    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, land management, habitat restoration, and 
other activities authorized, undertaken, or funded by Federal agencies 
within critical habitat. The total incremental section 7 costs 
associated with the designation of the proposed units are estimated to 
be less than $239,000 per year (IEc 2020, pp. 2, 9). While the proposed 
critical habitat area is relatively large, totaling 598,261 ha 
(1,478,333 ac), the strong baseline protections that are already 
anticipated to 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 keep the costs comparatively low. The 
highest costs are expected in Unit 3, associated with anticipated 
future consultations within BCNP and ENP. However, based on recent 
changes to Service regulations, it is possible that some of these 
consultations, which may include reinitiations of land use plans, may 
not be required.
    The designation of critical habitat may trigger additional 
regulatory changes. For example, the designation may cause other 
Federal, State, or local permitting or regulatory agencies to expand or 
change standards or requirements. Regulatory uncertainty generated by 
critical habitat may also have impacts. For example, landowners or 
buyers may perceive that the rule will restrict land or water use 
activities in some way and therefore value the use of the land less 
than they would have

[[Page 35534]]

absent critical habitat. This is a perception, or stigma, effect of 
critical habitat on markets. While the screening analysis was unable to 
quantify the degree to which the public's perception of possible 
restrictions on the use of private land designated as critical habitat 
could affect private property values, IEc (2020, p. 10) recognized that 
a number of factors may already result in perception-related effects on 
these private lands, including awareness of the species due to a 
previously existing consultation area map, and the presence of a large 
number of co-occurring listed species and existing critical habitat in 
these areas.
    At this time, we are not considering any specific areas for 
exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
based on economic impacts. As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data 
and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the 
proposed rule and our amended required determinations. During the 
development of a final designation, we will consider any information 
currently available or received during the public comment period 
regarding the economic impacts of the proposed designation and will 
determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not apply to all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). Nevertheless, when 
designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2), the Service 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 cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does 
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will 
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific 
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable 
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the 
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to 
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to 
national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the 
benefits of exclusion.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this 
proposal, we have determined that some lands within the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat are owned 
or managed by the DoD. We already discussed one area (APAFR) with an 
approved INRMP under Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, above. 
There are other DoD lands (owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 
within the proposed critical habitat designation area. However, to 
date, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not expressed concern that 
the designation of these lands would have implications for national 
security. During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider any information currently available or received during the 
public comment period regarding the national security impacts of the 
proposed designation and will determine whether any specific areas 
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.

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. 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, 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 the existence 
of Tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the 
government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal 
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because 
of the designation. We evaluate each potential exclusion on a case-by-
case basis to determine whether the benefits of exclusion may outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion, with the understanding that we must 
designate such areas if the failure to do so would result in the 
extinction of the Florida bonneted bat.
    The FWC's Species Action Plan (2013) describes actions necessary to 
improve the conservation status of the Florida bonneted bat, and a 
summary of the plan will be included in the Imperiled Species 
Management Plan, in satisfaction of management plan requirements in 
chapter 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code, Rules Relating to 
Endangered or Threatened Species (FWC 2013, p. iii). The management 
planning process relies heavily on stakeholder input and partner 
support (FWC 2013, p. iii). The plan is voluntary and non-binding, and 
dependent upon the FWC and other agencies, organizations, and other 
partners (FWC 2013, entire). Most of the actions involve monitoring and 
research, and are not location or habitat-specific (FWC 2013, pp. 24-
26). Therefore, we are not proposing to exclude any units based on this 
plan.
    We seek information regarding any and all types of conservation 
programs and plans relevant to the protection of proposed critical 
habitat units for the Florida bonneted bat and which may meet the 
criteria for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Such programs 
and plans may include conservation easements, management agreements, 
tax incentive programs, or any other plan or program, particularly 
those programs that include management actions that benefit the 
species. When we evaluate a conservation or management plan during our 
consideration of the benefits of exclusion, depending on the type of 
conservation program, we assess a variety of factors, including, but 
not limited to: Whether the plan is finalized

[[Page 35535]]

