[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71466-71501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25218]



[[Page 71465]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 224

November 22, 2022

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





50 CFR Part 17





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





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 71466]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE10


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising 
our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 
bat (Eumops floridanus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 
as amended. In response to new information we received and public 
comments on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we are now proposing to 
designate approximately 1,174,011 acres (475,105 hectares) in 13 
Florida counties as critical habitat for the species. We also announce 
the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the revised 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. 
We request comments from all interested parties on this revised 
proposed rule and the associated DEA. Comments submitted on our June 
10, 2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully 
considered in the preparation of the final rule. If we finalize this 
rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this 
species' critical habitat.

DATES: We will accept comments on this revised proposed rule and the 
DEA that are received or postmarked on or before January 23, 2023. 
Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
the closing date. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in 
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 
January 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: The DEA and other supporting 
documents are included in the decision file and are available at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. 
Coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical habitat maps 
are generated are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 and the Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and 
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone (904) 731-3134. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
when we determine that any species is an endangered or threatened 
species, we are required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can 
only be completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This document revises the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat to include 
a total of approximately 1,174,011 acres (475,105 hectares) in portions 
of 13 Florida counties. On October 2, 2013, we published in the Federal 
Register (78 FR 61004) a final rule listing the Florida bonneted bat as 
an endangered species. On June 10, 2020, we published in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 35510) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for this species. This document revises the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
    The basis for our action. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 
the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best 
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    Draft economic analysis of the revised proposed designation of 
critical habitat. In order to consider the economic impacts of critical 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, we compiled information 
pertaining to the potential incremental economic impacts for this 
revised proposed critical habitat designation. The information we used 
in determining the economic impacts of the revised proposed critical 
habitat is summarized in this revised proposed rule (see Consideration 
of Economic Impacts, below) and is available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. We are 
soliciting public comments on the economic information provided and any 
other potential economic impacts of this revised proposed designation. 
We will continue to reevaluate the potential economic impacts between 
this proposal and our final designation.
    Public comment. We requested and received public comments on our 
June 10, 2020, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat. Those comments primarily consist of requests for 
exclusion, requests for the designation of additional areas, and 
comments on the physical or biological features and associated 
methodology used to identify proposed units (see New Information and 
Revisions to

[[Page 71467]]

Previously Proposed Critical Habitat, below). Those comments are 
already part of the public record of this rulemaking proceeding and are 
available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. We now seek comments and solicit 
information from the public on this revised proposed designation to 
make sure we consider the best scientific and commercial information 
available in developing our final designation. Because we will consider 
all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our 
final determination may differ from this proposal. We will provide 
responses to comments we received during both public comment periods in 
our final rule.
    Peer review. We sought peer review on our June 10, 2020, proposed 
rule and received comments from two reviewers (see New Information and 
Revisions to Previously Proposed Critical Habitat, below). We are again 
seeking comments from independent specialists to ensure that this 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We 
have invited these peer reviewers to comment on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this revised critical habitat proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this revised 
proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
we request comments or information from other governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule. Please 
note that comments submitted on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule need 
not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the preparation 
of the final rule. Additionally, due to the ongoing challenges 
regarding the 2019 regulations, we also seek comments on whether and 
how applying the regulations that were in effect before the 2019 
regulations would alter any of these analyses.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (e) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    In addition, we seek comment regarding whether and how this 
information would differ under the factors that the pre-2019 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Florida bonneted bat habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
(i.e., Miami-Dade, Monroe, Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Polk, Osceola, 
Okeechobee, Highlands, Broward, Sarasota, Hardee, Glades, Palm Beach, 
Martin, and DeSoto Counties, Florida) that should be included in the 
designation because they (i) were occupied at the time of listing and 
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations, or (ii) were unoccupied at the time of listing and are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including 
information related to the impacts that noise and light pollution and 
pesticides usage may have on critical habitat, as well as managing for 
the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) For areas not occupied at the time of listing essential for the 
conservation of the species, we particularly seek comments:
    (i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the 
conservation of the species; and
    (ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not 
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the 
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
    We also seek comments or information regarding whether areas not 
occupied at the time of listing could be considered habitat for the 
species.
    (3) Characteristics of roost trees.
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis (DEA) for the revised 
proposed rule is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts 
and any additional information regarding probable economic impacts that 
we should consider.
    (7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are particularly interested in 
information concerning those areas described below in tables 2 and 3. 
If you think we should exclude these or any additional areas, please 
provide information regarding the benefit of exclusion that you have 
not already submitted to us, as comments submitted on our June 10, 
2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted and will be fully 
considered in the preparation of the final rule.
    (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a final critical habitat determination.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule

[[Page 71468]]

by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send 
comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this 
revised proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), our final designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we 
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public 
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for the Florida bonneted bat that occurred prior to 
October 4, 2012, are outlined in our proposed listing rule for the 
species (see 77 FR 60750, October 4, 2012). On October 2, 2013, after 
consideration of the available scientific information, and peer review 
and public comments on the proposed listing rule, we listed the Florida 
bonneted bat as an endangered species (78 FR 61004). Critical habitat 
was considered prudent but not determinable at the time of listing due 
to the lack of information on the physical or biological features 
essential for the species' conservation. Additional research helped 
define those physical or biological features, and on June 10, 2020, we 
proposed to designate critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (85 
FR 35510). During the public comment period on the June 10, 2020, 
proposed rule, we received significant new information on genetics as 
well as presence and roost data; following the comment period, we 
developed a conservation strategy to serve as a foundation for critical 
habitat criteria and methodology, revised the physical or biological 
features essential for the conservation of the species, and revised our 
proposed critical habitat designation in lieu of preparing a final 
rule. This document presents our revised proposed critical habitat 
designation for the Florida bonneted bat.

Supporting Documents

    Starting in 2016, the Service has been preparing species status 
assessment (SSA) reports to compile and evaluate the best scientific 
information available to inform listing and other decisions under the 
Act. Since this species was listed before this process was implemented, 
there was no SSA for the Florida bonneted bat at the time the proposed 
critical habitat designation published (June 10, 2020). A recovery 
outline and a conservation strategy have been prepared for this 
species. The Florida Bonneted Bat Recovery Outline is a brief document 
that broadly sketches the interim conservation and management program 
for the Florida bonneted bat during the time between the final listing 
under the Act and completion of a recovery plan. The Florida Bonneted 
Bat Conservation Strategy provides a technical foundation for recovery 
strategies, summarizing the best scientific data available concerning 
the status of the species and threats affecting the species, and 
outlines goals and objectives for achieving recovery of the Florida 
bonneted bat. These documents have been prepared based on input and 
information from researchers and species experts.
    Additional documents that we considered in revising our proposed 
critical habitat designation include a list of conservation lands that 
overlap with the proposed designation, conservation and natural 
resource management plans for areas we are considering for exclusion, 
and a summary of the habitat analysis conducted to inform delineation 
of the proposed critical habitat units. All of these supporting 
documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FW-R4-ES-2019-0106.

Background

    The purpose of this document is to discuss only those topics 
directly relevant to this revised proposed critical habitat 
designation. For more information on the species, its habitat, and 
previous Federal actions concerning the Florida bonneted bat, refer to 
the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 2, 
2013 (78 FR 61004) and the proposed critical habitat rule published in 
the Federal Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510).
    In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the 
Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 50 CFR parts 
17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify threatened and 
endangered species and the criteria for designating listed species' 
critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 27, 2019; 
collectively, the 2019 regulations). However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the 2019 
regulations (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-
05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), 
reinstating the regulations that were in effect before the effective 
date of the 2019 regulations as the law governing species 
classification and critical habitat decisions. Subsequently, on 
September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating the 
2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before the 
district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194). 
The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are the governing 
law as of September 21, 2022.
    Due to the continued uncertainty resulting from the ongoing 
litigation, we also undertook an analysis of whether the proposal would 
be different if we were to apply the pre-2019 regulations. That 
analysis, which we described in a separate memo in the decisional file 
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov, concluded that we would have 
reached the same proposal if we had applied the pre-2019 regulations 
because under either regulatory scheme we find that critical habitat is 
prudent and that the occupied areas proposed for the Florida bonneted 
bat are adequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    In our June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we proposed to designate 
critical habitat

[[Page 71469]]

in four units encompassing approximately 1,478,333 acres (ac) (598,261 
hectares (ha)) in portions of 10 Florida counties. In addition, we 
announced the availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We accepted comments on the proposed critical habitat 
designation and DEA for 60 days, ending August 10, 2020. Based on 
information we received during the public comment period, we are 
revising our proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida 
bonneted bat. This revised proposed rule has a 60-day comment period 
(see DATES, above) to allow all interested parties to submit comments 
on our revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida 
bonneted bat.

New Information and Revisions to Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

    During the public comment period on our June 10, 2020, proposed 
rule, we received over 1,800 responses, as well as comments from two 
peer reviewers. We received comments questioning the essential physical 
or biological features we identified (specifically, our description of 
representative forest types, definition and use of ``core areas,'' and 
definition and use of a minimum patch size) and the relationship of 
those features to our critical habitat criteria and methodology. 
Because our incorporation of a minimum patch size precluded the 
consideration of habitat within urban Miami-Dade County, many comments 
addressed the importance of this area to the species and provided 
information (e.g., historical use, observed activity) regarding why it 
meets the definition of critical habitat. Comments received also 
addressed the need to directly incorporate all available presence 
information into our habitat analysis and critical habitat methodology 
and expressed concerns regarding a lack of redundancy provided in the 
proposed units for the species to withstand catastrophic events. In 
addition, since the proposed rule was published, we received new 
information regarding genetic diversity and structure of the species, 
as well as new presence and roost data. Upon further review of the best 
available information, we have decided to use average measurements to 
describe the characteristics of roost trees rather than the minimum 
measurements used in our June 10, 2020, proposed rule. In this 
revision, we also provide additional roost-related measurements to 
better reflect the characteristics required by the Florida bonneted 
bat.
    Therefore, after fully considering the public comments we received 
on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule and new information that became 
available after the publication of that proposed rule, we revise our 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat 
based on changes to the physical or biological features and the 
criteria and methodology used to identify those specific areas that 
constitute critical habitat. Due to the comprehensive nature of these 
revisions, this document presents an entirely new, revised proposed 
critical habitat designation for the species. The DEA for the proposed 
critical habitat designation has also been revised and is summarized 
below (see Consideration of Economic Impacts).

