16624 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106; 

FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BE10 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Endangered Florida 

Bonneted Bat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat (Eumops floridanus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended. In total, approximately 

1,160,625 acres (469,688 hectares) in 13 

Florida counties fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. This rule extends the Act’s 

protections to this species’ critical 

habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov and https://

www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonnetedbat-eumops-floridanus. Comments and 

materials we received are available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials we used in 

preparing this rule are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. The 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file for this 

critical habitat designation and are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106, 

at https://www.fws.gov/species/floridabonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus, and at 

the Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, below). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lourdes Mena, Classification and 

Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows 

Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256; 

telephone (352) 749–2462. Individuals 

in the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, when we determine that any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species, we are required to designate 

critical habitat, to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Designations 

of critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. This rule 

designates critical habitat for the Florida 

bonneted bat. The designation includes 

approximately 1,160,625 acres (ac) 

(469,688 hectares (ha)) in portions of 13 

Florida counties. 

The basis for our action. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the Florida bonneted 

bat’s final listing rule (78 FR 61004; 

October 2, 2013), proposed critical 

habitat rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 

2020), and revised proposed critical 

habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 

2022) for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

35510; June 10, 2020). We sent the 

proposed rule to six independent peer 

reviewers and received two responses. 

Following the public comment period 

for the revised proposed rule (87 FR 

71466; November 22, 2022), we sent the 

revised proposed rule to five 

independent peer reviewers and 

received one response. The peer reviews 

can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov. We incorporated 

the results of these reviews, as 

appropriate, into this final rule. A 

summary of the peer review comments 

and our responses can be found under 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations, below. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

After considering the comments we 

received during the public comment 

period (refer to Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations, below) and new 

information published or obtained since 

the revised proposed rule was published 

(87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022), we 

made changes to this final critical 

habitat designation, as described below. 

No changes were made to our economic 

analysis after considering public 

comments on the draft document; thus, 

we finalized the economic analysis of 

the designation. We added the following 

supporting documents at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106: (1) A table 

entitled, ‘‘Conservation Lands Within 

Florida Bonneted Bat Final Critical 

Habitat Designation,’’ (2) coordinates 

from which the final critical habitat 

maps are generated, (3) a list of 

literature cited in this final rule, (4) the 

peer reviews of the revised proposed 

rule and the accompanying conflict of 

interest forms, and (5) a table of 

requested additions to the proposed and 

revised proposed critical habitat 

designations and the outcome of our 

evaluation for each area. 

In this rule, we make many small, 

nonsubstantive changes and corrections 

(e.g., updating the discussion under 

Background, below, in response to 

comments and making minor 

clarifications) that do not affect the 

designation. We also make several 

minor updates to the biological 

information for and habitat use by the 

Florida bonneted bat based on new and 

updated information. Specifically, we 

update measurements of roost 

characteristics, add detail on foraging 

areas and insects associated with 

agricultural crops, add information 

about the Florida bonneted bat’s use of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16625 

seasonally inundated forested wetlands, 

and add new information about the 

species’ breeding and resource defense. 

In addition, we update citations 

supporting existing statements as 

needed. The following items describe 

changes made between the revised 

proposed rule (87 FR 71466; November 

22, 2022) and this final rule: 

(1) In Cover or Shelter, under Physical 

or Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species, below, we 

update roost habitat characteristics and 

roost measurements, including both 

averages and ranges in our description, 

and we clarify the role of artificial roosts 

in Florida bonneted bat habitat. 

(2) In Food, Water, Air, Light, 

Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 

Physiological Requirements, under 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species, 

below, we add information on the 

influence of artificial lighting on Florida 

bonneted bat habitat. 

(3) In both the Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features, under 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species, and 

in the rule portion of this document, 

below, we modified the first and second 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Florida 

bonneted bat to include sufficient 

darkness as a habitat feature, and we 

modified the first physical or biological 

feature to qualitatively characterize 

roosting habitat. 

(4) Under Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, below, we 

update estimates of the critical habitat 

area to be affected by sea level rise or 

converted to developed land by 2070 

based on the areas included within this 

final critical habitat designation, and we 

add a discussion under the heading 

Ecological Light Pollution to align with 

the changes we make to the physical or 

biological features noted in (2) and (3), 

above, regarding artificial lighting and 

sufficient darkness. 

(5) Under Final Critical Habitat 

Designation, below, we adjust the 

boundaries of Subunits 3B, 9M, 9N, and 

9O to include a total of an additional 

1,179 ac (477 ha). Subunit 3B now 

includes an additional 1,118 ac (452 ha) 

of lands primarily owned by Lee 

County, based on a peer review 

comment and to ensure we are 

designating the specific areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Florida bonneted bat. Subunit 9M 

includes an additional 10 ac (4 ha) of 

lands owned by Miami-Dade County, 

based on a request from Miami-Dade 

County and new information indicating 

these areas have the essential physical 

or biological features. Subunit 9N 

includes an additional 10 ac (4 ha) of 

lands primarily owned by the State of 

Florida and managed by Miami-Dade 

County, based on a request from MiamiDade County and new information 

indicating this area also contains the 

essential physical or biological features. 

Subunit 9O includes an additional 42 ac 

(17 ha) of lands primarily owned by 

Miami-Dade County (38 ac (15 ha)) and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (4 ac (2 ha)), based 

on new information indicating this area 

also contains the essential physical or 

biological features. 

(6) Under Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard, below, we add 

excessive alteration of natural lighting 

as an action that would significantly 

reduce habitat suitability or impact the 

prey base for the Florida bonneted bat 

in the list of activities that we may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), consider likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

(7) We exclude the Coral Reef 

Commons Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) on-site preserve and off-site 

mitigation areas in Subunit 9O from this 

final designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act based on the 

provisions of the HCP. This amounts to 

a decrease of approximately 104 ac (42 

ha) from the critical habitat areas we 

proposed. 

(8) We exclude Tribal lands of the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida in Unit 6. 

This amounts to a decrease of 

approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) from 

the critical habitat areas we proposed. 

(9) We exclude Tribal lands of the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida in Subunit 

1B. This amounts to a decrease of 

approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) from the 

critical habitat areas we proposed. 

(10) We apply updated information on 

parcel boundaries and parcel ownership 

that we obtained from counties, which 

changed some of the areas of critical 

habitat by land ownership category from 

what we presented in table 1 in the 

revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022, p. 71475; see table 

1 under Final Critical Habitat 

Designation, below, for comparison). 

However, the total area of critical 

habitat in Units 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are the 

same as we proposed. The total area has 

only substantially changed for those 

units where exclusions or boundary 

adjustments were applied, as noted 

above in (5), (7), (8), and (9). 

(11) Because of the above boundary 

adjustments and exclusions, in this rule, 

we revise the index map and maps for 

Units 1, 3, 6, and 9A–9O in the rule 

portion of this document. 

Beyond those changes, this critical 

habitat designation is unchanged from 

what we proposed on November 22, 

2022 (87 FR 71466). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested that all interested 

parties submit written comments on the 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

35510; June 10, 2020) and on the revised 

proposed critical habitat rule (87 FR 

71466; November 22, 2022) for the 

Florida bonneted bat. The comment 

period for the proposed critical habitat 

rule closed on August 10, 2020; the 

comment period for the revised 

proposed critical habitat rule closed on 

January 23, 2023. 

For the proposed critical habitat rule 

(85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020), we 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. For the revised proposed 

critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466; 

November 22, 2022), we again contacted 

appropriate Federal and State agencies, 

Tribes, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. In the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule, we stated that 

any comments we received in response 

to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule need 

not be resubmitted as they would be 

fully considered in this final rule. 

For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, 

newspaper notices inviting general 

public comment were published in the 

Orlando Sentinel, Ft. Myers News-Press, 

Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Miami 

Herald newspapers on June 9, 2020. For 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule, a newspaper notice 

inviting general public comment was 

published in the Miami Herald 

newspaper on November 28, 2022. 

For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, 

we did not receive any requests for a 

public hearing, but we held public 

informational webinars on June 16 and 

17, 2020. For the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule, we did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Because of the comprehensive 

changes we made to the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule in the November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rule, some 

substantive comments and information 

we received during the comment period 

on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule no 

longer apply, and we do not address 

them below. All other substantive 

information we received during both 

comment periods has either been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16626 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or is addressed below. 

During the comment period on the 

June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we 

received approximately 1,900 written 

comment letters on the proposed critical 

habitat designation or the draft 

economic analysis (DEA) and 

supplemental memo (IEc 2020a, b, 

entire). During the comment period on 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule, we received an 

additional 41 comment letters on the 

revised proposed critical habitat 

designation or the DEA and 

supplemental memo (IEc 2021a, b, 

entire). During the comment period on 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule, we also received four 

requests for exclusion of areas that were 

not identified as being considered for 

exclusion in the proposed rule or the 

revised proposed rule. We reviewed 

each exclusion request, whether 

received in response to the proposed or 

revised proposed rule, to determine if 

the requester provided information or a 

reasoned rationale to initiate an analysis 

of exclusion or support an exclusion 

(see Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (81 FR 7226; February 11, 

2016), hereafter referred to as our 2016 

section 4(b)(2) policy). All substantive 

information provided to us during both 

comment periods has been incorporated 

directly into this final determination or, 

in the case of substantive information 

regarding the DEA received during the 

comment period on the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule, was used to revise the 

economic analysis and supplemental 

memo (IEc 2021a, b, entire) between the 

June 10, 2020, proposed and November 

22, 2022, revised proposed rules. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from two peer 

reviewers on the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule and one peer reviewer on 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule. We reviewed all 

comments we received from the peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the Florida 

bonneted bat and its habitat use and 

needs. The peer reviewers provided 

critiques of our methods but generally 

concurred with our designation of 

critical habitat and conclusions and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the designation. Our revised 

proposed critical habitat rule (87 FR 

71466; November 22, 2022) was 

developed in part to address some of the 

critiques and information raised by the 

peer reviewers in 2020. The additional 

details and information we received or 

that were raised by the peer reviewers 

have been incorporated into this final 

rule, as appropriate. Peer review 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary. 

(1) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule 

(85 FR 35510) and the November 22, 

2022, revised proposed critical habitat 

rule (87 FR 71466), we received peer 

review and public comments requesting 

that we consider adding 71 areas to the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Florida bonneted bat. Specific additions 

were recommended with supporting 

information, including information 

regarding habitat and evidence of use by 

the Florida bonneted bat. Commenters 

also stated their views that the critical 

habitat areas included in the June 10, 

2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed designations were not 

sufficient to ensure long-term 

conservation of the species in light of 

future threats, such as climate change 

and urbanization, and that unoccupied 

habitat should be reexamined for 

inclusion. 

Our Response: In preparing this final 

designation, we evaluated all requests 

for the addition of specified areas (see 

‘‘Areas Requested for Addition to 

Florida Bonneted Bat Critical Habitat’’ 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 

on https://www.regulations.gov). In the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

designation, we included 24 additions 

requested in response to the June 10, 

2020, proposed rule that resulted from 

our development of new critical habitat 

criteria and analysis of physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the Florida bonneted bat, which guided 

a new delineation of revised critical 

habitat units. Of those areas not 

included in the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule, we determined 

that four meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, and 

we include these areas in this final 

designation as reflected in boundary 

changes made to four subunits 

(Subunits 3B, 9M, 9N, and 9O; see Final 

Critical Habitat Designation, below). 