and was subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the degree to which the plan or program 
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 the plan 
will be implemented into the future; 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. We will evaluate conservation and 
management plans for any area identified based on information received 
during the public comment period, to determine whether the benefits of 
exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Please see 
Information Requested, above, for instructions on how to submit 
comments.
    There are several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and 
policies that relate to 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.
    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. When we undertake a discretionary 
exclusion analysis, we will always consider exclusions of Tribal lands 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act prior to finalizing a designation of 
critical habitat, and will give great weight to Tribal concerns in 
analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    Tribal lands in Florida are included in this proposed designation 
of critical habitat. Using the criteria found in Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat, above, we have determined that there are 
lands belonging to both the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida that were occupied by the 
Florida bonneted bat at the time of listing that contain the features 
essential for the conservation of the species. We will seek government-
to-government consultation with these Tribes throughout the public 
comment period and during development of the final designation of 
Florida bonneted bat critical habitat. We will consider these areas for 
exclusion from the final critical habitat designation to the extent 
consistent with the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. On 
September 20, 2013, in an effort to ensure early coordination, we 
notified Tribal partners of our intention to make a proposed critical 
habitat designation and requested information. More recently, we have 
again informed both Tribes of how we are evaluating section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act and of our interest in consulting with them on a government-to-
government basis.
    Some areas within the proposed designation are included in lands 
managed by the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of 
Indians of Florida (see Units 3 and 4 descriptions; see also 
Government-to-Government Relations with Tribes, below), constituting a 
total of 10,852 ha (26,817 ac) of Tribal land being proposed as 
critical habitat. In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the 
public as to whether or not the Secretary should exclude these or other 
areas under management that benefit the Florida bonneted bat from the 
final critical habitat designation. For example, the Seminole Tribe has 
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) (Seminole Tribe of Florida 2012, pp. 106-109). A total of 
10,852 ha (26,817 ac) of Tribal land could potentially be excluded. 
Please see Information Requested, above, for instructions on how to 
submit comments.
    At this time, other than Tribal lands, we are not considering any 
specific areas for exclusion from the final designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act based on partnerships, management, or protection 
afforded by cooperative management efforts. We have also determined 
that there are no HCPs applicable to areas proposed for designation. 
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
information currently available or received during the public comment 
period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed designation and 
will determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the 
final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) 
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994), the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on 
the Peer Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's 
December 16, 2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 
(revised June 2012), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three 
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. 
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our critical habitat 
designation is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We have 
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment 
period.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after 
the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register 
(see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on 
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of 
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

[[Page 35536]]

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding 
their significance determination of this proposed rule.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Executive Order 13771

    We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant 
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance 
determination of this proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities 
directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not 
required 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 would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There 
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13771

    This proposed rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 
(``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, 
February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not 
significant under E.O. 12866.

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 
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. As most of the area included in the 
proposed critical habitat designation occurs on conservation lands 
(approximately 82 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, we make the 
following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal

[[Page 35537]]

governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal 
assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-
existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided 
annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement 
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of 
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, 
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the 
State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust 
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: 
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child 
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational 
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and 
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support 
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation 
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except 
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts may 
primarily occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations 
for land management or habitat restoration and transportation projects; 
however, these are not expected to significantly affect small 
governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species 
conservation and development control activities are expected to be 
borne by the Federal Government, State of Florida, and Miami-Dade 
County, which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly 
or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private 
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of 
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not 
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on 
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation 
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed 
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 proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we request information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the 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 and biological 
features of the habitat necessary to 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 
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local 
governments 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) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
the rule identifies the elements of PBFs 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

[[Page 35538]]

Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor 
and you are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act 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)).]

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. Some areas within the proposed 
designation are included in lands managed by the Seminole Tribe of 
Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (see Units 3 and 4 
descriptions; see also Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, 
above), constituting a total of 10,852 ha (26,817 ac) of Tribal land 
being proposed as critical habitat. We will continue to work with 
tribal entities during the development of a final rule for the 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106 and upon request from the South Florida Ecological Services 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff 
members of the South Florida Ecological Services Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Bat, Florida bonneted'' 
under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Listing citations and
          Common name              Scientific name      Where listed          Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bat, Florida bonneted..........  Eumops floridanus.  Wherever found....               E   78 FR 61003, 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)'' in the same alphabetical order that 
the species appears in the table at Sec.  17.11 (h), 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, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Sarasota 
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 one or 
more of the following components:

[[Page 35539]]