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of 
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional 
or physiological requirements; and habitats with appropriate 
disturbance regimes (for more information, see the proposed listing 
rule (77 FR 60750; October 4, 2012) and the Florida Bonneted Bat 
Conservation Strategy (see Supporting Documents)). We summarize below 
the more important habitat characteristics, particularly those that 
support the description of physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. For Food, Water, Air, 
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements, 
please see this section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 
35510, June 10, 2020). We also consider these habitat features relative 
to the scale at which Florida bonneted bats use the features, allowing 
us to more logically organize the physical and biological features to 
delineate the critical habitat.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Due to the spatial variability of their prey, large size, and wing 
morphology, this species has significant spatial needs for foraging. 
Insect abundance, density, and community composition frequently vary 
across space and over time based on season and environmental 
conditions. As a result of this spatial variability, Florida bonneted 
bats may need to travel far distances and feed over large areas to 
satisfy dietary needs. For example, Florida bonneted bats from Fred C. 
Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area (Babcock-Webb WMA), on 
average, traveled 9.5 miles (mi) (15 kilometers (km)) from their roosts 
and flew 24 mi (39 km) total per night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb 
2018, pers. comm.). These bats also traveled maximum distances of over 
24 mi (39 km) from their roosts and over 56 mi (90 km) total in one 
night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers. comm.). Florida 
bonneted bats also require open areas for foraging due to their large 
body size and morphology of

[[Page 71470]]

their wings, which are designed for fast and efficient, but less 
maneuverable, flight.
    This large bat relies on swarms of larger insects for feeding; 
thus, foraging habitat for the Florida bonneted bat consists of areas 
that hatch and concentrate insects of this size, including vegetated 
areas and waterways. These bats also frequently feed on insects from 
agricultural areas and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire).
    Ecologically diverse areas of suitable habitat representing the 
geographic extent of the species' range are also important for 
population growth and persistence. The major ecological communities 
(Myers and Ewel 1990, entire; Service 1999, entire; FNAI 2010, entire) 
that provide Florida bonneted bat roosting habitat in central and 
southern Florida include: pine rocklands (south Florida rockland, 
rockland pine forest, rockland hammock); cypress communities (cypress 
swamps, strand swamps, domes, sloughs, ponds); hydric pine flatwoods 
(wet flatwoods); mesic pine flatwoods; and high pine. A variety of 
other habitats may be used as well (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire). 
Diverse, open foraging habitats (e.g., prairies, riverine habitat) are 
also important. Adequate roosting and foraging habitats are essential 
to the species, as they provide the diversity necessary to allow for 
population resiliency following minor disturbances (e.g., loss of roost 
tree, cold snap) as well as more significant stochastic events (e.g., 
hurricane, drought, forest disease, climate change).
    Structural connectivity (suitable habitat in the form of linear 
corridors or patches creating ``stepping stones'') facilitates the 
recolonization of extirpated populations; facilitates the establishment 
of new populations; and allows for natural behaviors needed for 
foraging, exploratory movements, and dispersal. Four genetically 
differentiated populations of the Florida bonneted bat have been 
identified (Charlotte, Polk/Osceola, Lee/Collier, and Miami-Dade 
Counties) (Austin et al. 2022, entire; see also Florida Bonneted Bat 
Conservation Strategy in Supporting Documents). While dispersal of 
Florida bonneted bats appears to be geographically restricted between 
populations, the geographic extent of the four genetically 
differentiated areas is not yet known, and maintaining structural 
connectivity to allow for ongoing and future functional connectivity 
(i.e., actual movement of animals and/or exchange of genes) between 
known populations remains important to the species for resiliency as 
well as population stability and growth (Austin et al. 2022, pp. 507-
508). Structural connectivity in the form of vegetated corridors with 
opportunities for roosting and/or foraging, vegetated river corridors 
and other areas with freshwater available year-round, and habitat 
patches such as pine rockland fragments and tree islands are needed to 
provide and maintain connections between regions where known Florida 
bonneted bat populations occur. Maintaining viable populations in each 
of the known genetically differentiated areas and protecting 
connectivity is necessary for the demographic and genetic health of the 
species. Therefore, it is important that this species has areas of 
ecologically diverse and connected habitat including sufficient amounts 
of open foraging habitat.

Cover or Shelter

    The Florida bonneted bat primarily roosts in tree cavities, either 
as individuals or small or large colonies (Ober et al. 2017, p. 378; 
Braun de Torrez et al. 2020a, p. 6; 2020b, entire). Roosts provide 
protection from sunlight, adverse weather, and predators; sites for 
mating, rearing of young, social interaction and information sharing, 
resting, and digestion of food; and microclimate stability (Kunz 1982, 
entire; Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130-135; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4; 
Dechmann et al. 2010, pp. 1-7; Bohn 2012, in litt.).
    Florida bonneted bat roosts are difficult to locate; only 36 
natural roosts have been identified (not all currently occupied), the 
first in 2013 (Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2021, pers. comm.; Borkholder 2022, 
pers. comm.; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.). Known natural roosts 
have been documented in the following tree species: slash pine (Pinus 
elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), bald cypress (Taxodium 
distichum), and royal palm (Roystonea regia) (Braun de Torrez et al. 
2020b, entire). A significant proportion of known roosts are in snags 
of these tree species (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). One non-
volant (flightless) pup was found at the base of a live oak (Quercus 
virginiana) hours after a tree cavity was bisected (Ridgley 2020, pers. 
comm.); it is not known if this tree species is commonly used as a 
roost site or may be used particularly where suitable trees are sparse.
    Upon further review of the best available information, we have 
modified the features relevant to roost trees to more accurately 
reflect the characteristics required by Florida bonneted bat. Relative 
to surrounding trees, Florida bonneted bat roost trees tend to have 
greater overall height (averaging 57 feet (ft) (17 meters (m)), 
diameter (averaging 15-inch (in) (38-centimeter (cm)) diameter at 
breast height (dbh)), and canopy height relative to the adjacent canopy 
(averaging 16 ft (5 m) taller than surrounding trees) (Braun de Torrez 
et al. 2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.). The species 
also appears to require sufficient unobstructed space for emergence, 
with cavities averaging 35 ft (10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees 
averaging 14 ft (4 m) from the nearest tree (Braun de Torrez et al. 
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.), often in open or 
semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities may require a minimum of 
approximately 19 ft (5.7 m) of ground clearance (Braun de Torrez et al. 
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.); however, there are 
two instances of Florida bonneted bats using bat houses with 
approximately 13 ft (4 m) of ground clearance in Miami-Dade County 
(Ridgley 2021, unpublished data). Collectively, this indicates that 
this species prefers large trees with adequate space around the cavity 
for emergence. Solitary males may roost under loose bark, and loose or 
shaggy bark has been documented as a night roost (e.g., Melaleuca). 
However, Florida bonneted bats typically roost in cavities made by 
other species (notably woodpeckers) or by natural damage caused by 
fire, storms, or decay.
    The Florida bonneted bat is suspected to have high roost-site 
fidelity. Some roosts are used for several years by Florida bonneted 
bat colonies, possibly decades (Myers 2013, pers. comm.; Scofield 
2013a-b, pers. comm.; 2014a-b, pers. comm.; Bohn 2014, pers. comm.; 
Gore et al. 2015, p. 183; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Hosein 
2016, pers. comm.; Webb 2017, pers. comm.; B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; 
Aldredge 2019, pers. comm.). Conversely, natural roosts may frequently 
succumb to natural causes (i.e., hurricanes, wildfire), resulting in 
total loss or too much damage to allow for future roosting. At least 37 
percent of the known natural roosts discovered since 2013 are now 
uninhabitable (due to decay, hurricanes, and other factors) (Braun de 
Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). Suitable roost sites are a critical 
resource, are an ongoing need of the species, and may be limiting 
population growth and distribution in certain situations. The loss of a 
roost site may represent a greater impact to this species

[[Page 71471]]

relative to some other bat species (Ober 2012, in litt.).
    Florida bonneted bats also roost in artificial structures (e.g., 
homes with barrel-tile roofs, chimneys, barns, hangars, utility poles) 
and bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 8; Morse 2008, entire; Trokey 
2012a-b, pers. comm.; Gore et al. 2015, entire; see Use of Artificial 
Structures (Bat Houses) in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 
2, 2013, p. 61010)). Despite clear evidence of their use, artificial 
bat houses may not be ideal or a sufficient surrogate for natural 
roosts. Pup mortalities and other events (e.g., pups falling from 
roosts and unable to climb up metal poles or wood poles with predator 
guards) have raised questions about heat build-up, insulation, proper 
placement in the landscape, and bat house design (Crawford and O'Keefe 
2021, entire). Therefore, natural roosts (i.e., live or dead trees and 
tree snags, especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, and 
royal palm, on average 57 ft (17 m) in height and an average 15-in (38-
cm) dbh that are emergent from the surrounding canopy (by an average 16 
ft (5 m)) and have unobstructed space for emergence) are important 
habitat characteristics for this species.

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

    Sites supporting the Florida bonneted bats' breeding activities 
appear to be required year-round (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober 
et al. 2017, p. 382; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also Life History 
in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61005-
61006) and Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 
35510, June 10, 2020)). Reproductively active adults have been observed 
during August, December, and April capture sessions, and non-volant 
pups (young not yet capable of flying) have been documented in roosts 
in every month other than February and March (Scofield 2014b, pers. 
comm.; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Ridgley 2015, pers. comm.; 
Ober et al. 2017, pp. 381, 383-384; Gore 2017, pers. comm.; J. Myers 
2018, pers. comm.; 2020, pers. comm.). Based upon these data, 
flightless young bonneted bats and females with high energetic demands 
due to pregnancy and lactation may be vulnerable to disturbance for at 
least 10 months of the year. Most roosting bats are sensitive to human 
disturbance (Kunz 1982, p. 32), and maternity colonies may be 
especially intolerant of disturbance (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13; see 
also Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts from Humans in the final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)).
    Florida bonneted bat colonies conform to a harem structure (one 
dominant male, several reproductively active females and their young; 
Ober et al. 2017, p. 382). This type of social organization, together 
with evidence of high roost-site fidelity, underscores the importance 
of roosts to this species for population maintenance, growth, and 
natural behaviors. Disturbance of a roost at any time can alter social 
dynamics and impact reproductive success (Ober et al. 2017, p. 382). 
Accordingly, areas where roosting and other natural behaviors can occur 
undisturbed are important in considering the conservation of the 
species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    Our discussion of these habitat characteristics is unchanged from 
the proposed rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020).

Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance Regimes

    The Florida bonneted bat not only requires healthy and ecologically 
diverse habitat; the species also needs areas with an appropriate 
disturbance regime. The Florida bonneted bat's entire range is within 
the fire-dependent and fire-adapted landscape of central and south 
Florida (Noss 2018, entire). The species uses fire-dependent vegetation 
communities for roosting (Belwood 1992, pp. 219-220; Angell and 
Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240) and 
foraging (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a-c, 
entire). Florida bonneted bats appear to be attracted to recently 
burned areas (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, entire); it appears that 
Florida bonneted bats are fire-adapted and benefit from prescribed burn 
programs that closely mimic historical fire regimes. Fires during the 
historical fire season (i.e., early wet season, April through June) at 
a moderate frequency (more than 3 to 5 years) appear to optimize 
habitat for bats in both pine flatwoods and prairies (Braun de Torrez 
et al. 2018b, pp. 6-9). Fire may result in an increase of suitable 
roosts (i.e., create more snags and cavities), more open flight space, 
and increased prey availability (Boyles and Aubrey 2006, pp. 111-113; 
Armitage and Ober 2012, pp. 107-109; O'Keefe and Loeb 2017, p. 271; 
Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, p. 1120; 2018b, pp. 8-9).
    Fire also has the potential to harm bats through disturbance or 
destruction of roost trees (Morrison and Raphael 1993, p. 328; 
Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 2196-2200). Despite the risks that Florida 
bonneted bats may abandon roosts, or roosts and pups may be lost during 
fires, it is critical for fires to occur on the landscape to maintain 
suitable habitat; precautions can be taken to reduce risks 
appropriately (see Inadvertent Impacts from Land Management Practices, 
below). Therefore, based on the information in this discussion, we 
identify areas of diverse habitat types and ecological communities 
maintained via appropriate disturbance regimes as essential physical or 
biological features for this species.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Florida bonneted bat from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below and further in 
the Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see Supporting 
Documents) and the proposed and final listing rules (77 FR 60750, 
October 4, 2012; 78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013). We have determined that 
the following physical or biological features are essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat:
    (1) Habitats that provide for roosting and rearing of offspring. 
Such habitat provides structural features for rest, digestion of food, 
social interaction, mating, rearing of young, protection from sunlight 
and adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks for 
adults and young, and is generally characterized by:
    (a) Live or dead trees and tree snags, especially longleaf pine, 
slash pine, bald cypress, and royal palm, that are on average 57 ft (17 
m) in height and with an average 15-in (38-cm) dbh and that are 
emergent from the surrounding canopy (by an average 16 ft (5 m)); and
    (b) Sufficient unobstructed space, with cavities averaging 35 ft 
(10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees averaging 14 ft (4 m) from 
the nearest tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge from roost trees; 
this may include open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
    (2) Habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging, 
which may vary widely across the Florida bonneted bat's range, in 
accordance with ecological conditions, seasons, and disturbance regimes 
that influence vegetation structure and prey species' distributions. 
Foraging habitat may be separate and relatively far from roosting 
habitat. Essential foraging habitat consists of open areas in or near 
areas

[[Page 71472]]

of high insect production or congregation, commonly including, but not 
limited to:
    (a) Freshwater edges and freshwater herbaceous wetlands (permanent 
or seasonal);
    (b) Prairies;
    (c) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
    (d) Wetland and upland forests.
    (3) A dynamic disturbance regime (e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest 
management) that maintains and regenerates forested habitat, including 
plant communities, open habitat structure, and temporary gaps, which is 
conducive to promoting a continual supply of roosting sites, prey 
items, and suitable foraging conditions.
    (4) A sufficient quantity and diversity of habitats to enable the 
species to be resilient to short-term impacts associated with 
disturbance over time (e.g., drought, forest disease). This quantity 
and diversity are essential to provide suitable conditions despite 
temporary alterations to habitat quality. The ecological communities 
the Florida bonneted bat inhabits differ in hydrology, fire frequency/
intensity, climate, prey species, roosting sites, and threats, and 
include, but are not limited to:
    (a) Pine rocklands;
    (b) Cypress communities (cypress swamps, strand swamps, domes, 
sloughs, ponds);
    (c) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet flatwoods);
    (d) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
    (e) High pine.
    (5) Habitats that provide structural connectivity where needed to 
allow for dispersal, gene flow, and natural and adaptive movements, 
including those that may be necessitated by climate change. These 
connections may include linear corridors such as vegetated, riverine, 
or open-water habitat with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging, 
or patches (i.e., stepping stones) such as tree islands or other 
isolated natural areas within a matrix of otherwise low-quality 
habitat.
    (6) A subtropical climate that provides tolerable conditions for 
the species such that normal behavior, successful reproduction, and 
rearing of offspring are possible.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. Recovery of the Florida bonneted bat will require special 
management considerations or protection of the physical or biological 
features including passive (e.g., allowing natural processes to occur 
without intervention) and active (e.g., taking actions to restore and 
maintain habitat conditions or address threats) management. The 
features essential to the conservation of this species may require 
special management considerations or protection to reduce the threats 
that are related to inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
are discussed below. For discussion of special management 
considerations or protection required to reduce threats related to 
Habitat Loss, Climate Change and Sea-level Rise, Environmental 
Stochasticity, and Pesticides and Contaminants, see these sections in 
the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020).

Inadvertent Impacts From Land Management Practices

    Forest management can help maintain and improve the Florida 
bonneted bat's roosting and foraging habitat (see Use of Forests and 
Other Natural Areas in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 
2013, pp. 61007-61010)), and a lack of forest management, including a 
lack of prescribed fire, can be detrimental to the species. Prescribed 
burns may benefit Florida bonneted bats by improving habitat structure, 
enhancing the prey base, and creating openings; restoration of fire to 
fire-dependent forests may improve foraging habitat for this species 
and create snags (Carter et al. 2002, p. 139; Boyles and Aubrey 2006, 
pp. 111-113; Lacki et al. 2009, entire; Armitage and Ober 2012, pp. 
107-109; FWC 2013, pp. 9-11; Ober and McCleery 2014, pp. 1-3; Braun de 
Torrez et al. 2018a-b, entire).
    Fire is a vital component in maintaining suitable Florida bonneted 
bat habitat (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018b, entire), and while many 
prescribed fire and other land management practices mimic natural 
processes and benefit native species on broad spatial and temporal 
scales, these activities can result in inadvertent negative impacts in 
the near term. For example, extensive removal of trees with cavities or 
hollows during activities associated with forest management, fuel 
reduction, vista management, off-road vehicle trail maintenance, 
prescribed fire, or habitat restoration may inadvertently remove roost 
sites or reduce the availability of roost sites (see Land Management 
Practices in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 
61027)).
    Cavity-roosting bats may be susceptible to fire effects (Carter et 
al. 2002, p. 140). Loss of active roosts or removal during critical 
life-history stages (e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young) 
is of greatest concern, given the species' apparent small population 
size and low fecundity (Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also Effects 
of Small Population Size, Isolation, and Other Factors in the final 
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61036-61037)). Risk 
from forest management may be minimized by conducting activities 
outside the bat's peak breeding season (April 15 to August 15), 
protecting known roost sites, or avoiding potential roost sites, as 
disturbance to roost sites at any time of the year may alter social 
dynamics and reproductive success (Blumstein 2010, pp. 665-666; Ober et 
al. 2017, p. 382). Special management considerations or protections to 
retain the essential physical or biological features for Florida 
bonneted bat include annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or 
monitoring conducted prior to (but coordinated with) annual fire or 
forest management planning that can identify sensitive areas and 
incorporate appropriate avoidance or minimization measures. Developing 
additional avoidance or minimization measures for common management 
practices and activities (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation 
Guidelines in Supporting Documents) on specific properties can also 
reduce negative effects. Retaining potential roost trees, wherever 
possible, may also reduce competition for tree cavities (see 
Competition for Tree Cavities in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013, pp. 61034-61035)), and promote survival and the 
potential for population expansion over the long term.
    The features essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted 
bat may require special management considerations or protection to 
reduce threats and conserve these features. Actions that could 
ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Retaining and actively managing a habitat network of large and 
diverse conservation lands throughout the Florida bonneted bat's range;
    (2) Protecting, restoring, or enhancing inland or higher elevation 
habitats that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected by sea-
level rise;
    (3) Protecting habitats that support high insect diversity and 
abundance, and avoiding the excessive use of pesticides wherever 
possible;
    (4) Retaining potential roost trees and snags (see Cover or 
Shelter, above);

[[Page 71473]]

    (5) Conducting annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or monitoring 
conducted prior to (but coordinated with) annual fire or forest 
management planning; and
    (6) Developing and implementing specific guidelines (see the 
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines in Supporting Documents) 
to minimize impacts of activities associated with hurricane clean-up, 
prescribed fire, invasive species management, forest management, and 
development.

Special Management Previously Considered

    In the June 10, 2020, proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for the Florida bonneted bat (85 FR 35510), we considered ecological 
light pollution to be a potential threat to the Florida bonneted bat 
and its habitat that would likely require special management. However, 
as we described in the final listing rule, the Florida bonneted bat's 
behavioral response to ecological light pollution has not been 
examined, and effects are not known (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 
61036). The species' fast-flight and long-range flight capabilities may 
make it more able to exploit insects congregated at artificial light 
sources and more susceptible to risks associated with such responses 
(e.g., increased predation or harm from humans). Alternatively, 
artificial lighting may not be influencing the species' foraging or 
other behaviors. Accordingly, at this time, there continues to be 
little information about the potential effects of light pollution on 
the Florida bonneted bat.
    Therefore, upon further review of the best available information, 
we have removed ecological light pollution as a potential threat to the 
species that may require special management considerations or 
protection, but we specifically request comments on this matter.

Conservation Strategy and Selection Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat

Conservation Strategy

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat. The occupied areas identified 
encompass the varying types and distribution of habitat needed by the 
species and provide sufficient habitat to allow for maintaining and 
potentially expanding the populations.
    To determine and select appropriate occupied areas that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species or areas otherwise essential for the conservation of the 
Florida bonneted bat, we incorporated information from the conservation 
strategy for the species. The goal of our conservation strategy for the 
Florida bonneted bat is to recover the species to the point where the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary. The role of critical 
habitat in achieving this conservation goal is to identify the specific 
areas within the Florida bonneted bat's range that provide essential 
physical and biological features without which the Florida bonneted 
bat's rangewide resiliency, redundancy, and representation could not be 
achieved. Specifically, this conservation strategy helped identify 
those areas within the Florida bonneted bat's range that contain the 
physical and biological features without which rangewide resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation could not be achieved. Our conservation 
strategy identified goals, from which we developed the following six 
critical habitat criteria for determining the specific areas that 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species:
    (1) Genetic diversity--To maintain viable populations in each of 
the known genetically differentiated areas (see Space for Individual 
and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, above), critical habitat 
should include one unit within each of the four genetically 
differentiated populations.
    (2) Geographic extent--To maintain viable populations that are 
distributed across the geographic range of the Florida bonneted bat 
(see Current Distribution in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 
October 2, 2013, pp. 61010-61011)), critical habitat units should 
represent the extent of the species' existing known range.
    (3) Ecological diversity--To maintain at least one viable 
population in each major ecological community that provides roosting 
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (see Habitats with Appropriate 
Disturbance Regimes, above), these community types should be well 
represented in critical habitat units.
    (4) Climate change resilience--To maintain at least one viable 
population in suitable habitat predicted to be unaffected or less 
affected by sea-level rise and climate change, critical habitat should 
include one unit in the northern, inland portion of the Florida 
bonneted bat's range.
    (5) High conservation value (HCV) habitat--To maintain sufficient 
habitat with HCV that supports the life history of the species within 
each population, critical habitat units should incorporate multiple 
areas that support roosting and foraging needs and that have HCV (as 
informed by habitat analysis results and telemetry data).
    (6) Structural connectivity--To maintain, enhance, and reestablish 
connectivity within and between Florida bonneted bat populations, 
critical habitat units should be configured within the central and 
south Florida landscape to provide connectivity based on the best 
available movement data for the species (see Space for Individual and 
Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, above).