The remaining areas, including 

identified golf courses, parks, and 

heavily fragmented areas, are not 

included in this final designation. While 

we agree that such areas can be 

important to the species and are 

considered in recovery and regulatory 

processes, our evaluation indicated the 

identified areas did not meet our criteria 

for designating critical habitat. 

A critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or 

should not be managed or conserved for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

section 9 of the Act, which prohibits 

taking any individual of the species, 

including taking caused by actions that 

affect habitat; and (3) regulatory 

protections afforded by the requirement 

in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal 

agencies to ensure that actions that they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species. Thus, Federal 

agencies must consult with the Service 

even if actions they authorize, fund or 

carry out are conducted outside of 

designated critical habitat if those 

activities may affect listed species. 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act, we are designating critical 

habitat in specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing that contain 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We acknowledge that a 

variety of roosting and foraging habitats 

are important to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat. However, a 

critical habitat designation identifies the 

habitat areas essential to the species; it 

is not necessary to include in the 

designation all areas that can be 

occupied by the species or where the 

species has been detected. We may 

designate critical habitat that is outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species if we determine it to be essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, during the development of 

our November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule, we evaluated areas both 

within and outside the species’ current 

range to identify those areas that have 

the essential physical or biological 

features we established for inclusion in 

critical habitat. We then evaluated 

whether the areas considered to be 

occupied are sufficient to ensure 

conservation of the species. Based on 

our determination that the occupied 

units included in the November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rule represent 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the species, we 

determined unoccupied areas are not 

essential for the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat. However, this 

designation does include areas in the 

northern extremes of the species’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16627 

current range that, while currently 

occupied, may become of much higher 

value to the species as the climate 

changes (see description of Unit 1 under 

Final Critical Habitat Designation, 

below). 

(2) Comment: Peer reviewers 

recommended acknowledging the 

important role artificial roosts play in 

Florida bonneted bat conservation and 

recovery, and they suggested including 

artificial roosts (e.g., bat houses, bat 

boxes) in the species’ essential physical 

or biological features and our habitat 

analysis. 

Our Response: Physical or biological 

features are features that support the 

species’ life-history needs, such as 

reproduction. Roosting habitat is 

essential to Florida bonneted bats to 

provide shelter and support 

reproduction, socialization, and other 

natural behaviors. While artificial roosts 

can provide alternative, long-term, and 

hurricane-resilient roosting habitat for 

the species where roosting habitat is 

limited, they are an imperfect surrogate 

for natural roosting habitat and are not 

on their own a habitat feature essential 

for the species’ survival (see Cover or 

Shelter, below, for additional details). It 

is also for this reason that we do not 

include roost measurements of artificial 

or supplemental roosts in our 

description of roosting habitat, although 

available locations of artificial roosts are 

included in the presence dataset used 

for our habitat analysis (see ‘‘Florida 

Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis’’ under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). 

Additionally, while our knowledge 

regarding how to design bat houses with 

conservation benefits for Florida 

bonneted bats is improving, many 

designs still present thermal issues to 

bat colonies and can be harmful 

(Crawford and O’Keefe 2021, entire; Bat 

Conservation International 2022, pp. 

10–11). Also, bat houses often require 

human intervention to repair and 

replace as they deteriorate, especially in 

Florida, reducing the potential for these 

structures to provide long-term 

conservation benefits for Florida 

bonneted bats. We appreciate the efforts 

of our partners to provide safe 

supplemental roosts for the Florida 

bonneted bat, and we agree that, with 

proper placement, design, and 

maintenance, supplemental roosts play 

an important role in the conservation of 

the species. While not intentionally 

included or excluded, all bat houses for 

Florida bonneted bats at Fred C. 

Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife 

Management Area (Babcock-Webb 

WMA) and the majority (80 percent) of 

known bat houses for Florida bonneted 

bats in Miami-Dade County are located 

within the final critical habitat 

designation. Additionally, as noted 

above, areas including artificial roosts 

remain subject to regulatory protections 

afforded by the requirement in section 

7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species. 

(3) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rules, peer 

reviewers and public commenters stated 

their views that additional discussion 

and consideration of urban areas were 

needed, and they suggested including 

some or all urban areas within the 

species’ range (including golf courses, 

parks, urban ponds, and canals, 

especially within Miami-Dade County) 

in the critical habitat designation. 

Commenters voiced that the addition of 

these areas is needed to allow the 

Florida bonneted bat to forage in 

fragmented landscapes. Commenters 

also questioned why the proposed and 

revised proposed rules include negative 

associations with respect to urban areas 

and Florida bonneted bat habitat, when 

a significant portion of the overall 

population uses an urban landscape; 

commenters suggested that suburban 

and urban areas be modeled at a 

different, smaller scale than areas 

outside the urban matrix and/or be 

considered using different criteria for 

inclusion in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: To identify specific 

areas that may qualify as critical habitat 

for the Florida bonneted bat, in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 

included the following considerations 

in the process: (1) Identifying the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing; (2) 

identifying physical or biological habitat 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species; (3) identifying the specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species that contain one 

or more of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species; (4) determining which of 

these essential features may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (5) identifying specific 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species that are 

essential for the species’ conservation. 

Our evaluation and conclusions are 

described in detail below under the 

following headings: Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species, Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection, and Conservation Strategy 

and Selection Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat. 

In development of the November 22, 

2022, revised proposed designation, we 

developed revised physical or biological 

features based on new information as 

well as peer review and public 

comments on the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule. As a result, habitat 

within the Miami-Dade urban matrix 

was evaluated, and those areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species were included in our revised 

proposed designation (i.e., Unit 9). 

However, while natural areas within 

urban landscapes are used by Florida 

bonneted bats, increased urbanization is 

considered a threat to the species as 

these areas can have limited resources, 

such as a lack of roost trees, and 

increased conflicts with humans. 

Therefore, despite their use by the 

species and their local importance, 

many urban areas have a lower 

conservation value to the species as a 

whole and do not contain the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat. 

Results of our habitat analysis (see 

‘‘Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat 

Analysis’’ under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov) did not 

specifically inform our consideration of 

urban areas as part of our revised 

proposed critical habitat methodology 

or delineation. The MaxEnt model that 

we used in our analysis did not identify 

the amount of urbanization as a habitatrelated variable having strong influence 

on the probability of Florida bonneted 

bat occurrence. Thus, no urbanization 

covariate was incorporated in our model 

output or analysis results, and we have 

no model-related results to estimate its 

correlation (positive or negative) with 

Florida bonneted bat occupancy or the 

relative conservation value of these 

areas. 

In addition, model covariate layers 

representing high-quality foraging 

habitat include certain natural areas 

within the urban matrix based on our 

evaluation of land cover type 

characteristics; thus, we did not assume 

a broad negative association between 

foraging habitat quality and 

urbanization. We acknowledge that 

choice of scale typically impacts the 

results of any spatial analysis and that 

the influence and association of urban 

areas with Florida bonneted bat 

occurrence and habitat suitability may 

differ from our MaxEnt results if a 

different scale (i.e., grid cell size) is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16628 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

used. Based on the attributes of the 

available covariate data, as well as on 

available sample size, we identified our 

grid cell size using the best available 

data on Florida bonneted bat biology 

and habitat use at the time of analysis 

(see ‘‘Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat 

Analysis’’ under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). 

Given acknowledged limitations of 

the habitat analysis, additional criteria 

were applied to identify areas 

containing the essential physical or 

biological features and delineate critical 

habitat (see Selection Criteria and 

Methodology Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat, below), including in urban 

areas. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer and 

several public commenters stated their 

views that habitat is a three-dimensional 

concept, and therefore the airspace 

above the substrate, where the Florida 

bonneted bat forages and socializes, is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The peer reviewer also 

mentioned that because this threedimensional habitat approach has been 

used in critical habitat for aquatic and 

fossorial species, the same approach 

should be applied to the Florida 

bonneted bat as a flying species. Some 

commenters suggested, citing Diehl et 

al. 2017 and other studies, that airspace 

above disturbed areas, including over 

paved surfaces, is vital habitat and 

heavily used by the species in some 

areas. 

Our Response: We agree that airspace 

is important to this species. ‘‘Open 

areas,’’ as described in the second 

essential physical or biological feature 

for the Florida bonneted bat, include the 

ground, water, vegetation, and air where 

the Florida bonneted bat forages and 

socializes above those surfaces; thereby, 

the air above the surfaces where the 

Florida bonneted bat forages and 

socializes is included in the open areas 

described in in the essential physical or 

biological features for the species. Since 

the species’ listing, consultations have 

considered the species’ use of habitat in 

three dimensions, and the evaluation of 

impacts to Florida bonneted bat habitat 

addressed in the Florida Bonneted Bat 

Consultation Guidelines also considers 

habitat use in three dimensions (see 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer and 

several public commenters expressed 

concerns regarding policy and language 

in the proposed rule that states that 

critical habitat does not include lands 

covered by buildings, pavement, and 

other structures (see paragraph (3) in the 

proposed rule text for the Florida 

bonneted bat’s critical habitat 

designation at 85 FR 35510, June 10, 

2020, p. 35539). Commenters stated 

their views that excluding these areas is 

arbitrary and unsupported by the best 

data available on the Florida bonneted 

bat, and thus these areas are 

inappropriately omitted from the critical 

habitat designation. 

Our Response: The Florida bonneted 

bat may roost in buildings and forage 

above human-made structures, but 

critical habitat is not intended to 

include all areas and locations that the 

species uses. While certain humanmade structures and the lands on which 

they are located are not included in the 

designated critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat, impacts to bats 

using these areas may still be 

considered during consultations for 

effects to the species. 

(6) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that live oaks (Quercus 

virginiana) be included in the Cover or 

Shelter discussion as a potential roost 

tree species. The reviewer mentioned 

that a non-volant (flightless) pup was 

found below bisected tree cavity in a 

live oak, providing evidence that the 

Florida bonneted bat will roost in live 

oak trees. The peer reviewer also noted 

that the rule should acknowledge live 

oak as a potential roost tree species 

considering mature trees of this species 

with cavities are plentiful near known 

Florida bonneted bat foraging areas. 

Our Response: Known natural roosts 

with Florida bonneted bat colonies have 

been documented in slash pine (Pinus 

elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), 

bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and 

royal palm (Roystonea regia) (see Cover 

or Shelter, below). All trees of 

appropriate size, regardless of species, 

are considered to be possible roost trees 

when project areas are evaluated and 

surveyed for consultations. While no 

tree species is omitted from 

consideration under the Florida 

bonneted bat’s essential physical or 

biological feature describing roosting 

habitat, we do not have the information 

needed to specifically identify live oak 

trees as a species in which roosts with 

Florida bonneted bat colonies have 

repeatedly been observed. 

Federal Agency Comments 

(7) Comment: Comments from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

Miami-Dade County recommended that 

conservation plans and additional 

conservation measures for the Florida 

bonneted bat be included either as part 

of the final rule or shared with Federal 

and local governments outside of the 

rulemaking process. Other suggestions 

included that the Service provide 

funding for land acquisition, incentives 

for limiting pesticide use, guidance 

regarding bat-friendly lighting and 

exclusions, and outreach materials. 

