# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-25218 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** November 22, 2022 - **Citation:** 87 FR 71466 ## Text 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 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 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 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 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 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 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); (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 (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 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] Critical habitat unit/subunit Land ownership: ac (ha) Federal Tribal State County Local Private/other Unidentified Total area: ac (ha) 1. Kissimmee 99 (40) 1 (<1) 135,779 (54,948) 815 (330) 0 36,996 (14,972) 2,047 (828) 175,737 (71,118) 1A 90 (36) 0 135,343 (54,771) 612 (248) 0 31,241 (12,643) 2,047 (828) 169,331 (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 (43,912) 782 (316) 19 (8) 23,929 (9,684) 322 (130) 133,560 (54,050) 3A 0 0 80,043 (32,392) 782 (316) 19 (8) 7,392 (2,991) 322 (130) 88,559 (35,839) 3B 0 0 28,466 (11,520) 0 0 16,536 (6,692) 0 45,001 (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 (10,613) 5,265 (2,131) 13 (5) 17,319 (7,009) 41 (17) 48,865 (19,775) 6. Big Cypress 533,179 (215,770) 14,455 (5,850) 152,494 (61,712) 8,419 (3,407) 229 (93) 16,170 (6,544) 3,598 (1,456) 728,544 (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 (10,175) 0 2 (1) 0 0 187 (76) 5 (2) 25,337 (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 (232,933) 14,457 (5,851) 437,888 (177,207) 18,251 (7,386) 434 (176) 119,419 (48,327) 7,974 (3,227) 1,174,011 (475,105) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, below. Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 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/ 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 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. 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 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 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 Requesting party (Public comment No. on https://www.regulations.gov ) Area requested for exclusion Basis for exclusion per requesting party Overlap with revised proposed critical habitat Unit/subunit Acres Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0464 and attachment) Property owned by JB Ranch I, LLC, and Sunniland Family Limited Partnership Economic, No ecological benefit No overlap N/A. Miami-Dade Limestone Products Association (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0386 and attachment) Lands overlapping the Florida legislature-designated Lake Belt mining area No ecological benefit No overlap N/A. Florida Power & Light (FPL) (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0449 and attachment) All FPL electric utility sub-stations 1 and rights-of-way containing aboveground linear facilities Conservation plans or programs, Economic All Insufficient information to determine or estimate. Miccosukee Tribe of Florida (Comment submitted directly to the Service) Tribal reservation lands and fee lands Tribal lands, Conservation plans or programs 1 1.25. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Comment submitted directly to the Service) Lands enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Easement Partnership Program (formerly called Wetland Reserve Program) Economic 2A 387. Lands within the Picayune Strand Restoration Project Economic 6 64,490. Seminole Tribe of Florida (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0380 and attachment) Tribal reservation lands and fee lands Tribal lands, Conservation plans or programs 6 14,455. Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0461 and attachment) Lands within the boundary of the draft East Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conservation plans or programs 5 Included 2 : 2,013. Eligible 3 : 163. 6 Included 2 : 1,561. Eligible 3 : 35. Collier Mosquito Control District (MCD) (FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0385 and attachment) Lands within the existing and proposed Collier MCD boundaries Economic 5 Existing MCD: 317. Proposed MCD: 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 • 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 othe [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-25218. Public record. Not legal advice.