Selection Criteria and Methodology Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    To delineate the specific areas that are occupied by the species 
and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
Florida bonneted bat's conservation, we conducted a habitat analysis. 
Acknowledging some limitations in the information available, we used 
the best available data to conduct our habitat analysis (see Florida 
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting Documents). Information 
used in the habitat analysis and/or the delineation of critical habitat 
units consists of the following:
    (1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information 
System (GIS) database from 2003 through 2021, and provided by the 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), University of 
Florida (UF), and other various sources, including survey reports, 
databases, and publications;
    (2) Vegetation cover types from the Cooperative Land Cover map 
(CLC; version 3.4) developed by FWC and Florida Natural Areas 
Inventory;
    (3) Canopy height from the global forest canopy height map (2019) 
developed by Global Land Analysis and Discovery;
    (4) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) potential habitat

[[Page 71474]]

(2016) developed by FWC, based on evidence indicating Florida bonneted 
bats use woodpecker cavities for roosting;
    (5) Artificial sky luminance from the New World Atlas of Artificial 
Sky Brightness developed by the Light Pollution Science and Technology 
Institute (Falchi et al. 2016, entire);
    (6) Fire frequency data provided by the Monitoring Trends in Burn 
Severity program;
    (7) Urban development data (2010 baseline) from the Florida 2070 
project developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services, the UF GeoPlan Center, and 1000 Friends of Florida;
    (8) Maps of unpublished telemetry data collected and provided by UF 
and FWC; and
    (9) ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (2018-2020) to cross-check 
CLC data and ensure the presence of physical or biological features.
    To help identify potential factors affecting Florida bonneted bat 
use, we conducted a spatial analysis to quantify relationships of 
habitat-related and other environmental variables with species 
occurrence (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting 
Documents)). Available presence data incorporated into the analysis 
primarily consisted of acoustic data, as well as locations of known 
roosts. Maps of telemetry locations were used to inform our evaluation 
of HCV areas but were not part of the habitat analysis dataset because 
coordinate data were not available at the time. We identified 10 
covariates that related to habitat types (e.g., pine/cypress) and other 
factors (e.g., fire history) thought to influence habitat suitability 
and use by the Florida bonneted bat and modeled those at three spatial 
scales (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting 
Documents). Model output included predictive maps representing the 
probability of species occurrence based on the covariates included in 
the final models, and we used these maps to characterize the relative 
habitat suitability and conservation value of areas within central and 
south Florida. We also conducted sensitivity/specificity analyses to 
identify an objective threshold value for each model, which we then 
applied to identify areas with high conservation value to the species. 
See the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting Documents 
for full details of our methodology and results, including links to 
data sources used.
    We considered the model output and the conservation strategy to 
determine the specific areas occupied by the species on which are found 
the physical or biological features that are essential to the Florida 
bonneted bat. Those specific areas (critical habitat units) were 
identified and delineated using the following steps:
    (1) We identified areas having high conservation value (as 
described above) for the Florida bonneted bat based on model output 
because those areas are likely to contain the combination of 
characteristics that we have determined are essential physical or 
biological features for the Florida bonneted bat.
    (2) We refined these areas to eliminate any unsuitable or less 
suitable areas that are unlikely to contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species based on the Florida bonneted bat's biology 
(e.g., temperature requirements) and aerial imagery.
    (3) We considered telemetry maps and certain critical habitat 
criteria that were not incorporated into the models (e.g., 
connectivity). Where telemetry maps indicated high use (e.g., HCV 
foraging habitat), or where additional area was needed to ensure 
sufficient connectivity, we delineated additional habitat using CLC 
data and aerial imagery and based on model output and covariate 
relationships identified in our habitat analysis.
    (4) We evaluated the resulting units to determine whether occupied 
habitat is adequate to ensure conservation of the species. We 
specifically evaluated occupied units to ensure they fulfill all 
critical habitat criteria and meet the goals and objectives in our 
conservation strategy for identifying the areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the Florida bonneted bat. Based on our 
determination that occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation 
of the species, no unoccupied habitat is included in this revised 
proposed critical habitat designation.
    When determining revised proposed critical habitat boundaries, we 
made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands 
covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands 
lack physical or biological features necessary for the Florida bonneted 
bat. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied), that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species, and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. We considered areas occupied at the time of listing if they 
have documented presence of Florida bonneted bats from October 2013 
through 2021. Due to the species' life span and high site fidelity, it 
is reasonable to conclude that these areas found to be occupied in 2013 
to 2021 would have been inhabited by Florida bonneted bats when the 
species was listed in 2013. Each unit we propose to designate as 
critical habitat contains all the identified physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species.
    The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the 
map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented 
at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We 
include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical 
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106 and at the Florida Ecological Services Field Office website 
at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.

Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate nine units as critical habitat for 
the Florida bonneted bat. The critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we 
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Kissimmee Unit, (2) Peace River 
Unit, (3) Babcock Unit, (4) Fisheating Creek Unit, (5) Corkscrew Unit, 
(6) Big Cypress Unit, (7) Everglades Tree Islands Unit, (8) Long Pine 
Key Unit, and (9) Miami-Dade Rocklands Unit. All nine units proposed as 
critical habitat are occupied by the species. Table 1 shows the revised 
proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area

[[Page 71475]]

of each unit/subunit within each land ownership category.

                  Table 1--Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units and Subunits for the Florida Bonneted Bat, Including Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) by Land Ownership Category
 [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, and land ownership was determined using the most recent parcel data provided by each county. All units are occupied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Land ownership: ac (ha)
                  Critical habitat unit/subunit                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total area: ac
                                                                      Federal         Tribal           State          County           Local       Private/other   Unidentified        (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kissimmee....................................................         99 (40)          1 (<1)         135,779       815 (330)               0          36,996     2,047 (828)         175,737
                                                                                                        (54,948)                                        (14,972)                        (71,118)
    1A..........................................................         90 (36)               0         135,343       612 (248)               0          31,241     2,047 (828)         169,331
                                                                                                        (54,771)                                        (12,643)                        (68,526)
    1B..........................................................           9 (4)          1 (<1)       437 (177)        203 (82)               0   5,755 (2,329)               0   6,405 (2,592)
2. Peace River..................................................         32 (13)               0   6,389 (2,586)       563 (228)        165 (67)  19,047 (7,708)     1,850 (749)          28,046
                                                                                                                                                                                        (11,350)
    2A..........................................................               0               0               0               0               0   2,603 (1,053)               0   2,603 (1,053)
    2B..........................................................               0               0               0               0               0   5,478 (2,217)        200 (81)   5,678 (2,298)
    2C..........................................................               0               0               0               0               0     2,029 (821)           2 (1)     2,031 (822)
    2D..........................................................         32 (13)               0   6,389 (2,586)       563 (228)        165 (67)   8,938 (3,617)     1,648 (667)  17,734 (7,177)
3. Babcock......................................................               0               0         108,509       782 (316)          19 (8)  23,929 (9,684)       322 (130)         133,560
                                                                                                        (43,912)                                                                        (54,050)
    3A..........................................................               0               0          80,043       782 (316)          19 (8)   7,392 (2,991)       322 (130)          88,559
                                                                                                        (32,392)                                                                        (35,839)
    3B..........................................................               0               0          28,466               0               0  16,536 (6,692)               0          45,001
                                                                                                        (11,520)                                                                        (18,211)
4. Fisheating Creek.............................................               0               0   7,689 (3,112)              <1               0   5,300 (2,145)           6 (2)  12,995 (5,259)
5. Corkscrew....................................................               0               0          26,226   5,265 (2,131)          13 (5)  17,319 (7,009)         41 (17)          48,865
                                                                                                        (10,613)                                                                        (19,775)
6. Big Cypress..................................................         533,179  14,455 (5,850)         152,494   8,419 (3,407)        229 (93)  16,170 (6,544)   3,598 (1,456)         728,544
                                                                       (215,770)                        (61,712)                                                                       (294,831)
7. Everglades Tree Islands......................................  16,538 (6,693)               0          1 (<1)           4 (2)               0              <1         60 (24)  16,604 (6,719)
8. Long Pine Key................................................          25,142               0           2 (1)               0               0        187 (76)           5 (2)          25,337
                                                                        (10,175)                                                                                                        (10,254)
9. Miami Rocklands..............................................       599 (242)               0       796 (322)     2,403 (972)           8 (3)       471 (190)         46 (19)   4,324 (1,750)
    9A..........................................................               0               0               0         52 (21)               0              <1          1 (<1)         53 (21)
    9B..........................................................               0               0               0        104 (42)               0              <1          1 (<1)        104 (42)
    9C..........................................................               0               0               0           5 (2)               0              <1              <1           5 (2)
    9D..........................................................               0               0          10 (4)               0               0          18 (7)          1 (<1)         28 (11)
    9E..........................................................               0               0          21 (8)        230 (93)              <1          13 (5)           2 (1)       267 (108)
    9F..........................................................        140 (57)               0               0              <1               0              <1              <1        140 (57)
    9G..........................................................               0               0           8 (3)               0               0          19 (8)              <1         28 (11)
    9H..........................................................               0               0        235 (95)               0               0              <1           3 (1)        238 (96)
    9I..........................................................               0               0               0          22 (9)               0              <1              <1          22 (9)
    9J..........................................................               0               0         60 (24)              <1           8 (3)         28 (11)           3 (1)         99 (40)
    9K..........................................................               0               0         36 (15)              <1               0              <1              <1         37 (15)
    9L..........................................................               0               0         77 (31)              <1              <1              <1              <1         77 (31)
    9M..........................................................               0               0               0        114 (46)               0              <1              <1        114 (46)
    9N..........................................................               0               0          18 (7)               0               0              <1              <1          18 (7)
    9O..........................................................       458 (185)               0               0     1,180 (478)               0        123 (50)          1 (<1)     1,762 (713)
    9P..........................................................               0               0         48 (19)               0               0          13 (5)              <1         61 (25)
    9Q..........................................................               0               0              <1           7 (3)               0           7 (3)              <1          14 (6)
    9R..........................................................               0               0         36 (15)          22 (9)               0          13 (5)           8 (3)         80 (32)
    9S..........................................................               0               0         34 (14)         63 (25)               0         35 (14)           2 (1)        135 (55)
    9T..........................................................               0               0          10 (4)               0               0         25 (10)              <1         36 (15)
    9U..........................................................               0               0          18 (7)           4 (2)               0          1 (<1)              <1          23 (9)
    9V..........................................................               0               0               0               0               0         30 (12)          1 (<1)         31 (13)
    9W..........................................................               0               0           9 (4)        103 (42)               0              <1              <1        112 (45)
    9X..........................................................               0               0               0          10 (4)               0          20 (8)              <1         30 (12)
    9Y..........................................................               0               0               0          18 (7)               0          11 (4)           4 (2)         32 (13)
    9Z..........................................................               0               0               0         28 (11)               0              <1           3 (1)         31 (13)
    9AA.........................................................               0               0          22 (9)         24 (10)               0         37 (15)              <1         84 (34)
    9BB.........................................................               0               0               0          19 (8)               0          23 (9)          1 (<1)         43 (17)
    9CC.........................................................               0               0               0           9 (4)               0          15 (6)              <1         24 (10)
    9DD.........................................................               0               0          19 (8)               0               0              <1              <1          19 (8)
    9EE.........................................................               0               0          12 (5)              <1               0          1 (<1)           5 (2)          18 (7)
    9FF.........................................................               0               0               0         39 (16)               0              <1              <1         39 (16)
    9GG.........................................................               0               0         81 (33)        240 (97)               0         28 (11)          1 (<1)       351 (142)
    9HH.........................................................               0               0          22 (9)               0               0              <1              <1          22 (9)
    9II.........................................................               0               0          18 (7)           5 (2)               0          10 (4)           6 (2)         39 (16)
    9JJ.........................................................              <1               0               0        105 (42)               0              <1           2 (1)        108 (44)
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................         575,589  14,457 (5,851)         437,888  18,251 (7,386)       434 (176)         119,419   7,974 (3,227)       1,174,011
                                                                       (232,933)                       (177,207)                                        (48,327)                       (475,105)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 71476]]

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, 
below.

Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit

    Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 ac (71,118 ha) of lands in Polk, 
Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, Florida. This unit 
consists of two subunits generally located along the eastern bank of 
Lake Kissimmee northeast to SR-192, north of SR-60; and along portions 
of the Kissimmee River, south of SR-60. Unit 1 predominately consists 
of State-owned conservation lands (135,779 ac (54,948 ha)) and private 
lands (36,996 ac (14,972 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings 
within this unit include Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park, Three 
Lakes WMA, Herky Huffman/Bull Creek WMA, Triple N Ranch WMA, and South 
Florida Water Management District lands along the Kissimmee River. 
Other smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more 
information, see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting 
Documents).
    Unit 1 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. The Kissimmee Unit represents the northern extent of 
the species' range and provides resiliency against the expected impacts 
from habitat loss due to climate change as it includes areas considered 
less vulnerable to these effects. Habitat in this unit provides 
ecological diversity (i.e., high pine and mesic flatwoods) and includes 
areas identified as having HCV, specifically high-quality roosting 
habitat (e.g., potential roost trees, red-cockaded woodpecker activity 
in the area) and foraging habitat (e.g., open water, abundant prey). In 
addition, the Florida bonneted bats in this area are genetically 
differentiated from those occurring elsewhere in the range (Austin et 
al. 2022, entire), and thus contribute to the genetic diversity of the 
overall population.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 1 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat loss 
and fragmentation from changes in land use (e.g., land clearing for 
residential/commercial development); lack of habitat management and/or 
inadvertent impacts from these habitat management practices (e.g., 
prescribed fire, snag removal); and excessive pesticide use (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
    Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we are exempting Avon Park 
Air Force Range lands (99,523 ac (40,276 ha)) from the critical habitat 
designation because the U.S. Air Force has an approved integrated 
natural resources management plan (INRMP) that provides benefits to the 
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (see Exemptions, below, for more 
detailed information).
    Approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Tribal lands occur within Unit 1 
(Miccosukee Tribe of Florida). We are considering exclusion of these 
lands from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, below).

Unit 2: Peace River Unit

    Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee, 
DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit consists of four 
subunits located along portions of the Peace River and its tributaries 
(e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie Creek), south of CR-64 with the majority 
west of U.S.-17. Unit 2 predominately consists of privately owned lands 
(19,047 ac (7,708 ha)) and State-owned conservation lands (6,389 ac 
(2,586 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings within this unit 
include the Peace River State Forest and the Deep Creek Preserve. Other 
smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more 
information, see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting 
Documents).
    Unit 2 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. The Peace River Unit encompasses a known movement 
corridor (generally connecting proposed Units 1 and 3), allowing gene 
flow between these populations, and includes areas identified as having 
HCV, specifically high-quality foraging habitat along the Peace River 
and adjacent forested lands that provide open water and abundant prey. 
In addition, this unit adds ecological diversity (a natural river 
corridor) to the overall proposed designation.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 2 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat 
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., 
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat 
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive pesticide use; and 
climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, 
habitat alteration/degradation) (see Special Management Considerations 
or Protection, above).

Unit 3: Babcock Unit

    Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac (54,050 ha) of lands in Charlotte, 
Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit consists of two subunits, 
with the majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte County, east of I-75; 
other portions are in northwestern Lee and western Glades Counties. 
This unit predominately consists of State-owned conservation lands 
(108,509 ac (43,912 ha)) and private lands (23,929 ac (9,684 ha)). The 
largest conservation landholdings within this unit are Babcock-Webb WMA 
and Babcock Ranch Preserve; other smaller conservation lands also occur 
within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation Lands 
document in Supporting Documents).
    Unit 3 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. Habitat in the Babcock Unit provides ecological 
diversity (i.e., hydric and mesic flatwoods) and includes areas 
identified as having HCV, specifically superior roosting and foraging 
habitat. Babcock-Webb WMA and surrounding areas support the largest 
known population of Florida bonneted bats and the majority of all known 
roost sites. In addition, the Florida bonneted bats in this westernmost 
extent of the species' range are genetically differentiated from those 
occurring elsewhere in the range (Austin et al. 2022, entire), thus 
contributing to the genetic diversity of the overall population.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 3 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat 
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., 
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat 
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive pesticide use; and 
climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, 
habitat alteration/

[[Page 71477]]

degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, 
above).

Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit

    Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259 ha) of lands in Glades and 
Highlands Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 4 is located in 
Glades County, west of US-27; the remaining portion of the unit extends 
north into southern Highlands County. This unit predominately consists 
of State-owned conservation lands (7,689 ac (3,112 ha)) and private 
lands (5,300 ac (2,145 ha)). Conservation landholdings within this unit 
are Fisheating Creek WMA, Fisheating Creek/Lykes Brothers Conservation 
Easement, and Platt Branch Wildlife and Environmental Area.
    Unit 4 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. High-quality foraging habitat along Fisheating Creek 
and adjacent forested lands provide open water and abundant prey. This 
unit serves as important foraging habitat connecting bats traveling 
between proposed Unit 3 and areas to the north and east, and, along 
with proposed Unit 2, this unit adds ecological diversity (natural 
river corridors) to the overall proposed designation.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 4 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat 
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., 
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat 
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal, hydrologic restoration); 
excessive pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/
inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation) (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).

Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit

    Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and 
Collier Counties, Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/Collier county 
line, east of I-75, and predominately consists of State-owned 
conservation lands (26,226 ac (10,613 ha)) and private lands (17,319 ac 
(7,009 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings within this unit are 
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed and the National Audubon 
Society's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary; other smaller conservation lands 
also occur within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation 
Lands document in Supporting Documents).
    Unit 5 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. Habitat within the Corkscrew Unit provides ecological 
diversity (i.e., cypress and hydric flatwoods) and includes areas 
identified as having HCV. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary was established to 
protect one of the largest remaining stands of cypress in North 
America, and this area likely includes high-quality roosting habitat. 
The area also provides connectivity between Babcock-Webb WMA and areas 
south. The natural habitat within Unit 5 serves as important habitat in 
an area that is otherwise under high development pressure.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 5 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following: Habitat loss, 
fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., land 
clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat 
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); and climate change (e.g., sea 
level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, 
above).

Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit

    Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac (294,831 ha) of lands in Collier, 
Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 6 is located 
in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder occurs in southern 
Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe County. This unit 
predominately consists of Federal (533,179 ac (215,770 ha)) and State-
owned (152,494 ac (61,712 ha)) conservation lands. The largest 
landholdings within this unit are Big Cypress National Preserve, 
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Fakahatchee Strand 
Preserve State Park, and Picayune Strand State Forest; other smaller 
conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more information, 
see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting Documents).
    Unit 6 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. Habitat in the Big Cypress Unit, along with Unit 5, 
provides ecological diversity (i.e., cypress and hydric flatwoods) and 
includes areas identified as having HCV. Roosting habitat within this 
unit is of particularly high quality. Despite challenges in accessing 
this site to conduct surveys, the Florida bonneted bat has been 
documented throughout this unit, including the discovery of 25 natural 
roosts (the most of any unit). The Florida bonneted bats in this area 
are genetically differentiated from those occurring elsewhere in the 
range (Austin et al. 2022, entire) and thus contribute to the genetic 
diversity of the overall population.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 6 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat 
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., 
land clearing for residential, commercial, transportation, or energy-
related development); lack of habitat management and/or inadvertent 
impacts from land management practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag 
removal, habitat and hydrologic restoration); excessive pesticide use; 
and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 
intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze) (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
    Approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of Tribal lands occur within 
Unit 6 (Seminole Tribe of Florida). We are considering exclusion of 
these lands from the final critical habitat designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, 
below).

Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit

    Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and west of Krome Avenue. 
Nearly this entire unit is Federal land within Everglades National Park 
(ENP; 16,538 ac (6,693 ha)).
    Unit 7 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. The Everglades Tree Islands Unit provides connectivity 
between Unit 6 and the southeast coast (proposed Units 8 and 9), 
allowing gene flow between these populations. It also includes areas 
identified as having HCV. Despite

[[Page 71478]]

limited effort and challenges accessing the area to conduct surveys, 
the Florida bonneted bat has been documented throughout this unit.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 7 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Lack of 
habitat management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management 
practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat and hydrologic 
restoration) and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, 
saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation) (see Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, above).

Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit

    Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,254 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida, along ENP's Main Park Road (SR-9336) between Mahogany 
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue. Nearly this entire unit is Federal land 
within ENP (25,142 ac (10,175 ha)).
    Unit 8 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. Habitat in the unit provides ecological diversity 
(i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas identified as having HCV, 
specifically high-quality roosting and foraging habitat within Long 
Pine Key, the largest remaining contiguous occurrence of pine rockland 
habitat. This unit includes the southernmost extent of the species' 
range and provides additional connectivity between proposed Units 6 and 
9.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 8 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following: Lack of habitat 
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices 
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal) and climate change (e.g., sea 
level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, 
above).