    (i) Representative forest types (all age classes) that support the 
Florida bonneted bat by providing roosting and foraging habitat within 
its core areas (i.e., Polk, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-
Dade Counties), including:
    (A) Pine flatwoods;
    (B) Scrubby pine flatwoods;
    (C) Pine rocklands;
    (D) Royal palm hammocks;
    (E) Mixed or hardwood hammocks;
    (F) Cypress;
    (G) Mixed or hardwood wetlands;
    (H) Mangroves (mature and pristine);
    (I) Cabbage palms; and
    (J) Sand pine scrub.
    (ii) Habitat that provides 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 includes forest and other areas with tall or 
mature trees and other natural areas with suitable structures, which 
are generally characterized by:
    (A) Tall or mature live or dead trees, tree snags, and trees with 
cavities, hollows, crevices, or loose bark, including, but not limited 
to, trees greater than 10 meters (33 feet) in height, greater than 20 
centimeters (8 inches) in diameter at breast height, with cavities 
greater than 5 meters (16 feet) high off the ground;
    (B) High incidence of tall or mature live trees with various 
deformities (e.g., large cavities, hollows, broken tops, loose bark, 
and other evidence of decay);
    (C) Sufficient open space for Florida bonneted bats to fly; areas 
may include open or semi-open canopy, canopy gaps, and edges, or above 
the canopy, which provide relatively uncluttered conditions; and/or
    (D) Rock crevices.
    (iii) Habitat that provides 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 distances from roosting habitat. Foraging 
habitat consists of:
    (A) Sources for drinking water and prey, including open fresh water 
and permanent or seasonal freshwater wetlands, in natural or rural 
areas (non-urban areas);
    (B) Wetland and upland forests, open freshwater wetlands, and 
wetland and upland shrub (which provide a prey base and suitable 
foraging conditions (i.e., open habitat structure));
    (C) Natural or semi-natural habitat patches in urban or residential 
areas that contribute to prey base and provide suitable foraging 
conditions (i.e., open habitat structure); and/or
    (D) The presence and abundance of the bat's prey (i.e., large, 
flying insects), in sufficient quantity, availability, and diversity 
necessary for reproduction, development, growth, and survival.
    (iv) A dynamic disturbance regime (natural or artificial) (e.g., 
fire, hurricanes) 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.
    (v) Large patches (more than 40,470 hectares (100,000 acres)) of 
forest and associated natural or semi-natural habitat types that 
represent functional ecosystems with a reduced influence from humans 
(i.e., areas that shield the bat from human disturbance, habitat loss 
and degradation).
    (vi) Corridors, consisting of roosting and foraging habitat, that 
allow for population maintenance and expansion, dispersal, and 
connectivity among and between geographic areas for natural and 
adaptive movements, including those necessitated by climate change.
    (vii) 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 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. 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 North American Albers Equal Area Conic, 
NAD 83. 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 the Service's internet site, 
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, 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) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 35540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (6) Unit 1: Peace River and surrounding areas; Charlotte, DeSoto, 
Hardee, and Sarasota Counties, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 19,550 ha (48,310 ac) 
of lands in Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, and Sarasota Counties, Florida. 
This unit is located along the Peace River and its tributaries (e.g., 
Charlie Creek), south of CR-64, with the majority generally west of US-
17. Land ownership within this unit consists of approximately 4,537 ha 
(11,212 ac) of State-owned land, 119 ha (295 ac) of County-owned land, 
13 ha (32 ac) of locally owned land, 14,087 ha (34,810 ac) of private 
and other lands, and 793 ha (1,960 ac) of land of unidentified 
ownership. The largest land holding within this unit is the RV Griffin 
Reserve. Other smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 35541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (7) Unit 2: Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area, Babcock Ranch, 
and surrounding areas; Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 97,505 hectares (ha) 
(240,941 acres (ac)) of lands in Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, 
Florida. The majority of Unit 2 is located in Charlotte County, east of 
I-75; other portions are in northern Lee and western Glades Counties. 
Land ownership within this unit consists of approximately 1 ha (3 ac) 
of Federal land, 61,128 ha (151,050 ac) of State-owned land, 3,724 ha 
(9,203 ac) of County-owned land, 8 ha (21 ac) of locally owned land, 
32,001 ha (79,077 ac) of private and other lands, and 642 ha (1,587 ac) 
of land of unidentified ownership. The largest land holdings within 
this unit are Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area and Babcock Ranch 
Preserve; other smaller

[[Page 35542]]

conservation lands also occur within this unit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.002

    (8) Unit 3: Big Cypress and surrounding areas; Collier, Monroe, and 
Hendry Counties, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 3 consists of 366,833 ha (906,462 ac) 
of lands in Collier, Monroe, and Hendry Counties, Florida. The majority 
of Unit 3 is located in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder 
occurs in southern Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe 
County. Land ownership within this unit consists of approximately 
250,733 ha (619,573 ac) of Federal land, 10,527 ha (26,012 ac) of 
Tribal land, 61,869 ha (152,882 ac) of State-owned land, 3,384 ha 
(8,362 ac) of County-owned land, 173 ha (427 ac) of locally owned land, 
38,227 ha (94,460 ac) of private and other lands, and 1,920 ha (4,745 
ac) of land of unidentified ownership. The largest land holdings within 
Unit 3 are Big Cypress National Preserve, Picayune Strand State Forest, 
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, Everglades National Park, and 
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Other smaller conservation 
lands also occur within this unit.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 35543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.003

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (9) Unit 4: Miami-Dade Natural Areas; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 4 consists of 114,372 ha (282,620 
ac), most of which are conservation lands and occur west of the Florida 
Turnpike, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Land ownership within this 
unit consists of approximately 71,385 ha (176,395 ac) of Federal land, 
326 ha (805 ac) of Tribal land, 26,159 ha (64,639 ac) of State-owned 
land, 4,210 ha (10,404 ac) of County-owned land, 114 ha (281 ac) of 
locally owned land, 11,496 ha (28,408 ac) of private and other lands, 
and 683 ha (1,688 ac) of land of unidentified ownership. The largest 
land holding within this unit is Everglades National Park; other 
smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 35544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.004

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *

Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-10840 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C