Our Response: We appreciate our 

partners’ support for conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat and interest in 

specific and additional ways to conserve 

the species and its habitat. While 

critical habitat is one tool that supports 

conservation of the species, providing 

additional or specific conservation 

recommendations or funding 

conservation is not within the scope of 

a critical habitat designation. Additional 

discussion of conservation actions can 

be found in the Florida Bonneted Bat 

Conservation Strategy and the Florida 

Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines 

(see Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov) and will 

be more fully addressed in the species’ 

recovery plan. For further coordination 

on development of conservation plans 

related to the Florida bonneted bat or 

other listed species, please contact the 

Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

(8) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed rule, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers requested that 

private lands enrolled in the Wetland 

Reserve Easement Partnership Program 

(WREPP, formerly the Wetlands Reserve 

Program (WRP)) and lands within the 

Picayune Strand Restoration Project be 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation. They suggested that 

exclusion should be considered on an 

economic basis for both areas of land 

and, for lands enrolled in WREPP, that 

exclusion should also be considered due 

to the conservation benefits associated 

with the program. 

Our Response: We listed this 

exclusion request in table 2 in the 

Exclusion Requests Received During the 

Previous Public Comment Period section 

of the revised proposed rule (87 FR 

71466, November 22, 2022, p. 71481). In 

this final rule, we do not conduct an 

analysis of these lands to determine 

whether the benefits of potentially 

excluding any specific area from this 

critical habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including that area in the 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Under our 2016 section 4(b)(2) 

policy, we may choose to exclude 

proposed critical habitat if there is a 

signed conservation plan or program 

that provides for the necessary longterm conservation and management of 

habitat for a species and an analysis has 

determined that the benefits of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16629 

excluding outweigh the benefits of 

including the area in critical habitat. 

This comment was received in the 

context of the June 10, 2020, proposed 

rule, and the WREPP lands that were 

requested for exclusion (Wolf Island) 

were in Unit 1 of the proposed 

designation. Under the revised physical 

or biological features proposed in the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule, those WREPP lands no longer meet 

the definition of critical habitat. 

However, in our November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed designation, there 

were other WREPP lands that 

overlapped with our revised proposed 

critical habitat units, consisting of 387 

ac (157 ha) in Subunit 2A. Because of 

this, we extrapolated the logic of the 

initial request to exclude WREPP lands, 

and we considered this initial request to 

also apply to WREPP lands in the 

revised proposal, although we did not 

receive a comment from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers requesting that we 

consider these other WREPP lands for 

exclusion. However, we did not conduct 

an analysis considering the benefits of 

excluding WREPP lands covered by a 

non-permitted voluntary conservation 

plan because the initial request did not 

provide information on the benefits of 

exclusion that would be needed to 

weigh the potential benefits of 

excluding these lands from the critical 

habitat designation against including 

them in the designation. Further, we did 

not receive any other comments about 

this request. Additionally, it is our 

understanding that the conservation in 

agreements under the WREPP program 

is highly variable among landowners, 

and no landowner for these WREPP 

lands provided information or comment 

on either the June 10, 2020, proposed or 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule. Similarly, we do not conduct an 

exclusion analysis based on economic 

impacts for either WREPP lands or lands 

within the Picayune Strand Restoration 

Project (consisting of 64,490 ac (26,098 

ha) in Unit 6) because the commenter 

described an economic burden that is 

purely associated with listing, and they 

did not describe any additional 

anticipated project modifications or 

costs anticipated to result from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat. 

State Comments 

(9) Comment: Two State agencies (the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and Florida Farm Bureau) 

and other commenters recommended 

that the Service provide assurances that 

the critical habitat designation would 

not negatively affect a land manager’s or 

private landowner’s ability to 

implement resource management 

activities (e.g., prescribed fire, invasive 

species management, grazing, tree 

harvesting) or recreational activities 

(e.g., hunting, off road vehicle use) 

within critical habitat, and that it will 

not add regulatory burden. Further, 

commenters recommended that the 

Service identify which activities are 

likely to require (or not require) 

consultation with the Service and 

clarify the project modifications that 

would be needed to avoid adverse 

effects to or the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Our Response: The purpose of the 

designation of critical habitat is to 

identify those areas critical to the 

conservation of the species, not to 

impede resource or habitat management. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. Each Federal agency 

shall review its action at the earliest 

possible time to determine whether it 

may affect listed species or critical 

habitat. To help Federal and State 

agencies and members of the public 

recognize the actions considered to have 

potential effects on designated critical 

habitat, we generally identify those 

types of actions that could potentially 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat (see Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard, below). The 

actual effects of a proposed action on 

designated critical habitat are 

dependent on many project-specific 

factors related to both the action being 

proposed and the project area. 

Therefore, we cannot determine or 

provide specific thresholds for adverse 

effects or adverse modification within 

this rule. Determination of adverse 

effects or adverse modification is 

conducted through the section 7 

process, during which specific factors of 

the proposed action and conditions 

within the project area can be evaluated. 

This consultation requirement under 

section 7 is not a prohibition of 

otherwise lawful actions; rather, it is a 

means by which they may proceed in a 

manner that avoids destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Even in areas absent designated critical 

habitat, if the action may affect a listed 

species, consultation is still required to 

ensure the action is not likely to 

jeopardize the species. There is not 

expected to be any difference between a 

jeopardy analysis (on the species) and 

an adverse modification analysis (on the 

species’ critical habitat) conducted as 

part of the consultation because threats 

to the Florida bonneted bat are largely 

habitat-related and all critical habitat 

units are occupied. 

Additionally, there are opportunities 

for collaboration and cooperation with 

our partners to develop conservation 

strategies, conservation plans, and 

programmatic consultations to 

streamline regulatory procedures and 

compliance and to benefit listed species. 

Public Comments 

(10) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, one commenter 

requested clarification regarding how all 

peer review, public comments, and new 

information provided in response to the 

June 10, 2020, proposed rule were 

considered in our revised proposed 

designation process. They also asked 

what changes were made from the 

proposed rule to the revised proposed 

designation and reasons for those 

changes. 

Our Response: All peer review, public 

comments, and new information we 

received on the June 10, 2020, proposed 

rule were thoroughly reviewed and 

considered in our November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed designation. Based on 

this review, we determined that changes 

were needed to the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and the criteria and methodology used 

to identify those specific areas that 

constitute critical habitat for the species 

(see New Information and Revisions to 

Previously Proposed Critical Habitat at 

87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, p. 

71469). To sufficiently address 

comments we received and incorporate 

new information, we comprehensively 

rewrote the proposed designation based 

on the development of a conservation 

strategy and corresponding critical 

habitat criteria, a new habitat analysis, 

and new essential physical or biological 

features, all based on the best available 

science. Given the significant and 

substantive changes we made in 

identifying the essential physical or 

biological features and, accordingly, the 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, we 

determined it was necessary to revise 

the proposal and provide for notice and 

comment; therefore, we published the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule (87 FR 71466). In this final rule, we 

are providing responses to peer review 

and public comments we received on 

both the June 10, 2020, proposed and 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rules, and, where appropriate, we have 

noted how our November 22, 2022, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16630 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

revised proposed designation addressed 

comments on the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule. 

(11) Comment: One commenter stated 

their view that the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule explains how 

genetic diversity, geographic extent, and 

ecological diversity were incorporated 

in the revised proposed critical habitat 

designation, but it does not show that 

the designation is sufficient to achieve 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. 

Our Response: To determine and 

select appropriate areas, we 

incorporated information from the 

conservation strategy for the species (see 

‘‘Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation 

Strategy’’ under Supporting and Related 

Material in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES– 

2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). This conservation 

strategy helped identify those areas 

within the Florida bonneted bat’s range 

that contain the essential physical or 

biological features. In the absence of 

population estimates or trend data, we 

used current presence data along with 

information regarding future changes to 

the landscape (e.g., due to climate and 

urbanization) to estimate the quantity 

and spatial arrangement of units that 

would be sufficient to conserve the 

species. The resulting 1,160,625-ac 

(469,688-ha) designation includes the 

four known Florida bonneted bat 

populations that support resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species by including areas that maintain 

or reestablish connectivity within and 

between populations (supporting 

resiliency), that are predicted to be 

unaffected or less affected by sea-level 

rise and climate change (supporting 

resiliency), that are in each of the 

known genetically distinct areas and 

distributed across the geographic range 

of the species (supporting 

representation, redundancy, resiliency), 

and that are in each major ecological 

community that provides roosting 

habitat (supporting representation and 

resiliency). 

(12) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 

2022, revised proposed critical habitat 

rules, several commenters stated their 

views that our designation process did 

not consider the best available scientific 

information and that information was 

not considered sufficiently or 

interpreted correctly. Specific concerns 

expressed included failure to 

incorporate all Florida bonneted bat 

location data, including acoustic and 

telemetry data, as well as specific 

published and unpublished information 

sources related to the species’ range, 

movements, biology, genetics, habitat 

use, and threats (including climate 

change). One commenter disagreed with 

our interpretation of acoustic data, 

specifically related to the level of bat 

activity, which the commenter believes 

resulted in an over-inclusive 

designation regarding Subunit 9O. 

Our Response: In development of the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, we reviewed all 

information sources and specific 

information identified in comments on 

the June 10, 2020, proposed rule to 

ensure that they were considered as part 

of our revised designation process. We 

also obtained and incorporated all 

available location data for the Florida 

bonneted bat, including geographic 

information system (GIS) and non-GIS 

data from acoustic surveys, reports, and 

researchers (including roost locations 

and maps of telemetry data). All of this 

information was used in multiple facets 

of our revised designation process, 

including the development of our 

Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation 

Strategy and Florida Bonneted Bat 

Habitat Analysis (see these documents 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 

on https://www.regulations.gov), 

physical or biological features essential 

to the Florida bonneted bat, critical 

habitat criteria, and critical habitat 

delineation methods. As such, the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule incorporated substantial new 

information representing the best 

available science. In addition, in the 

development of this final designation, 

we have reviewed additional 

information sources provided through 

public comments on the November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rule and have 

updated the rule as appropriate (see 

Summary of Changes from the Proposed 

Rule, above). 

We followed our standard peer review 

process for both the June 10, 2020, 

proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rules to help ensure 

we are applying the best available 

information and that our interpretation 

is appropriate. While acoustic locations 

were used to indicate presence of 

Florida bonneted bats as part of our 

habitat analysis, information related to 

the level of bat activity (e.g., number of 

Florida bonneted bat calls or percentage 

of total bat calls) did not provide further 

insight into the presence of Florida 

bonneted bats in an area and was not 

used in delineating Subunit 9O or in 

any part of the revised designation 

process. Furthermore, as mentioned, the 

designation process is complex and not 

based on presence data alone. 

(13) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, one commenter 

stated their view that the habitat 

analysis methods used were flawed and 

that the results appear to conflict with 

the best available science. Specifically, 

the commenter expressed concerns that 

our use of a combination of roost 

locations and positive acoustic 

detections (the latter of which 

represented the majority of locations) 

resulted in skewed data. The commenter 

asserted that the use of non-random 

acoustic data may have influenced our 

analysis results, which they said seem 

to disagree with independent research 

and peer-reviewed studies that suggest 

agricultural areas are important for the 

Florida bonneted bat. The commenter 

also questioned why and how we 

classified cover types as high-quality 

foraging habitat in our development of 

modeling covariates. 

Our Response: In response to 

comments we received on the June 10, 

2020, proposed critical habitat rule, we 

incorporated all available data (e.g., 

acoustic detections from all available 

sources, including locations sampled by 

Bailey et al. (2017a, entire), as well as 

known roost locations) in our November 

22, 2022, revised proposed designation. 