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit

    Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. This unit consists of 36 subunits located between 
Tamiami Trail to the north and SR-9336 to the south, and is surrounded 
by a dense urban matrix typical of the Miami metropolitan area. This 
unit predominately consists of conservation lands owned by county 
(2,403 ac (972 ha)), State (796 ac (322 ha)), and Federal (599 ac (242 
ha)) agencies. The largest landholdings within this unit are Zoo Miami, 
Larry and Penny Thompson Park, the U.S. Coast Guard Communication 
Station, Navy Wells, and the Deering Estate. Many county-owned 
preserves and parks, as well as other smaller conservation lands, also 
occur within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation 
Lands document in Supporting Documents).
    Unit 9 contains all of the essential physical or biological 
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the 
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats 
within the unit. The Miami Rocklands Unit represents the easternmost 
extent of the species' range. Habitat in this unit provides ecological 
diversity (i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas identified as 
having HCV. This unit includes remaining fragments of pine rockland and 
rockland hammock habitat within an urbanized landscape. These fragments 
of natural habitat are used extensively by Florida bonneted bats and 
provide connectivity within the unit. Florida bonneted bats inhabiting 
the area are the most genetically differentiated from those occurring 
elsewhere in the range (Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus 
contribute to the genetic diversity of the overall population.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 9 may require special management 
considerations or protection due to the following: Habitat loss, 
fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., land 
clearing for residential, commercial, transportation, or energy-related 
development); lack of habitat management and/or inadvertent impacts 
from land management practices (e.g., prescribed burns, snag removal, 
habitat restoration); excessive pesticide use; and climate change 
(e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat 
alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze) (see Special Management 
Considerations or Protection, above).
    Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we are exempting Homestead 
Air Reserve Base (Base) lands (280 ac (113 ha)) from critical habitat 
designation because the U.S. Air Force has an approved INRMP that 
provides benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (see 
Exemptions, below, for more detailed information).
    Approximately 104 ac (42 ha) of private lands under a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) occur within Unit 9. We are considering 
exclusion of these lands from the final critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant 
Impacts, below).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.

[[Page 71479]]

    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, if 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new 
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected 
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies 
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but 
the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after 
subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. 
See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species. Factors considered in making these 
determinations may include the extent of the proposed action, including 
its temporal and spatial scale relative to the critical habitat unit or 
subunit within which it occurs; the specific purpose for which that 
unit or subunit was identified and designated as critical habitat; and 
the impact of the proposed action on the unit or subunit's likelihood 
of serving its intended conservation function or purpose.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter roosting or foraging 
habitat or habitat connectivity such that they appreciably diminish the 
value of critical habitat as a whole. Such activities may include, but 
are not limited to: Land clearing for residential, commercial, 
transportation, energy-related or other development; and water 
diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or conversion. These activities 
could destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting and foraging sites 
(necessary for food, shelter, protection from predation, and 
reproduction); reduce habitat conditions below what is necessary for 
survival and growth; and/or eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary 
for successful reproduction, dispersal, and population expansion (see 
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species, above).
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or 
composition such that they appreciably diminish the value of critical 
habitat as a whole. Such activities could include, but are not limited 
to: Habitat management or restoration (e.g., prescribed burning and 
other forest management activities, snag removal, or hydrologic 
restoration) conducted in a manner that does not minimize disturbance 
to the physical and biological features. These activities could affect 
habitat that provides for the Florida bonneted bat's roosting and 
rearing, foraging and prey, refuge from short-term changes to habitat, 
and/or protection from predation (see Physical or Biological Features 
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, above).
    (3) Actions that would significantly reduce suitability of habitat 
or impact prey base (e.g., availability, abundance, density, diversity) 
such that they appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat as a 
whole. These actions include, but are not limited to: Hydrologic 
alteration or excessive pesticide applications that impact prey or 
alter foraging behavior or movement. These activities could 
significantly modify habitat that currently provides adequate prey and 
space for foraging (see Physical or Biological Features Essential to 
the Conservation of the Species, above).
    Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to adversely affect 
critical habitat but not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include actions that significantly affect the unit or subunit's 
ability to fulfill its primary functions (e.g., connectivity, foraging 
or roosting habitat, genetic representation), but do not appreciably 
diminish the value of critical habitat as a whole. Such activities may 
include a landscape-scale hydrologic restoration project that would 
convert large amounts of roosting habitat to foraging habitat within a 
unit; development that would eliminate a small amount of high-value 
foraging area or affect a known corridor; or habitat or invasive 
species management programs that are overall beneficial to Florida 
bonneted bat habitat but may result in inadvertent, but significant, 
impacts to roosting habitat.
    As noted above, some actions that are beneficial to Florida 
bonneted bat habitat, including actions necessary to maintain habitat 
quality and suitability, may result in inadvertent negative effects. 
When conducted with guidance from the Service or using established best 
management practices (BMPs) that prevent or minimize impacts, these 
actions are beneficial and are encouraged as a part of standard land 
management practices. Avoidance and minimization measures can also 
reduce the impacts of habitat loss and other

[[Page 71480]]

impacts from development projects, habitat alteration, and habitat 
conversion. General guidance has already been developed and is in use 
(see Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines, Appendices D and E 
and Florida Bonneted Bat Avoidance and Minimization Measures in 
Supporting Documents); additional guidance is under development to 
address habitat management practices on conservation lands.
    Some activities that the Service may consider to be activities that 
may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, critical habitat 
include actions that are wholly beneficial (i.e., those that maintain, 
improve, or restore the functionality of critical habitat for the 
Florida bonneted bat without causing adverse effects to the essential 
physical or biological features), discountable (i.e., unlikely to 
occur), or insignificant. In such cases, the Act's section 7 
consultation requirements can be satisfied through the informal 
concurrence process.
    Whether an action will have insignificant effects must be 
considered within the context of the unit or subunit in which the 
action occurs. A localized reduction in roosting or foraging habitat 
within a stand may have such a small impact on physical and biological 
features within the stand that a ``not likely to adversely affect'' 
determination is appropriate. Similarly, effects to roosting habitat 
may be negligible where a hazard tree removal project occurs in a stand 
with many suitable roosting trees.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an INRMP by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates 
implementation of the military mission of the installation with 
stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP 
includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that 
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat 
is proposed for designation.
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat to 
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of 
Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

Approved INRMPs

    For discussion of the approved INRMP for Avon Park Air Force Range 
(Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; 99,523 ac (40,276 ha)), see the Exemptions 
section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 
2020).
    Homestead Air Reserve Base (Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit--Subunits 
KK, LL), 280 ac (113 ha)
    The Homestead Air Reserve Base (Base) has a current and completed 
INRMP, signed by the Service and the FWC in 2017 and 2018, 
respectively. The INRMP (U.S. Air Force Reserve Command (Air Force) 
2016) provides conservation measures for the species and management of 
important upland and wetland habitats on the base.
    The Base's INRMP provides benefits to Florida bonneted bat habitat 
as the primary goals of the plan include, ``conservation and 
enhancement of the land and water resources of the Base and improving 
and maintaining the quality of native vegetation communities and 
threatened and endangered species' habitats, while supporting the 
military mission'' (Air Force 2016, p. 75). Some objectives identified 
under this goal that should benefit the Florida bonneted bat include: 
(1) Protecting, enhancing, and maintaining natural communities to 
support native fish and wildlife species; (2) conserving and protecting 
the habitats for federally and State-listed species; (3) reducing and 
controlling populations of invasive and exotic plant species; and (4) 
instituting control for nuisance and exotic wildlife.
    More specifically, protecting and maintaining wetland functions, 
restoring pine rockland, controlling invasive species, managing water 
quality, and maintaining and enhancing natural habitat values and 
ecosystem functions are expected to benefit the species and its 
habitat. The Base's INRMP also includes specific projects to benefit 
the species including incorporation of Florida bonneted bat management 
strategies into conservation programs on the Base, working with the 
Service to identify and implement management strategies for foraging 
and roosting habitat, and conducting a qualitative bat survey (Air 
Force 2016, pp. A-3, A-4). The study is expected to provide information 
on the bat species present and their habitat use on the Base. Data from 
the study will be used to supplement and update existing natural 
resource management plans on the Base. Other components of the Base's 
INRMP, such as the Integrated Pest Management Plan, the Bird/Wildlife 
Aircraft Strike Hazard Plan, the threatened and endangered species 
training course, and implementation of the pine rockland restoration 
and management plan, have the potential to reduce pesticide use and 
exposure to bats, avoid aircraft strikes to bats, raise awareness about 
bats using the base, and enhance habitat quality for bats and other 
species (Air Force 2016, appendix A).
    In addition, the Base's INRMP includes a management plan for the 
Florida bonneted bat that addresses: Conservation of wetlands to 
promote foraging opportunities; promotion of insect diversity and 
availability through the appropriate application of insecticides, 
mowing, and other maintenance practices; and protection of roosting 
habitat as identified through monitoring (Air Force 2016, appendix G). 
Per the management plan, guidelines outlined in the Base's INRMP, Pest 
Management Plan, Landscape Maintenance Plan, and the Protected Plant 
Management Plan will be closely monitored and adapted as life-history 
data for the Florida bonneted bat become available. The INRMP also 
includes proposed monitoring

[[Page 71481]]

consisting of acoustic surveys and more intensive surveys for roost 
sites; the Base will seek funding and partnership opportunities to 
accomplish roost site monitoring and will adapt the management plan to 
incorporate more specific protection and avoidance measures for the bat 
at identified roost sites on the installation (Air Force 2016, appendix 
G). When compatible with mission requirements, the Base will also 
promote the use of environmentally friendly lighting practices to 
minimize impacts to the bat (Air Force 2016, appendix G). The full 
suite of protective measures incorporated in the Base's INRMP is 
expected to benefit the species and its habitat.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to Avon Park Air Force Range's and the Base's INRMPs and 
that conservation efforts identified in the INRMPs will provide a 
benefit to the Florida bonneted bat. Therefore, lands within these 
installations are exempt from critical habitat designation under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we are not including 
approximately 99,803 ac (40,389 ha) of habitat in this proposed 
critical habitat designation because of these exemptions.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we determine, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude 
the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. We describe below our process for considering each 
category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.

Exclusion Requests Received During the Previous Public Comment Period

    During the public comment period for the June 10, 2020, proposed 
critical habitat designation (85 FR 35510), we received nine requests 
for exclusion from critical habitat designation. Of these, two requests 
do not overlap with this revised proposed designation, while the 
remaining seven requests overlap to some degree (see table 2, below). 
Additionally, requests for exclusion of federal lands are not included 
in table 2, given the high standard set in our 2016 policy regarding 
exclusions of Federal lands under 4(b)(2) of the Act (2016 Policy). As 
part of our final rule, we may evaluate the areas in Table 2 for 
possible exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. All 
requests received as public comments are available for review at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.

   Table 2--Exclusion Requests Received During the 2020 Public Comment Period on the Proposed Critical Habitat
 Designation for the Florida Bonneted Bat and Corresponding Overlap With Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units
                                                  in This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Overlap with revised proposed
   Requesting party (Public       Area requested for        Basis for                 critical habitat
    comment No. on https://            exclusion          exclusion per   --------------------------------------
     www.regulations.gov)                                requesting party      Unit/subunit           Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC  Property owned by JB    Economic, No       No overlap.........  N/A.
 (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0464 and   Ranch I, LLC, and       ecological
 attachment).                    Sunniland Family        benefit.
                                 Limited Partnership.
Miami-Dade Limestone Products   Lands overlapping the   No ecological      No overlap.........  N/A.
 Association (FWS-R4-ES-2019-    Florida legislature-    benefit.
 0106-0386 and attachment).      designated Lake Belt
                                 mining area.
Florida Power & Light (FPL)     All FPL electric        Conservation       All................  Insufficient
 (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0449 and   utility sub-            plans or                                information to
 attachment).                    stations\1\ and         programs,                               determine or
                                 rights-of-way           Economic.                               estimate.
                                 containing
                                 aboveground linear
                                 facilities.
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida     Tribal reservation      Tribal lands,      1..................  1.25.
 (Comment submitted directly     lands and fee lands.    Conservation
 to the Service).                                        plans or
                                                         programs.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers    Lands enrolled in the   Economic.........  2A.................  387.
 (Comment submitted directly     Wetland Reserve
 to the Service).                Easement Partnership
                                 Program (formerly
                                 called Wetland
                                 Reserve Program).
                                Lands within the        Economic.........  6..................  64,490.
                                 Picayune Strand
                                 Restoration Project.
Seminole Tribe of Florida (FWS- Tribal reservation      Tribal lands,      6..................  14,455.
 R4-ES-2019-0106-0380 and        lands and fee lands.    Conservation
 attachment).                                            plans or
                                                         programs.
Collier Enterprises             Lands within the        Conservation       5..................  Included \2\:
 Management, Inc. (FWS-R4-ES-    boundary of the draft   plans or                                2,013.
 2019-0106-0461 and              East Collier Multiple   programs.                              Eligible \3\:
 attachment).                    Species Habitat                                                 163.
                                 Conservation Plan.

[[Page 71482]]

 
                                                                           6..................  Included \2\:
                                                                                                 1,561.
                                                                                                Eligible \3\:
                                                                                                 35.
Collier Mosquito Control        Lands within the        Economic.........  5..................  Existing MCD:
 District (MCD) (FWS-R4-ES-      existing and proposed                                           317.
 2019-0106-0385 and              Collier MCD                                                    Proposed MCD:
 attachment).                    boundaries.                                                     3,118.
                                                                           6..................  Existing MCD:
                                                                                                 166.
                                                                                                Proposed MCD:
                                                                                                 78,568.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As developed areas, electric utility substations were excluded by text in the June 10, 2020, proposed
  critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510), and remain excluded by text in this revised proposed rule.
\2\ ``Included'' lands are areas covered by draft HCP; certain impacts/development actions are allowed.
\3\ ``Eligible'' lands are not included in draft HCP but are eligible to join without amending the HCP.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. For information on how probable economic impacts 
of a designation were assessed, please see the Exclusions Based on 
Economic Impacts section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 
35510, June 10, 2020). For this particular revised proposed 
designation, we revised the incremental effects memorandum (IEM) to 
consider the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from 
this designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our 
revised IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the 
probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bonneted bat. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our draft 
economic analysis (DEA) of the revised proposed critical habitat 
designation for the Florida bonneted bat; our DEA is summarized in the 
narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from this revised proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, first we 
identified, in the revised IEM dated June 22, 2021, probable 
incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories 
of activities: (1) Commercial or residential development; (2) 
transportation; (3) utilities; (4) energy (including solar, wind, and 
oil and gas); (5) water management (including water supply, flood 
control, and water quality); (6) recreation; (7) land management 
(including prescribed burning and invasive species control); and (8) 
habitat and hydrologic restoration. We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. Because the Florida bonneted bat is already listed 
under the Act, in areas where the species is present, Federal agencies 
are currently required to consult with the Service under section 7 of 
the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect 
the species. If we finalize this revised proposed critical habitat 
designation, our consultation would include an evaluation of measures 
to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat. The following specific 
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical or biological features identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm to 
constitute jeopardy to the Florida bonneted bat would also likely 
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of 
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this 
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this 
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat.
    The revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida 
bonneted bat consists of nine units, all occupied by the species, 
totaling 1,174,011 ac (475,105 ha) and including lands under Federal, 
Tribal, State, county, local, and private jurisdictions (see table 1, 
above). Because all areas are occupied, the economic impacts of 
implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be 
limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse 
modification. This finding is based on the following factors:
     Any activities with a Federal nexus occurring within 
occupied habitat will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements 
regardless of critical habitat designation, due to the presence of the 
listed species; and

[[Page 71483]]

     In most cases, project modifications requested to avoid 
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid 
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
    Our analysis considers the potential need to consult on 
development, transportation, utilities, land management, habitat 
restoration, and other activities authorized, undertaken, or funded by 
Federal agencies within critical habitat. The total incremental section 
7 costs associated with the designation of the proposed units are 
estimated to be less than $70,800 per year, with the highest costs 
expected in Unit 6 (IEc 2021, pp. 2, 25). While the revised proposed 
critical habitat area is relatively large, incremental section 7 costs 
are kept comparatively low due to the strong baseline protections that 
already exist for this species due to its listed status, the existence 
of a consultation area map that alerts managing agencies about the 
location of the species and its habitat, and the presence of other 
listed species in the area.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this revised proposed 
rule and our required determinations. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and 
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the 
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we 
receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful 
economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we 
will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We 
may also exercise the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas 
for possible exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion 
analysis based on impacts identified by experts in, or sources with 
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside the scope of the 
Service's expertise, we will give weight to those impacts consistent 
with the expert or firsthand information unless we have rebutting 
information. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we 
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits 
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    For information on how probable impacts to national security were 
assessed, please see the Impacts on National Security and Homeland 
Security section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, 
June 10, 2020). We have evaluated whether any of the lands within this 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat are owned by DoD or 
DHS or could lead to national-security or homeland-security impacts if 
designated. In this discussion, we describe the areas within the 
revised proposed designation that are owned by DoD or DHS or for which 
designation could lead to national-security or homeland-security 
impacts. For each area, we describe the available information 
indicating whether we have reason to consider excluding the area from 
the designation. If, during the comment period, we identify or receive 
credible information about additional areas for which designation may 
result in incremental national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
then we will also conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to 
determine whether to exclude those additional areas under the authority 
of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 
CFR 17.90.

Department of Homeland Security

    We have determined that some lands within Unit 9, Subunit O, of the 
revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted 
bat are owned, managed, or used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which 
is part of the DHS.
    The USCG property is separated into two main areas: the 
Communications Station Miami and the Civil Engineering Unit (CEU). The 
Communications Station houses transmitting and receiving antennas. The 
CEU plans and executes projects at regional shore facilities, such as 
construction and post-disaster assessments.
    The USCG parcel contains approximately 100 ac (40 ha) of standing 
pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the developed 
areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed three to 
four times per year for maintenance of a communications antenna field. 
Although disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand substrate and many 
native pine rockland species; the Florida bonneted bat has also been 
documented on adjacent property. The USCG parcel has a 2017 Natural 
Resources Management Plan (Gottfried 2017, entire) that includes 
habitat management and restoration recommendations for their Pineland 
Natural Area, a 72-ac (29-ha) conservation area within this property. 
Recommended management includes prescribed fire, control of invasive 
plants, and protection of lands from further development or 
degradation. In addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially 
managed through an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional 
Conservation. Under this grant, up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine 
rocklands will undergo invasive vegetation control.
    Based on a review of the specific mission of the USCG facility in 
conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the management 
plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect sensitive and listed 
species, we have determined that it is unlikely that the critical 
habitat, if finalized as proposed in this document, would negatively 
impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not 
anticipate any impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary 
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any of these 
areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security. 
We will, however, review this determination, in light of any new 
information and public comments we receive prior to making a decision 
in the final rule.

Department of Defense

    We have determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a branch 
of the DoD, retains ownership over a 14-ac (6-ha)-parcel within Unit 9, 
Subunit O, of the revised proposed critical habitat designation for the 
Florida bonneted bat. This area is a combination of standing and 
scraped pine rocklands but is not managed for preservation of natural 
resources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have any specific 
management plan for the Florida bonneted bat or its habitat covering 
these lands. Activities conducted on this site are unknown, but we do 
not anticipate any impact on national security. Consequently, the 
Secretary does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any of 
these areas from the final designation based on impacts on national 
security. We will, however, review this determination, in light of any 
new information and public comments we receive, prior to making a 
decision in the final rule.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and

[[Page 71484]]

impacts on national security discussed above. Other relevant impacts 
may include, but are not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local 
governments, public health and safety, community interests, the 
environment (such as increased risk of wildfire), Federal lands, and 
conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To identify other 
relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a 
number of factors, including whether there are permitted conservation 
plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor 
agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with assurances 
(CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and 
partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, 
critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation 
plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, public-health, 
community-interest, environmental, or social impacts that might occur 
because of the designation.
    When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular 
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts 
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine 
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a 
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional 
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection 
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a 
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat 
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result 
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to 
critical habitat.
    In the case of the Florida bonneted bat, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species and the 
importance of habitat protection and, where a Federal nexus exists, 
increased habitat protection for Florida bonneted bat due to protection 
from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued 
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation 
equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical 
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that 
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
    We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering 
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including, 
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for 
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; 
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in 
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If failure to designate an area as critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act
    HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and 
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitat. In some cases, 
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and 
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat 
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are 
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
    CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve 
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on 
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an 
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may 
result from implementation of conservation actions or specific land 
uses. In the case of SHAs, the permit would allow participants to take 
listed species or modify habitat to return population levels and 
habitat conditions to those agreed upon as baseline condition under the 
agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances that we will 
not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use restrictions, or 
require additional commitments of land, water, or finances, beyond 
those agreed to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis based on permitted conservation plans such as CCAAs, SHAs, and 
HCPs, we consider the following three factors:
    (i) Whether the permittee is properly implementing the conservation 
plan or agreement;
    (ii) Whether the species for which critical habitat is being 
designated is a covered species in the conservation plan or agreement; 
and
    (iii) Whether the conservation plan or agreement specifically 
addresses the habitat of the species for which critical habitat is 
being designated and meets the conservation needs of the species in the 
planning area.
    The revised proposed critical habitat designation includes areas 
that are covered by the Coral Reef Commons HCP, a permitted plan 
providing for the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
Coral Reef Commons HCP
    The revised proposed designation includes the Coral Reef Commons 
mixed-use community, which consists of 900 apartments, retail stores, 
restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an HCP and associated permit under 
section 10 of the Act was developed and issued for the Coral Reef 
Commons development (Church Environmental 2017, entire). As part of the 
HCP and permit, an approximately 52-ac (21-ha) on-site preserve was 
established under a conservation encumbrance that will be managed in 
perpetuity for pine rockland habitat and sensitive and listed species, 
including the Florida bonneted bat. Also, an additional approximately 
52-ac (21-ha) off-site mitigation area was set aside for Coral Reef 
Commons. Both the on-site preserves and the off-site mitigation area 
will be managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat through the 
use of invasive, exotic plant management, mechanical treatment, and 
prescribed fire. Since initiating the Coral Reef Commons HCP, pine 
rockland restoration efforts have been conducted within all the 
management units in the on-site preserve and the off-site mitigation 
area. A second round of prescribed fire began in February 2021. 
Currently, the on-site preserve meets or exceeds the success criteria 
described in the HCP.
    Maintenance of pine rockland habitat specifically relates to 
conservation of ecological diversity described in physical or 
biological feature 4, and