In our initial exploratory analyses 

during the development of the revised 

proposed designation, model results 

based only on roost locations indicated 

the model was overfitted (i.e., model 

results corresponded too closely to the 

data used and thus may fail to predict 

future observations reliably), likely 

resulting from small sample size (n = 

21). Because these exploratory analyses 

showed that a roost-only model is not 

appropriate based on data available at 

the time of our analysis, in our final 

analysis, we chose to combine roost 

locations with acoustic data in a single 

presence dataset to ensure we 

incorporated all available GIS data into 

our model. Likewise, we did not limit 

our analysis to only those data collected 

using a randomized sampling design, as 

that would exclude a large amount of 

available data. As acknowledged in our 

Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis 

(see Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov), we 

recognize that the majority of acoustic 

data were collected during predevelopment surveys and thus may 

exhibit a certain level of habitat bias 

based on project locations (but not due 

to survey protocol, as agricultural areas 

are included in potential foraging 

habitat to be surveyed (see ‘‘Florida 

Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines’’ 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16631 

on https://www.regulations.gov)). We 

agree that this habitat bias likely 

contributed to the differing results 

obtained from our model related to 

correlation of species’ occurrence with 

agricultural areas when compared to the 

results of those studies identified by the 

commenter (i.e., Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 

1589; Webb 2018, p. 25), although our 

results were also (and possibly more so) 

influenced by differences in the source 

and classification of land cover data, 

model covariates, and/or model spatial 

scale. While our designation is based on 

the best available data, we believe 

continued modeling efforts would be 

useful to better understand the Florida 

bonneted bat’s habitat needs at both 

local and landscape scales, including 

how different habitat types contribute to 

supporting the long-term conservation 

of the species. 

Many habitats or land cover types 

contribute at least minimally to 

providing foraging opportunities for 

Florida bonneted bats (e.g., by 

producing prey), but not all of these 

areas are equal in the amount or type of 

prey they produce or in having the open 

habitat structure needed for 

maneuvering to catch prey. To explore 

these relationships, we classified land 

cover data in two ways: (1) Foraging 

habitat quality (high quality, low 

quality, not foraging habitat) based on 

the cover type’s likelihood of producing 

large insects (e.g., beetles and moths); 

and (2) foraging habitat structure (open, 

not open) based on the cover type 

description (see table 1 in Florida 

Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). Many 

land cover types, including most 

agricultural types, were classified as 

high-quality foraging habitat (based on 

prey production); cover types we 

associated with lower prey production 

consisted of saltwater/saline habitats, 

highly manicured areas (e.g., lawns), 

and unvegetated cover types. Of those 

cover types classified as high-quality 

foraging, all having an open habitat 

structure were classified as high-quality 

open foraging habitat. These 

classifications were then used to 

develop model covariate layers to 

investigate their potential influence on 

Florida bonneted bat occurrence. The 

MaxEnt model that we used in our 

analysis does not identify the amount of 

high-quality or high-quality open 

foraging habitat as having a strong 

influence on the probability of Florida 

bonneted bat occurrence; thus, these 

covariates were not incorporated in our 

model output or analysis results. 

(14) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, commenters stated 

concerns about various aspects of how 

current and future land use, the overall 

spatial extent of the designation, 

ownership, and habitat quality were 

considered in the revised proposed 

designation of critical habitat. Some 

commenters stated their views that 

private lands, urban areas, and 

agricultural areas were seemingly 

arbitrarily avoided in our revised 

critical habitat designation and that the 

spatial extent of the designation was 

arbitrarily reduced from the June 10, 

2020, proposal. Other commenters 

expressed concern with the revised 

proposed critical habitat not aligning 

with ownership boundaries, such as 

conservation easements, property lines, 

or other easements, or suggested that the 

Service should consider future 

development plans when delineating 

critical habitat and aim to avoid or 

protect areas with plans for 

development. One commenter requested 

additional information regarding how 

we considered ‘‘hot spots’’ identified by 

the habitat analysis, specifically 

expressing concerns that some 

apparently high-quality areas were 

omitted from the revised proposed 

designation. 

Our Response: Critical habitat, as 

defined in section 3 of the Act, includes 

the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. In the development of our 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

designation, we followed this approach 

to identify and delineate critical habitat 

for the Florida bonneted bat using a 

step-wise process incorporating critical 

habitat criteria based on the species’ 

conservation strategy, results of our 

spatially explicit habitat analysis, and 

additional information that could not be 

incorporated into our spatial analysis 

(see Conservation Strategy and Selection 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat, below). We did not consider 

ownership or management of any areas 

during this process, and ownership and 

management information (including 

easements) is not evaluated until after 

critical habitat delineation is completed; 

future development plans are not 

considered in the definition or 

delineation of critical habitat. Thus, 

private lands were not purposefully 

avoided, and most units include private 

lands to some degree. Urban and 

agricultural areas, while not specifically 

avoided, are less prevalent than certain 

land cover types (e.g., forested lands, 

freshwater wetlands) in the designation; 

this is primarily a result of their lower 

likelihood of containing the essential 

physical or biological features or their 

lower conservation value. For example, 

despite their use by Florida bonneted 

bats and their local importance in the 

southeastern extent of the species’ 

range, many urban areas have lower 

conservation value to the species as a 

whole and do not contain the physical 

or biological features essential for the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat, as further discussed above in our 

response to (3) Comment. Likewise, 

although some agricultural areas are 

known to provide foraging habitat for 

the species, the conservation value of 

these areas is generally lower than that 

of other open foraging habitats that are 

dominated by native vegetation and not 

exposed to regular pesticide 

applications. Regardless of critical 

habitat designation, Federal agencies are 

required to fulfill their conservation 

responsibilities by consulting with the 

Service if the actions they authorize, 

fund, or carry out ‘‘may affect’’ listed 

species; therefore, Florida bonneted bats 

and their habitat are still protected by 

the Act where they occur, including in 

urbanized and agriculture areas. 

Just as the composition of our 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

designation was guided by the factors 

described above, so were the spatial 

arrangement and extent of our revised 

critical habitat units. During the 

development of our revised proposed 

rule, we evaluated areas both within 

and outside the species’ known range to 

identify those areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. This 

evaluation included areas identified as 

potential ‘‘hot spots’’ (areas having 

higher probability of Florida bonneted 

bat occurrence) in the predictive maps 

produced based on our MaxEnt model. 

We further evaluated these areas for the 

temperature limitations of the species 

and to ensure that land cover data were 

correctly categorized, and we eliminated 

areas that were unlikely to contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the species (e.g., areas at the far 

northern edge of the model’s spatial 

extent where winter temperatures are 

typically too low for the bat, areas 

where aerial imagery indicated poor 

habitat quality). Other areas identified 

as ‘‘hot spots’’ by the model but that 

were not occupied (e.g., area east of 

Lake Okeechobee) were eliminated in a 

later step of our delineation process 

because we determined unoccupied 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16632 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

areas are not essential for the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat, as further discussed in our response 

to (1) Comment, above. The remaining 

areas were included in our November 

22, 2022, revised proposed designation, 

as were additional areas where the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the species are found and which we 

determined were necessary to fulfill 

critical habitat criteria (e.g., areas for 

connectivity between model-identified 

‘‘hot spots’’ that fall within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species as defined at 50 CFR 424.02). 

These methods produced the specific 

critical habitat units included in our 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

designation, and any differences in unit 

size, arrangement, or composition 

between the June 10, 2020, proposed 

and November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed units are a result of 

delineations made following revised 

criteria to identify the essential physical 

or biological features rather than 

arbitrary changes (see also our response 

to (10) Comment, above). 

(15) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, one commenter 

questioned the removal of minimum 

patch size as a criterion for critical 

habitat units and suggested that this was 

not supported other than to allow for 

additional connectivity, including the 

addition of smaller patches or ‘‘stepping 

stones.’’ The commenter also requested 

that a definition be provided for the 

term ‘‘stepping stones.’’ 

Our Response: Based on peer review 

and public comments on the June 10, 

2020, proposed rule and new 

information, we determined that use of 

a minimum patch size was not 

appropriate for the Florida bonneted bat 

because using a minimum patch size 

would have eliminated areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that provide necessary 

ecological community and genetic 

representation. ‘‘Stepping stones’’ are 

characterized in the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule and in this rule 

under Space for Individual and 

Population Growth and for Normal 

Behavior, below, as suitable habitat in 

the form of linear corridors or patches 

and are described more specifically in 

the description of the essential physical 

or biological features as patches such as 

tree islands or other isolated natural 

areas within a matrix of otherwise lowquality habitat. 

(16) Comment: Several comments 

expressed concerns that many threats to 

the Florida bonneted bat, as well as 

details related to some of the outlined 

threats (e.g., habitat loss, climate 

change, environmental stochasticity, 

pesticides and contaminants), were not 

mentioned or fully addressed in the 

Special Managements Considerations or 

Protection discussions in the June 10, 

2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rules. 

Our Response: The threats included 

in the discussion under Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection, below, as well as in the June 

10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rules, are 

potential threats to the physical and 

biological features, not threats directly 

to the Florida bonneted bat. 

Additionally, the threats included in 

our discussion are not intended to be an 

exhaustive list. Additional discussion of 

threats to the Florida bonneted bat can 

be found in the final rule to list the 

Florida bonneted bat as an endangered 

species (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) 

A comprehensive discussion of current 

and future threats to the species will be 

a part of the species’ upcoming recovery 

plan. 

(17) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the baseline approach used 

by the Service to assess economic 

impacts, which considers only impacts 

solely attributable to the critical habitat 

designation, is flawed and severely 

underestimates costs presented in the 

DEA. Commenters further suggested that 

considering all costs regardless of 

whether they are incremental to critical 

habitat designation, thus including 

those costs likely to be incurred to avoid 

adverse habitat modification as well as 

jeopardy to the species, would more 

accurately analyze how a critical habitat 

designation affects property owners. 

Our Response: Because the primary 

purposes of the Service’s economic 

analysis are to facilitate the mandatory 

consideration of the economic impact of 

the designation of critical habitat, to 

inform the discretionary section 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis, and to determine 

compliance with relevant statutes and 

Executive orders, our economic analysis 

focuses on the incremental impact of the 

designation. The economic analysis of 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat follows this 

incremental approach. As such, costs 

associated with actions that are 

anticipated to occur regardless of 

critical habitat designation for the 

Florida bonneted bat are not included. 

The Service acknowledges that 

historically the method for assessing the 

economic impact of critical habitat 

designations has been the subject of 

significant debate. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 

in New Mexico Cattlegrowers Ass’n v. 

FWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) 

found that the regulatory definition of 

the jeopardy standard fully 

encompassed the adverse modification 

standard, rendering any purported 

economic analysis done utilizing the 

baseline approach, which only 

considers economic impacts that would 

not occur ‘‘but for’’ the critical habitat, 

virtually meaningless. For this reason, 

the court rejected the baseline approach 

to economic analysis. Later, in 2004, the 

Ninth Circuit (Gifford Pinchot Task 

Force v. USFWS, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 

2004)) invalidated the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification.’’ The court held that the 

definition gave too little protection to 

critical habitat by not giving weight to 

Congress’ intent that designated critical 

habitat supports the recovery of listed 

species. On August 27, 2019, the Service 

issued a final rule (84 FR 44976) 

revising the definition of destruction or 

adverse modification in a way that 

allows the Service to define an 

incremental effect of the designation. 