[[Page 71485]]

other biological objectives of the HCP (e.g., implementation of a burn 
plan, minimizing pesticide use to the extent practicable) may provide 
conservation benefits related to physical or biological features 1, 2, 
and 3.
    After considering the factors described above, we have identified 
the 104 ac (42 ha) under the Coral Reef Commons HCP (in Unit 9, Subunit 
O) as an area we have reason to consider excluding because of its 
permitted plan. Specifically, our reasons for considering this area for 
potential exclusion are not only that the Florida bonneted bat is a 
covered species within the HCP; but also that the HCP specifically 
addresses conservation of pine rockland habitat, generally addresses 
four of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the species, and may meet the conservation needs of the 
species within the area covered by the HCP. We will more thoroughly 
review the HCP, its implementation of the conservation measures for the 
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat therein, and public comment on 
this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and if appropriate, 
exclude from critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat those lands 
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the preserve and 
offsite mitigation area.
Tribal Lands
    Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign 
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of 
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service 
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
    A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretarial Order 3206, 
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most 
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal 
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition 
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206 
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any 
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust 
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section 
3(b)(4) of the appendix requires the Service to consult with affected 
Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an 
area that may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands, 
or the exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the 
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat 
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, 
and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands.''
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90(d)(1)(i) are 
consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary exclusion 
analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206 we consult with any Tribe whose 
Tribal trust resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal rights may 
be affected by including any particular areas in the designation, and 
we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs of the species 
can be achieved by limiting the designation to other areas. We then 
weighed nonbiological impacts to Tribal lands and resources consistent 
with the information provided by the Tribes.
    However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory 
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we 
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may 
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas 
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied 
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or 
biological features that may require special management or protection 
and unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of a 
species), without regard to land ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides 
important direction, it expressly states that it does not modify the 
Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or other statutes.
    The revised proposed critical habitat designation includes the 
following Tribal lands or resources:
    Seminole Tribe of Florida: The revised proposed designation 
includes an area (14,455 ac (5,850 ha)) within Unit 6 (Big Cypress) 
that overlaps with Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands. The Seminole 
Tribe Wildlife Conservation Plan, Fire Management Plan, and Forest 
Management Plan cover these lands for the protection of listed and 
endangered species, including the Florida bonneted bat. The Service 
reviewed these plans and issued a biological opinion on December 19, 
2014, which we amended on June 9, 2017 (see Supporting Documents). The 
Wildlife Conservation Plan includes conservation measures in place that 
support the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (e.g., limit impacts 
to potential roost trees during prescribed burns and home site/access 
road construction, maintain bonneted bat habitat through prescribed 
burning and construction of bat houses). The conservation measures 
specifically address conservation of roosting and foraging habitat 
(i.e., physical or biological features 1 through 4), and maintenance of 
that habitat through active management; therefore, the measures appear 
to meet the conservation needs of the Florida bonneted bat within the 
area covered by the plan. As such, we are considering 14,455 ac (5,850 
ha) of Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands within Unit 6 (Big 
Cypress) for exclusion.
    Miccosukee Tribe of Florida: The revised proposed designation 
includes an area (1.25 ac (0.5 ha)) within Unit 1 (Kissimmee) that 
overlaps with Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands. At present, we do 
not have any information on how this small parcel is managed, but we 
are considering 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee 
lands within Unit 1 (Kissimmee) for exclusion.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate 
whether certain lands in the revised proposed critical habitat units 
are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of 
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of 
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation.
    Table 3, below, provides approximate areas of lands that meet the 
definition of critical habitat but for which we are considering 
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 
critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat. In addition, 
we may consider previously requested exclusion requests received during 
the public comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule that 
overlap with revised proposed critical habitat (see table 2, above).

[[Page 71486]]



  Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion Within Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units in Accordance With the
                                                   2016 Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Areas meeting
                                                      the definition   Areas considered
              Unit                  Specific area       of critical      for possible     Rationale for proposed
                                                        habitat, in      exclusion, in          exclusion
                                                     acres (hectares)  acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Kissimmee..............  Miccosukee Tribe          1.25 (0.5)        1.25 (0.5)  Tribal fee lands.
                                  of Florida.
Unit 6: Big Cypress............  Seminole Tribe of     14,455 (5,850)    14,455 (5,850)  Tribal Trust lands;
                                  Florida.                                                under natural resource
                                                                                          management plans.
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands........  Coral Reef Commons          104 (42)          104 (42)  Lands under HCP
                                                                                          specifically
                                                                                          addressing the
                                                                                          species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, for this revised proposed rule, we have reason to 
consider excluding the areas identified above based on other relevant 
impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion 
of such areas. During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider any information currently available or received during the 
public comment period regarding other relevant impacts of this revised 
proposed designation and will determine whether these or any other 
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential 
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may 
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant 
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement

[[Page 71487]]

(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt this revised 
proposed critical habitat designation. The RFA does not require 
evaluation of the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. 
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because 
no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the 
Service certifies that, if made final as proposed in this document, the 
revised proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether this revised proposed 
designation would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based 
on currently available information, we certify that, if made final, 
this revised proposed critical habitat designation would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this 
revised proposed critical habitat designation would significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. As most of the area 
included in this revised proposed critical habitat designation occurs 
on conservation lands (approximately 89 percent), the likelihood of 
energy development within critical habitat is low. Therefore, this 
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments and, as such, a Small Government Agency Plan 
is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Florida bonneted bat in a takings implications assessment. 
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for Florida bonneted 
bat, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical 
habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within 
or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does 
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between

[[Page 71488]]

the national government and the States, or on the distribution of 
powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The 
proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments because 
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of 
the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological 
features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no 
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this revised proposed rule identifies the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed 
areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and this revised 
proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to 
obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

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

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. Some areas within the revised proposed 
designation are included in lands managed by the Seminole Tribe of 
Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (see Units 1 and 6 
descriptions; see also Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, above), 
constituting a total of approximately 14,457 ac (5,851 ha) of Tribal 
land being proposed as critical habitat. We will continue to work with 
Tribal entities during the development of a final rule designating 
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, amend the table in paragraph (h) by revising the 
entry for ``Bat, Florida bonneted'' under MAMMALS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

[[Page 71489]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Florida 
Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)'' before the entry for ``Indiana Bat 
(Myotis sodalis)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Charlotte, Collier, 
DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, 
Okeechobee, Osceola, and Polk Counties, Florida, on the maps in this 
entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Florida bonneted bat consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Habitats that provide for roosting and rearing of offspring. 
Such habitat provides structural features for rest, digestion of food, 
social interaction, mating, rearing of young, protection from sunlight 
and adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks for 
adults and young, and is generally characterized by:
    (A) Live or dead trees and tree snags, especially longleaf pine, 
slash pine, bald cypress, and royal palm, that are on average 57 feet 
(ft) (17 meters (m)) in height and with an average 15-inch (38-
centimeter) diameter at breast height and that are emergent from the 
surrounding canopy (by an average 16 ft (5 m)); and
    (B) Sufficient unobstructed space, with cavities averaging 35 ft 
(10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees averaging 14 ft (4 m) from 
the nearest tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge from roost trees; 
this may include open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
    (ii) Habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging, 
which may vary widely across the Florida bonneted bat's range, in 
accordance with ecological conditions, seasons, and disturbance regimes 
that influence vegetation structure and prey species' distributions. 
Foraging habitat may be separate and relatively far from roosting 
habitat. Essential foraging habitat consists of open areas in or near 
areas of high insect production or congregation, commonly including, 
but not limited to:
    (A) Freshwater edges, and freshwater herbaceous wetlands (permanent 
or seasonal);
    (B) Prairies;
    (C) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
    (D) Wetland and upland forests.
    (iii) A dynamic disturbance regime (e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest 
management) that maintains and regenerates forested habitat, including 
plant communities, open habitat structure, and temporary gaps, which is 
conducive to promoting a continual supply of roosting sites, prey 
items, and suitable foraging conditions.
    (iv) A sufficient quantity and diversity of habitats to enable the 
species to be resilient to short-term impacts associated with 
disturbance over time (e.g., drought, forest disease). The ecological 
communities the Florida bonneted bat inhabits differ in hydrology, fire 
frequency/intensity, climate, prey species, roosting sites, and 
threats, and include, but are not limited to:
    (A) Pine rocklands;
    (B) Cypress communities (cypress swamps, strand swamps, domes, 
sloughs, ponds);
    (C) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet flatwoods);
    (D) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
    (E) High pine.
    (v) Habitats that provide structural connectivity where needed to 
allow for dispersal, gene flow, and natural and adaptive movements, 
including those that may be necessitated by climate change. These 
connections may include linear corridors such as vegetated, riverine, 
or open-water habitat with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging, 
or patches (i.e., stepping stones) such as tree islands or other 
isolated natural areas within a matrix of otherwise low-quality 
habitat.
    (vi) A subtropical climate that provides tolerable conditions for 
the species such that normal behavior, successful reproduction, and 
rearing of offspring are possible.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include humanmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was 
also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used 
in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the units was 
World Geodetic System 1984, Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 17 
North. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, the Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 71490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.001

    (6) Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and 
Okeechobee Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 acres (ac) (71,118 hectares (ha)) of 
lands in Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, Florida. 
This unit consists of two subunits generally located along the eastern 
bank of Lake Kissimmee northeast to SR-192, north of SR-60; and along 
portions of the Kissimmee River, south of SR-60.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 71491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.002

    (7) Unit 2: Peace River Unit; Hardee, DeSoto, and Charlotte 
Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee, 
DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit consists of four 
subunits located along portions of the Peace River and its tributaries 
(e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie Creek), south of CR-64 with the majority 
west of U.S.-17.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 71492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.003

    (8) Unit 3: Babcock Unit; Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, 
Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac (54,050 ha) of lands in 
Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit consists of two 
subunits, with the majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte County, east 
of I-75; other portions are in northwestern Lee and western Glades 
Counties.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 71493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.004

    (9) Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit; Glades and Highlands Counties, 
Florida. (i) Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259 ha) of lands in Glades 
and Highlands Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 4 is located in 
Glades County, west of U.S.-27; the remainder of the unit extends north 
into southern Highlands County.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 71494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.005

    (10) Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit; Lee and Collier Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and 
Collier Counties, Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/Collier county 
line, east of I-75.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 71495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.006

    (11) Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit; Collier, Hendry, and Monroe 
Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac (294,831 ha) of lands in Collier, 
Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 6 is located 
in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder of the unit occurs in 
southern Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe County.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (11)(ii)

[[Page 71496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.007

    (12) Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit; Miami-Dade County, 
Florida.
    (i) Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and west of Krome Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 8 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (12)(ii)

[[Page 71497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.008

    (13) Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,254 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida, along Main Park Road (SR-9336) between Mahogany 
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 9 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (13)(ii)

[[Page 71498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.009

    (14) Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. This unit consists of 36 subunits located between 
Tamiami Trail to the north and SR-9336 to the south, and is surrounded 
by a dense urban matrix typical of the Miami metropolitan area.
    (ii) Maps of Unit 9 follow:

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

[[Page 71499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.010


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

[[Page 71500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.011


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

[[Page 71501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.012

* * * * *

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25218 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C