This process eliminated the predicate 

for the Tenth Circuit’s analysis and 

decision. Therefore, the Service has 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

consider the impacts of designation on 

an incremental basis. Indeed, no court 

outside of the Tenth Circuit has 

followed New Mexico Cattle Growers 

since the Ninth Circuit issued Gifford 

Pinchot Task Force and the Service 

revised its definition of ‘‘destruction or 

adverse modification.’’ 

Most recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals upheld the 

incremental approach as lawful 

explaining that ‘‘the very notion of 

conducting a cost/benefit analysis is 

undercut by incorporating in that 

analysis costs that will exist regardless 

of the decision made.’’ Further, when 

the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of 

certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court 

to specifically answer the question of 

whether the government is required to 

‘‘analyze all of the economic impacts of 

‘critical habitat’ designation (regardless 

of whether the impacts are co-extensive 

with, or cumulative of, other causes), as 

the Tenth Circuit decided, or instead 

only those impacts for which ‘critical 

habitat’ designation is a ‘but for’ cause, 

as the Ninth Circuit decided,’’ the 

Supreme Court declined to hear the case 

(Home Builders Association of Northern 

California v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 

2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed 2d 301, 

2011 U.S. Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 

(2011); citing Arizona Cattle Growers v. 

Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16633 

U.S. Lexis 1362, 79 U.S. L.W. 3475 

(2011)). Subsequently, on August 28, 

2013, the Service issued a final rule (78 

FR 53058) revising its approach to 

conducting impact analyses for 

designations of critical habitat, 

specifying that we will compare the 

impacts with and without the 

designation (50 CFR 424.19(b)). 

(18) Comment: Several commenters 

stated concerns that critical habitat 

designation for the Florida bonneted bat 

will alter land management, 

development, and conservation 

activities and will result in economic 

impacts that are not included or are 

underestimated in the DEA. 

Commenters specifically cited concerns 

that the costs that private entities incur 

during section 7 consultation (e.g., 

biologist and consultant fees, project 

modifications and mitigation, costs 

associated with permit and project 

delays) and potential increased 

litigation risk are a significant economic 

burden. 

Our Response: Section 4 of the 

economic analysis (IEc 2021a, pp. 22– 

25) outlines the substantial baseline 

protections currently afforded the 

Florida bonneted bat throughout areas 

in the revised proposed critical habitat 

designation. These baseline protections 

result from the listing of the Florida 

bonneted bat under the Act and the 

presence of the species in all critical 

habitat units, as well as overlap with 

habitat of other, similar listed species 

and designated critical habitat. 

Specifically, once a species is listed as 

endangered or threatened, section 7 of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

consult with the Service to ensure that 

the actions they authorize, fund, or 

carry out will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species, even 

absent critical habitat designation. For 

designated critical habitat, section 7 also 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

their actions will not destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. Thus, 

a key focus of the economic screening 

analysis is evaluating whether the 

designation of critical habitat would 

trigger project modifications to avoid 

adverse modification that would be 

above and beyond modifications that 

would already have been undertaken to 

avoid adverse effects to the species 

itself. The jeopardy analysis conducted 

as part of consultation would focus on 

the same impacts that an adverse 

modification standard analysis would 

because threats to the Florida bonneted 

bat are habitat-related (e.g., removal, 

fragmentation, or degradation of habitat 

due to construction, development, or 

climate change). Under those 

circumstances, project modifications or 

conservation measures would likely be 

required to address the species, 

regardless of whether there is 

designated critical habitat, because of 

the effects on the species. Therefore, it 

is unlikely that an analysis would 

identify a difference between measures 

needed to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

from measures needed to avoid 

jeopardizing the species. Thus, the 

designation of critical habitat is unlikely 

to generate recommendations for 

additional project modifications in 

occupied areas. As such, we do not 

forecast any incremental costs 

associated with project modifications 

that would involve additional 

conservation efforts resulting from this 

critical habitat designation. Incremental 

costs include additional time for the 

Service, action agencies, and third 

parties to participate in consultations 

related to designated critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat. 

The Service makes its decision 

whether to specify any particular area as 

critical habitat based on the best 

available science after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact. We do not 

consider the costs of litigation 

surrounding the critical habitat rule 

itself when considering the economic 

impacts of the rule. The extent to which 

litigation could increase the costs of a 

critical habitat designation is purely 

speculative and inappropriate for 

consideration. 

(19) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the number of actions that 

would be affected by the designation of 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat, and thus the costs associated with 

those actions, may be larger than 

estimated in the DEA. Commenters 

specifically stated that the number of 

consultations associated with private 

projects that require Federal 

authorization (e.g., those triggering 

consultation under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

are underestimated in the DEA. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

forecasts the likely number of future 

section 7 consultation actions based on 

the number of consultations for the 

Florida bonneted bat that have occurred 

since its listing in 2013 and information 

from the Service about likely future 

actions in particular units. The analysis 

also incorporates information provided 

by several government agencies, as well 

as by several public commenters, into 

the forecast of the number of likely 

actions that will require section 7 

consultation. Specifically, the analysis 

incorporates information from the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Florida 

Department of Transportation, the 

Service’s Southwest Florida Refuge 

Complex, the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

Florida Power and Light (FPL), and 

other commenters. By adding the 

number of annual consultations based 

on the historical rate to the specific 

known actions and actions identified 

through commenter input, our estimate 

of the number of future consultation 

actions is likely to be overstated because 

some of these actions would have also 

been captured in the historical number 

of consultations. Also, see our response 

to (18) Comment, regarding the 

substantial baseline protections 

currently afforded the Florida bonneted 

bat throughout areas in the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

(20) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the DEA underestimates the 

effect of the designation of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat on 

private land values, primarily because it 

does not account for the full 

perceptional effects of designating 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: Section 5 of the 

economic analysis discusses the 

possible perceptional effects of the 

proposed designation on private 

property values. Specifically, this 

section of the economic analysis 

discusses comments and concerns 

submitted in response to previous 

critical habitat rulemakings that the 

designation of critical habitat may affect 

the value of a private property due to 

the public perception that the Act may 

preclude, limit, or slow development or 

somehow alter the highest and best use 

of the property. The analysis 

acknowledges that incremental costs 

from public perception of the critical 

habitat designation for Florida bonneted 

bat could be possible. As stated in the 

analysis, public attitudes and concerns 

about the regulatory effects of the Act 

can cause real economic effects to the 

owners of property, regardless of 

whether such concerns and effects are 

actually realized. Over time, as public 

awareness grows with respect to the role 

of critical habitat and the impacts of a 

critical habitat designation, particularly 

where no Federal nexus compelling a 

section 7 consultation exists, concerns 

regarding the effect of critical habitat 

designation on properties may subside. 

While existing economic literature 

and prior public comments on previous 

designations suggest that costs may 

result from public perception about how 

critical habitat may affect private lands, 

given the differences in circumstances, 

including varying species, geographic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16634 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

locations, public attitudes, and potential 

for a Federal nexus, we lack the ability 

to calculate costs associated with public 

perception in a manner that does not 

require extensive speculation. 

Additionally, we are unable to estimate 

the magnitude of perception-related 

impacts to property values likely to 

result from this designation. We are 

unable to do this due to existing data 

limitations regarding the probability 

that such effects will occur, the 

likelihood of perception effects above 

and beyond those associated with the 

listing, and the presence of other cooccurring listed species and designated 

critical habitats. 

(21) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed rule, one commenter 

stated that the Service should account 

for and incorporate planned land use 

changes in the economic impacts of 

critical habitat designation considered 

in the DEA. 

Our Response: Planned land use 

changes were considered and 

incorporated into our economic analysis 

of this critical habitat designation. 

Section 3 of the economic analysis 

forecasts section 7 consultations based 

on data on past consultation efforts for 

the Florida bonneted bat in or near 

proposed critical habitat areas and 

identifies known or probable projects in 

proposed critical habitat that may affect 

critical habitat designation or require 

consultation under section 7 of the Act. 

Known or probable projects were 

identified based on information we 

received from Federal agencies during 

the development of the incremental 

effects memorandum (IEM) and from the 

public in response to the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule. In addition, public 

comments we received on the proposed 

rule from FPL, Collier Enterprises 

Management, and a number of other 

interested parties provided information 

about potential effects of the critical 

habitat designation for Florida bonneted 

bat on ongoing activities. We used this 

information, as well as comments from 

Federal and State agencies, to forecast 

the number of consultations that will 

occur for the Florida bonneted bat in 

proposed critical habitat areas over the 

next 10 years. Information we received 

during the public comment period for 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule about potential effects of 

critical habitat designation for Florida 

bonneted bat on ongoing activities was 

also considered in our analysis of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this critical habitat designation. 

(22) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the DEA fails to account for private 

development on county-owned leased 

lands in the Miami-Dade Rocklands 

Unit (Unit 9) and thus does not 

adequately estimate incremental costs, 

including those associated with 

perceptional effects, associated with 

private development on county-owned 

leased lands. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information the commenter submitted 

with respect to Unit 9. We did consider 

potential activity on all areas within this 

unit, including county-owned leased 

lands, when evaluating the economic 

impacts. Because the primary purposes 

of the economic analysis are to facilitate 

the mandatory consideration of the 

economic impact of the designation of 

critical habitat, to inform the 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, and to determine compliance 

with relevant statutes and Executive 

orders, the economic analysis focuses 

on the incremental impact of the 

designation. The economic analysis of 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat follows this 

incremental approach. Based on the 

consultation history and public and 

agency comments, the economic 

analysis anticipates that approximately 

2 formal consultations, 15 informal 

consultations, and 3 technical assistance 

efforts will occur in the Miami-Dade 

Rocklands Unit that will consider 

Florida bonneted bat critical habitat 

during the next 10 years, or 

approximately 2 consultation actions 

annually. These forecasted 

consultations are not specific to 

particular landowners and may include 

county-owned lands. 

Critical habitat would only affect a 

private development project on countyowned leased lands if there were a 

Federal nexus for the project or the 

designation of critical habitat triggered 

regulatory compliance under State or 

local laws. We are aware of Miami-Dade 

County approving a long-term lease for 

lands within Unit 9. Because this area 

is considered occupied for Florida 

bonneted bat and co-occurs with other 

listed species and their critical habitats, 

should there be a Federal nexus for a 

project conducted on these lands, the 

incremental economic impact as a result 

of this critical habitat designation would 

be limited to minor additional 

administrative economic costs due to 

the additional analysis required for the 

destruction or adverse modification 

analysis. 

As the commenter notes, the 

economic analysis specifically discusses 

perception-related impacts as related to 

privately owned lands. Perceptionrelated effects are also possible for 

county-owned lands that may be leased 

to private developers. However, for the 

reasons discussed above (see our 

response to (20) Comment), we are 

unable to estimate the magnitude of 

perception-related impacts to property 

values that may result from this 

designation. 

(23) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed rule, Collier 

Enterprises Management, Inc. requested 

that we exclude the lands within the 

boundary of the draft East Collier 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP), totaling 3,772 ac (1,526 ha) 

within Units 5 and 6 of the revised 

proposed designation. 

Our Response: We listed this 

exclusion request in table 2 of the 

revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022, pp. 71481–71482); 

however, we did not conduct an 

analysis to determine whether the 

benefits of potentially excluding any 

specific area outweigh the benefits of 

including that area under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act because this HCP was 

withdrawn prior to the publication of 

this final rule. 

(24) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed rule, Aliese Priddy, 

JB Ranch I, LLC, requested that we 

exclude the property owned by JB 

Ranch I, LLC, and Sunniland Family 

Limited Partnership lands. In addition, 

Miami-Dade Limestone Products 

Association requested that we exclude 

lands overlapping the Florida 

legislature-designated Lake Belt mining 

area. 

Our Response: We listed these 

exclusion requests in table 2 of the 

revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022, pp. 71481–71482), 

and we noted that these requests do not 

overlap with the revised proposed 

designation for the Florida bonneted 

bat. In this final rule, we did not 

conduct an analysis to determine 

whether the benefits of potentially 

excluding these specific areas outweigh 

the benefits of including them under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the 

lands identified in these requests do not 

overlap with the final critical habitat 

designation. 

(25) Comment: In response to the June 

10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 

2022, revised proposed rules, several 

commenters requested that broad areas 

of land (e.g., all private property; all 

currently operating cattle ranches, 

associated rights-of-way, and access 

points within proposed critical habitat; 

all Federal and other publicly owned 

lands; entire proposed critical habitat 

units; and/or all proposed critical 

habitat) be excluded from designation 

because of economic and regulatory 

burdens. Commenters expressed 

concerns that critical habitat 

designation would restrict or prevent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16635 

actions from proceeding on those lands. 

One commenter supported their request 

for exclusion by stating that our 

approach for assessing the economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation 

was flawed and advocated for a 

coextensive approach. One commenter 

further stated that all Federal and 

publicly owned lands should be 

excluded from the critical habitat 

designation because the Service has not 

demonstrated that exclusion of all lands 

from critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the Florida bonneted bat. 

Our Response: We considered these 

requests according to our 2016 section 

4(b)(2) policy, which outlines measures 

we consider when excluding any areas 

from critical habitat. The commenters 

provided general statements of their 

desire to be excluded but provided no 

specific information about the economic 

impacts or reasoned rationale about the 

benefits of excluding any specific areas. 

To properly evaluate an exclusion 

request, the commenters must provide 

information concerning the economic 

impacts of the designation, and hence 

the need for exclusion. Thus, we did not 

conduct an analysis to balance or weigh 

the benefits of excluding the areas 

against the benefits of including the 

areas in the critical habitat designation. 

Neither the Act nor the implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 requires 

the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Commerce (Secretaries) to conduct a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis (see, e.g., Cape Hatteras Access 

Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. 

Supp. 2d 15, 29–30 (D.D.C. 2010)). 

Rather, the Secretaries have discretion 

as to whether to conduct that analysis. 

If the Secretary decides not to consider 

exclusion of any particular area, no 

additional analysis is required. 

Regarding the concern that the critical 

habitat designation would restrict or 

prevent actions, the requirement to 

consult with us on actions with a 

Federal nexus that may affect 

designated critical habitat is designed to 

allow actions to proceed while avoiding 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, as further discussed in 

our responses to (9) Comment and (18) 

Comment. 

Regarding the concern that our 

approach for assessing the economic 

impacts is flawed, the economic 

analysis for the designation of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat 

follows an incremental approach, which 

has been upheld by the courts, as 

further discussed in (17) Comment. 

Regarding one commenter’s assertion 

that all critical habitat should be 

excluded because this would not result 

in extinction of the species, we are 

mandated by the Act to designate 

critical habitat for listed species, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. The Act does not require 

us to exclude lands from the designation 

if that exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. Rather, the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may 

exclude any particular area if she 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

including such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless she determines, 

based on the best scientific data 

available, that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species (see 

Consideration of Impacts under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, below). As stated 

earlier in this comment response, 

because the commenter did not provide 

specific information or reasoned 

rationale about the benefits of excluding 

any specific areas, we chose not to 

conduct an analysis to balance or weigh 

the benefits of excluding the areas 

against the benefits of including the 

areas in the critical habitat designation. 

(26) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule, Miami-Dade County requested that 

we exclude the 327 ac (132 ha) of the 

developed footprint of Zoo Miami due 

to concerns that including this area in 

the critical habitat designation would 

prevent the zoo from conducting 

activities needed to adhere to 

Association of Zoos and Aquariums 

(AZA) accreditation standards. The 

commenter expressed concern that if 

they were not able to meet AZA 

standards, they could lose their AZA 

accreditation, which impacts the zoo’s 

economic capacity. 

Our Response: We appreciate our 

partners’ efforts to conserve wildlife and 

inspire stewardship for local wildlife as 

well as species around the world. We 

considered this request for exclusion 

according to our 2016 section 4(b)(2) 

policy, and we consulted with AZA 

accreditation experts and reviewed the 

AZA accreditation standards and related 

policies (AZA 2024, entire). 

Because a focus on conservation and 

active stewardship of the natural 

environment, including wildlife, is part 

of the accreditation process and 

standards (AZA 2024, pp. 6, 12, 27–28), 

it is reasonable to assume that a 

demonstrated commitment to 

supporting the conservation of an 

endangered species, such as the Florida 

bonneted bat, would benefit an 

organization seeking accreditation. 

Human-altered areas such as 

buildings or pavement without any type 

of vegetation that could provide roosting 

habitat or support insect populations 

that provide prey for the Florida 

bonneted bat may not possess the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and would not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. These areas 

are ‘‘excluded by text’’ from the 

designation. However, the Zoo Miami 

property does include areas that contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted as well as features 

essential to five other species with 

designated critical habitat within the 

Zoo Miami area. 

Also, critical habitat designations do 

not affect activities by private 

landowners unless projects have a 

Federal nexus (e.g., on Federal property, 

using Federal funding, authorized or 

carried out by a Federal agency). 

Furthermore, any regulatory burden 

related to updating or improving 

exhibits or expanding the developed 

areas of Zoo Miami to maintain 

accreditation would be associated with 

the species’ listing, not the critical 

habitat designation. Therefore, since the 

designation of critical habitat is unlikely 

to have a negative effect on the ability 

of Zoo Miami to continue AZA 

accreditation and any foreseen 

regulatory burden would be purely 

associated with listing, we did not 

conduct an analysis to determine 

whether the benefits of potentially 

excluding any specific area outweigh 

the benefits of including that area under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Neither the 

Act nor the implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.19 require the Secretaries to 

conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape 

Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. 

DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29–30 (D.D.C. 

2010)). Rather, the Secretaries have 

discretion as to whether to conduct that 

analysis. If the Secretary decides not to 

consider exclusion of any particular 

area, no additional analysis is required. 

(27) Comment: We received 

comments from the Division of 

Charlotte County Mosquito Control and 

the Collier Mosquito Control District 

requesting that the areas of critical 

habitat overlapping their respective 

mosquito control districts be excluded 

from critical habitat; we also received 

comments expressing concern about 

designating the portions of Lee, Collier, 

and Charlotte Counties for which taxes 

fund mosquito control services. 

Commentors expressed concerns that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

restrict their ability to conduct mosquito 

control practices within critical habitat, 

resulting in negative impacts to public 

health, suppression of economic growth, 

and reductions in land value. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16636 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: We considered this 

request for exclusion under our 2016 

section 4(b)(2) policy. No specific 

information was provided to enable us 

to conduct an analysis to balance or 

weigh the benefits of excluding the 

areas against the benefits of including 

the areas in the designation. Therefore, 

we did not conduct an analysis to 

determine whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Neither the Act nor the implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 require the 

Secretaries to conduct a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, 

e.g., Cape Hatteras Access Preservation 

Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29– 

30 (D.D.C. 2010)). Rather, the Secretaries 

have discretion as to whether to conduct 

that analysis. If the Secretary decides 

not to consider exclusion of any 

particular area, no additional analysis is 

required. 

The lands included in this critical 

habitat designation are all considered 

occupied by the Florida bonneted bat. 

Therefore, regardless of any critical 

habitat designation, activities that may 

take Florida bonneted bat are subject to 

prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. 

We would recommend protective 

measures be established for the Florida 

bonneted bat regardless of critical 

habitat designation within mosquito 

control districts because of potential 

impacts to the species, but this critical 

habitat designation does not limit or 

stop mosquito control operations or 

reduce efforts to protect communities 

from mosquito-borne viruses. 

(28) Comment: Miami-Dade County 

and several other commenters requested 

clarification regarding the areas that are 

excluded from designation ‘‘by text,’’ 

specified at paragraph (3) in the 

regulatory text of the critical habitat 

designation for the Florida bonneted 

bat, and what meets the characteristics 

of natural habitats at the time of critical 

habitat designation. Commenters also 

stated their views that some areas 

within Unit 9 in the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed designation should 

not be included in the final designation 

because they should be considered 

developed or because they do not 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Our Response: As specified at 

paragraph (3) of the regulatory text in 

this rule (see Regulation Promulgation, 

below), critical habitat does not include 

human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas) and the land on 

which they are located. These types of 

structures and lands that are within 

critical habitat units on the effective 

date of this final rule (see DATES, above) 

are excluded from designation ‘‘by 

text.’’ Areas within delineated critical 

habitat units that (1) are not humanmade structures or the land on which 

they are located and (2) include any of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat are designated 

critical habitat. These areas could 

include human-altered areas such as 

areas near buildings or pavement with 

any type of vegetation that could 

provide roosting habitat or could 

support insect populations that provide 

prey for the Florida bonneted bat. 

Where specific areas were identified by 

commenters, we evaluated and 

determined that removal from the final 

designation was not appropriate or 

required because the areas would 

already be excluded from the 

designation under paragraph (3) of the 

regulatory text or because they have at 

least one physical or biological feature 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that requires special 

management considerations or 

protection (and, thus, do meet our 

criteria for designating critical habitat). 

Questions regarding whether other 

specific areas are included in the 

designation should be directed to the 

Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). Even absent critical habitat 

designation, Federal agencies are still 

required to consult with the Service if 

any action they authorize, fund, or carry 

out may affect listed species, so impacts 

to Florida bonneted bats using these 

areas may still be considered during 

consultations for effects to the species. 

(29) Comment: One commenter 

requests an explanation of how the State 

of Florida’s assumption of permitting 

authority under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act program affects the 

consideration of critical habitat in 

reviews of projects or actions impacting 

Florida bonneted bats. 

Our Response: Consistent with the 

biological opinion, which is titled, ‘‘U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Approval of Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Assumption 

of the Administration of the Dredge and 

Fill Permitting Program under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act’’ (Service 

2020, entire), and a memorandum of 

understanding between the Service, 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP), and Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC), we provide technical assistance 

to FDEP to ensure that no State 404 

permit action jeopardizes the continued 

existence of federally listed species or 

adversely modifies or destroys critical 

habitat, pursuant to 40 CFR 233.20(a). 

We continue to consult with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineer on permits they 

issue pursuant to section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. 

(30) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service should prepare an 

environmental impact statement to 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for every Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. The 

commenter also stated that the Service 

should have included an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis with the 

proposed rule to comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The commenter 

further stated that the Service has not 

accurately represented the significant 

impact that this critical habitat rule will 

have on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Our Response: It is our position that, 

outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do 

not need to prepare environmental 

analyses pursuant to NEPA in 

connection with designating critical 

habitat under the Act. We published a 

notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

position was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). Therefore, it is 

appropriate that we did not prepare an 

environmental impact statement for this 

designation of critical habitat. See also 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), below. 

As required by the RFA, we evaluated 

the potential incremental impacts of 

rulemaking on those entities directly 

regulated by the rulemaking itself. 

Under section 7 of the Act, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

this specific regulatory requirement 

imposed by critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, because no small entities will 

be directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

we certify that this critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See Regulatory 

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

below, for more detail. 

(31) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, two commenters 

noted that the information necessary to 

evaluate the impacts of critical habitat 

(e.g., Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation 

Guidelines, shapefile for critical habitat 

maps) were not available or difficult to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16637 

obtain during the comment period for 

the revised proposed rule, thus making 

it difficult to fully review and provide 

comment on the revised proposed rule. 

Our Response: We agree that sharing 

the supporting documents for proposed 

rules during the comment period is 

important for providing the public the 

ability to fully review and comment on 

a proposed rule. During the comment 

period for the November, 22, 2022, 

revised proposed critical habitat rule, all 

supporting documents, with the 

exception of shapefiles (which are not 

supported by the platform), were made 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019– 

0106, as noted in the revised proposed 

rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022). 

During the comment period for the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule, the Florida Ecological Services 

Field Office website was undergoing 

updates, and we were unable to make 

some information directly available 

from the office website, although much 

of it was available in the docket for the 

revised proposed rule on https://

www.regulations.gov. However, the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule also provided our contact 

information to the public for questions, 

and we did, upon being contacted, 

provide the link to the critical habitat 

shapefile directly to the commenter and 

all other individuals and partners who 

requested this information. 

(32) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, one commenter 

suggested that the Service should be 

more transparent with the data we 

consider in the designation of critical 

habitat, making data and information 

publicly accessible unless we risk 

compromising sensitive information and 

sharing peer reviews we receive on 

proposed rules. 

Our Response: We agree that 

transparency is important and always 

strive to share with the public the 

information that supports our proposed 

and final rules where prudent to do so. 

As noted in (31) Comment, we made 

supporting documents publicly 

available concurrent with the 

publication of the June 10, 2020, 

proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rules, with the 

exception of shapefiles, which we 

shared upon request. Included in these 

supporting documents were the DEA, 

conservation strategy, a list of 

conservation lands that overlap with the 

proposed designation, conservation and 

natural resource management plans for 

areas we were considering for exclusion, 

a summary of the habitat analysis 

conducted to inform delineation of the 

revised proposed critical habitat units, 

and a list of all literature cited in the 

rule with references available as 

attachments. The Florida Bonneted Bat 

Conservation Strategy provides a 

technical foundation for recovery 

strategies, summarizing the best 

scientific data available concerning the 

status of the species and threats 

affecting the species, and outlines 

objectives for achieving recovery of the 

Florida bonneted bat. This document 

was prepared based on input and 

information from researchers and 

species experts. Additionally, we have 

provided the Recovery Outline for 

Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops 

floridanus) (see Supporting and Related 

Material in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES– 

2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov) concurrent with 

publication of this final rule. The 

recovery outline is a brief document that 

broadly sketches the interim 

conservation and management program 

for the Florida bonneted bat during the 

time between the species’ final listing 

under the Act and completion of a 

recovery plan. 

We also agree that it is important to 

provide the public access to the peer 

review responses we receive on 

proposed rules. In accordance with our 

joint policy on peer review published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we summarize peer review 

in this final rule. Prior to the 

publication of the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule, we also shared 

all peer review comments on the June 

10, 2020, proposed rule and the 

accompanying conflict of interest forms 

completed by the peer reviewers; these 

peer reviews and conflict of interest 

forms were made available at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on September 

29, 2020. Concurrent with the 

publication of this final rule, we have 

made available the most recent peer 

review and accompanying completed 

conflict of interest form on the revised 

proposed critical habitat rule at https:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. 

(33) Comment: In response to the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

critical habitat rule, we received two 

comments that raised concerns that the 

peer review of the proposed rule was 

flawed, specifically, that there were not 

enough reviewers, reviewers were 

unqualified, and that a peer reviewer 

had an undisclosed conflict of interest. 

Our Response: The Service has long 

been committed to the use of best 

available science in decision-making 

and to the use of peer review to improve 

such science. The Service solicited 

independent scientific reviews of both 

the June 10, 2020, proposed and 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rules in accordance with our joint 

policy on peer review (59 FR 34270; 

July 1, 1994), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review of listing actions 

under the Act. 

The policy and memo direct us to 

solicit an independent scientific review 

from a minimum of three reviewers; 

accordingly, we sent the June 10, 2020, 

proposed critical habitat rule to six 

reviewers and the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed critical habitat rule to 

five reviewers. In response, we received 

two reviews of the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule and one review of the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule. 

As directed in our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum, we selected qualified 

reviewers with, ‘‘expertise and/or 

experience relevant to the scientific 

questions and determinations addressed 

in our actions.’’ Peer reviewers were 

selected based on their ability to act as 

an independent reviewer and on their 

expertise related to the Florida bonneted 

bat and its habitat and threats. Peer 

reviewers were asked to review the 

science applied to the June 10, 2020, 

proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed critical habitat rules, 

and the peer reviews they submitted did 

indeed focus on critique of the science 

rather than policy. One peer reviewer 

who provided comments on the June 10, 

2020, proposed rule is a Service 

employee but does not work within 

Florida, did not contribute otherwise to 

the development of this rule, and is a 

subject matter expert (bats); thus, we 

think this person meets the standards 

set forth by our peer review policy and 

clarified in our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum. Additionally, we 

solicited peer review from five other 

external experts. 

Per our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum, peer reviewers were 

required to complete a conflict of 

interest form, and we assessed potential 

conflicts of interest by examining 

financial and business relationships and 

consulting arrangements, using 

applicable standards issued by the 

Office of Government Ethics. As noted 

in our August 22, 2016, memorandum, 

‘‘Divulging a conflict of interest does not 

invalidate the comments of the 

reviewer; however, it will allow for 

transparency to the public regarding the 

reviewer’s possible biases or 

associations.’’ In instances where a 

reviewer has a substantial conflict of 

interest, we will evaluate their 

comments in light of that conflict; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16638 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

however, we did not determine that any 

of the three peer reviewers who 

submitted comments on the two 

proposed rules have a substantial 

conflict of interest. 

(34) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Service should notify 

private landowners if their land 

overlaps a proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: We strive for good 

communication with the public, 

including communicating our intent to 

designate critical habitat and making 

available proposed critical habitat rules, 

which include the specific locations 

where critical habitat is proposed. 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act requires us to, 

not less than 90 days before the effective 

date of the regulation, publish a general 

notice and the complete text of the 

proposed regulation in the Federal 

Register. For the June 10, 2020, 

proposed and November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed critical habitat rules 

for the Florida bonneted bat, we notified 

the public via publication in the Federal 

Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510), 

and November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71466), 

respectively. On June 9, 2020, we posted 

a press release notifying the public of 

the publication of the June 10, 2020, 

proposed critical habitat rule on our 

Regional website, and on November 21, 

2022, we also posted a press release 

notifying the public of the publication 

of the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed critical habitat rule at https:// 

www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-11/ 

florida-bonneted-bat. For the June 10, 

2020, proposed rule, newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Orlando Sentinel, Ft. 

Myers News-Press, Sarasota Herald 

Tribune, and Miami Herald newspapers. 

For the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule, a newspaper notice 

inviting general public comment was 

again published in the Miami Herald 

newspaper. For the proposed and 

revised proposed rules, we also 

disseminated notice of the publication 

on various social media platforms, 

including Twitter and Facebook, and 

sent notices to several interested parties, 

including nongovernmental 

organizations and interested industry 

and property-holding entities. 

Accordingly, we make every attempt to 

ensure the public is well-informed of 

proposed regulations that may affect it. 

Background 

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

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we designate a 

species’ critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species. Critical habitat 

is defined in section 3 of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation also 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would likely result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16639 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

HCPs, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available at the time of these planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; cover or shelter; 

sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 

nutritional or physiological 

requirements; and habitats with 

appropriate disturbance regimes (for 

more information, see the October 4, 

2012, proposed rule to list the Florida 

bonneted bat (77 FR 60750), and the 

Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation 

Strategy (see Supporting and Related 

Material in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES– 

2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov)). We summarize 

below the more important habitat 

characteristics, particularly those that 

support the description of physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat. We also consider these habitat 

features relative to the scale at which 

Florida bonneted bats use the features, 

allowing us to more logically organize 

the physical or biological features to 

delineate the critical habitat. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Due to the spatial variability of its 

prey, its large size, and its wing 

morphology, the Florida bonneted bat 

has significant spatial needs for 

foraging. Insect abundance, density, and 

community composition frequently vary 

across space and over time based on 

season and environmental conditions. 

As a result of this spatial variability, 

Florida bonneted bats may need to 

travel far distances and feed over large 

areas to satisfy dietary needs. For 

example, Florida bonneted bats from 

Babcock-Webb WMA, on average, 

traveled 9.5 miles (mi) (15 kilometers 

(km)) from their roosts and flew 24 mi 

(39 km) total per night (Webb et al. 

2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers. comm.). 

These bats also traveled maximum 

distances of more than 24 mi (39 km) 

from their roosts and more than 56 mi 

(90 km) total in one night (Webb et al. 

2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers. comm.). 

Florida bonneted bats also require open 

areas for foraging due to their large body 

size and the morphology of their wings, 

which are designed for fast and 

efficient, but less maneuverable, flight. 

This large bat relies on swarms of 

larger insects for feeding; thus, foraging 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat 

consists of areas that hatch and 

concentrate insects of this size, 

including vegetated areas and 

waterways. These bats are also 

frequently detected in agricultural areas 

and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a, 

entire) and are known to feed on insects 

associated with crops (Webb 2018, pp. 

12, 61). 

Ecologically diverse areas of suitable 

habitat representing the geographic 

extent of the species’ range are also 

important for population growth and 

persistence. The major ecological 

communities (Myers and Ewel 1990, 

entire; Service 1999, entire; FNAI 2010, 

entire) that provide Florida bonneted 

bat roosting habitat in central and 

southern Florida include: pine 

rocklands (south Florida rockland, 

rockland pine forest, rockland 

hammock); cypress communities 

(cypress swamps, strand swamps, 

domes, sloughs, ponds); hydric pine 

flatwoods (wet flatwoods); mesic pine 

flatwoods; and high pine. A variety of 

other habitats, including agricultural 

areas, may be used as well (Bailey et al. 

2017a, entire), and freshwater forested 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16640 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

wetlands, including areas with longer 

hydroperiods and deeper water, may be 

more important to the species than 

previously thought (FWC and Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) 2023, 

pp. 15–24). Diverse, open foraging 

habitats (e.g., prairies, riverine habitat) 

are also important. Adequate roosting 

and foraging habitats are essential to the 

species, as they provide the diversity 

necessary to allow for population 

resiliency following minor disturbances 

(e.g., loss of roost tree, cold snap) as 

well as more significant stochastic 

events (e.g., hurricane, drought, forest 

disease, climate change). 

Structural connectivity (suitable 

habitat in the form of linear corridors or 

patches creating ‘‘stepping stones’’) 

facilitates the recolonization of 

extirpated populations; facilitates the 

establishment of new populations; and 

allows for natural behaviors needed for 

foraging, exploratory movements, and 

dispersal. Four genetically differentiated 

populations of the Florida bonneted bat 

have been identified (Charlotte, Polk/ 

Osceola, Lee/Collier, and Miami-Dade 

Counties) (Austin et al. 2022, entire; 

also see the Florida Bonneted Bat 

Conservation Strategy under Supporting 

and Related Material in Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). While dispersal 

of Florida bonneted bats appears to be 

geographically restricted between 

populations, the geographic extent of 

the four genetically differentiated areas 

is not yet known, and maintaining 

structural connectivity to allow for 

ongoing and future functional 

connectivity (i.e., actual movement of 

animals and/or exchange of genes) 

between known populations remains 

important to the species for resiliency as 

well as population stability and growth 

(Austin et al. 2022, pp. 507–508). 

Structural connectivity in the form of 

vegetated corridors with opportunities 

for roosting and/or foraging, vegetated 

river corridors and other areas with 

freshwater available year-round, and 

habitat patches such as pine rockland 

fragments and tree islands are needed to 

provide and maintain connections 

between regions where known Florida 

bonneted bat populations occur. 

Maintaining viable populations in each 

of the known genetically differentiated 

areas and protecting connectivity is 

necessary for the demographic and 

genetic health of the species. Therefore, 

it is important that this species has areas 

of ecologically diverse and connected 

habitat, including sufficient amounts of 

open foraging habitat. 

Cover or Shelter 

The Florida bonneted bat primarily 

roosts in tree cavities, either as 

individuals or small or large colonies 

(Ober et al. 2017, p. 378; Braun de 

Torrez et al. 2020a, p. 6; 2020b, entire). 

Roosts provide protection from sunlight, 

adverse weather, and predators; sites for 

mating, rearing of young, social 

interaction and information sharing, 

resting, and digestion of food; and 

microclimate stability (Kunz 1982, 

entire; Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130– 

135; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4; 

Dechmann et al. 2010, pp. 1–7; Bohn 

2012, in litt.). 

Florida bonneted bat roosts are 

difficult to locate; only 36 natural roosts 

have been identified (not all currently 

occupied), the first in 2013 (Angell and 

Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez 

et al. 2016, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 

2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2021, 

pers. comm.; Borkholder 2022, pers. 

comm.; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. 

comm.). Known natural roosts have 

been documented in the following tree 

species: slash pine, longleaf pine, bald 

cypress, and royal palm (Braun de 

Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). A significant 

proportion of known roosts are in snags 

of these tree species (Braun de Torrez et 

al. 2020b, entire). One non-volant 

(flightless) pup was found at the base of 

a live oak hours after a tree cavity was 

bisected (Ridgley 2020, pers. comm.); it 

is not known if this tree species is 

commonly used as a roost site or may 

be used particularly where suitable trees 

are sparse. 

Relative to surrounding trees, Florida 

bonneted bat roost trees tend to have 

greater overall height (average of 58 feet 

(ft) (17.7 meters (m)) with a range of 34 

to 93 ft (10.4 to 28.2 m)), diameter 

(average of 15 inch (in) (38 centimeter 

(cm)) diameter at breast height (dbh) 

with a range of 7.4 to 27 in (19 to 69.5 

cm) dbh), and canopy height relative to 

the surrounding trees (average of 19.8 ft 

(6 m) with a range of ¥2.6 to 49 ft (¥0.8 

to 15 m)) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, 

entire; Hoyt 2023a, b, pers. comm.). The 

species also appears to require sufficient 

unobstructed space for emergence, with 

cavities high above the ground (average 

of 49 ft (14.9 m) with a range of 27.5 to 

77 ft (8.4 to 23.5 m)) and roost trees set 

apart from the nearest tree (by an 

average of 12 ft (3.8 m) with a range of 

2 to 39 ft (0.6 to 11.9 m)) (Braun de 

Torrez et al. 2020b, entire; Hoyt 2023a, 

pers. comm.), often in open or semiopen canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities 

may require a minimum of 

approximately 27.5 ft (8.4 m) of ground 

clearance (i.e., cavity height above the 

ground) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, 

entire; Hoyt 2023a, pers. comm.); 

however, there are two instances of 

Florida bonneted bats using bat houses 

with approximately 13 ft (4 m) of 

ground clearance in Miami-Dade County 

(Ridgley 2021, unpublished data). 

Collectively, this indicates that this 

species prefers large trees with adequate 

space around the cavity for emergence. 

Florida bonneted bats typically roost in 

cavities made by other species (notably 

woodpeckers) or by natural damage 

caused by fire, storms, or decay. 

The Florida bonneted bat is suspected 

to have high roost-site fidelity. Some 

roosts are used for several years by 

Florida bonneted bat colonies, possibly 

decades (Myers 2013, pers. comm.; 

Scofield 2013a–b, pers. comm.; 2014a– 

b, pers. comm.; Bohn 2014, pers. comm.; 

Gore et al. 2015, p. 183; Angell and 

Thompson 2015, p. 186; Hosein 2016, 

pers. comm.; Webb 2017, pers. comm.; 

B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; Aldredge 

2019, pers. comm.). Conversely, natural 

roosts may frequently succumb to 

natural causes (i.e., hurricanes, 

wildfire), resulting in total loss or too 

much damage to allow for future 

roosting. At least 37 percent of the 

known natural roosts discovered since 

2013 are now uninhabitable (due to 

decay, hurricanes, and other factors) 

(Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). 

Suitable roost sites are a critical 

resource, are an ongoing need of the 

species, and may be limiting population 

growth and distribution in certain 

situations. The loss of a roost site may 

represent a greater impact to this species 

relative to some other bat species (Ober 

2012, in litt.). 

Florida bonneted bats also roost in 

artificial structures (e.g., homes with 

barrel-tile roofs, chimneys, barns, 

hangars, utility poles) and bat houses 

(Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 8; Morse 

2008, entire; Trokey 2012a–b, pers. 

comm.; Gore et al. 2015, entire; see Use 

of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) in 

the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 

October 2, 2013, p. 61010)). While 

artificial roosts can provide valuable 

alternative, long-term, and hurricaneresilient roosting habitat for the species 

where roosting habitat is limited (Braun 

de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.), these are 

imperfect surrogates for natural roosting 

habitat and are not on their own a 

habitat feature essential for the species’ 

survival. Therefore, natural roosts (i.e., 

live or dead trees and tree snags, 

especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald 

cypress, and royal palm, taller than 34 

ft (10.4 m) and greater than 7.4 in (19 

cm) dbh and having unobstructed space 

for emergence) are important habitat 

characteristics for this species. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16641 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Sites supporting the Florida bonneted 

bats’ breeding activities appear to be 

required year-round (Timm and 

Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober et al. 2017, 

p. 382; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see 

also Life History in the final listing rule 

(78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 

61005–61006) and Food, Water, Air, 

Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 

Physiological Requirements, below). 

Reproductively active adults have been 

observed during August, December, and 

April capture sessions, and non-volant 

pups (young not yet capable of flying) 

have been documented in roosts in 

every month other than February and 

March (Scofield 2014b, pers. comm.; 

Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; 

Ridgley 2015, pers. comm.; Ober et al. 

2017, pp. 381, 383;384; Gore 2017, pers. 

comm.; J. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; 

2020, pers. comm.). Based upon these 

data, flightless young bonneted bats and 

females with high energetic demands 

due to pregnancy and lactation may be 

vulnerable to disturbance for at least 10 

months of the year. Most roosting bats 

are sensitive to human disturbance 

(Kunz 1982, p. 32), and maternity 

colonies may be especially intolerant of 

disturbance (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13; 

see also Inadvertent and Purposeful 

Impacts from Humans in the final 

listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 

2013, pp. 61033–61034)). 

Florida bonneted bat colonies 

conform to a harem structure (one 

dominant male, several reproductively 

active females and their young) with 

males exhibiting resource defense 

polygyny (dominant males defend the 

roost from other males) (Ober et al. 

2017, p. 382; Braun de Torrez et al. 

2020a, pp. 10–12). This type of social 

organization, together with evidence of 

high roost-site fidelity, underscores the 

importance of roosts to this species for 

population maintenance, population 

growth, and natural behaviors. 

Disturbance of a roost at any time can 

alter social dynamics and impact 

reproductive success (Ober et al. 2017, 

p. 382). Accordingly, areas where 

roosting and other natural behaviors can 

occur undisturbed are important in 

considering the conservation of the 

species. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

The Florida bonneted bat’s precise 

foraging habits and long-term 

requirements are unknown (Belwood 

1992, p. 219). However, because the 

species is active year-round and 

aseasonally polyestrous (i.e., having 

more than one period of estrous in a 

year, not restricted to one season) 

(Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; 

Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9; Ober et al. 

2016, entire), the Florida bonneted bat 

likely needs constant and/or multiple 

sources of prey to support its high 

metabolism. Energy demands of the 

Florida bonneted bat probably fluctuate 

seasonally (e.g., assumed higher 

demands during cold weather as the 

species does not have periods of torpor 

(a state of decreased physiological 

activity in an animal, including 

decreased body temperature, heart rate, 

and metabolism)) and during sensitive 

times (e.g., maternity, nursery, 

supporting offspring). The maternity 

season is a time of particular sensitivity, 

with increased energy demands and 

risks as females leave young in roosts 

while making multiple foraging 

excursions to support lactation (Kurta et 

al. 1989a, entire; Kurta et al. 1990, 

entire; Kunz et al. 1995, entire; Marks 

and Marks 2008a, pp. 8–9; Ober et al. 

2016, entire). Exploitation of insects in 

patches that yield high-energy returns 

for pregnancy and lactation is important 

(Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). Reduced 

insect populations in urban areas may 

make it difficult for females to 

successfully raise offspring to maturity 

(Kurta et al. 1990, entire; Kurta and 

Teramino 1992, p. 260). 

Most insectivorous bats eat large 

quantities of insects (Ross 1967, entire; 

Black 1974, entire; Kunz 1974, entire; 

Kunz et al. 1995, entire; Kurta and 

Whitaker 1998, entire; Lee and 

McCracken 2002, pp. 306–313; 2005, 

entire; Leelapaibul et al. 2005, entire; 

Kunz et al. 2011, entire). Insectivorous 

bat activity and diversity are strongly 

correlated with arthropod abundance 

(Racey and Swift 1985, pp. 210–211, 

214; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire; 

Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp. 987– 

992), suggesting that bats seek out areas 

of concentrated prey sources (Kunz et 

al. 2011, p. 5). Foraging behavior is tied 

in part to insect abundance, availability, 

and density (Anthony and Kunz 1977, 

entire; Racey and Swift 1985, p. 212; 

Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp. 987– 

992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, 

entire). Exploitation of insects in 

patches that yield high-energy returns 

appears to be important for meeting the 

energy needs associated with prolonged 

flights as well as pregnancy and 

lactation (Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). In 

general, bats foraging from continuous 

flight must encounter prey at relatively 

high rates and successfully attack many 

individual items (Fenton 1990, p. 416). 

Since Florida bonneted bats are thought 

to employ this feeding strategy, areas 

with higher insect abundance, more 

(multiple) prey sources, and diverse 

natural habitats that produce prey 

diversity are essential for suitable 

foraging habitat. 

Like other molossids (e.g., Brazilian 

free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis)), 

the species may be a generalist predator, 

capable of opportunistically exploiting 

available resources (McCracken et al. 

2012, entire). Limited information from 

guano analyses indicates Florida 

bonneted bats feed on flying insects of 

the following orders: Coleoptera 

(beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (true 

bugs), Lepidoptera (moths), and 

Trichoptera (caddisflies) (Belwood 

1981, p. 412; 1992, p. 220; Marks 2013, 

entire; Marks and Marks 2015, pp. 2–3). 

Like other large molossids, the Florida 

bonneted bat’s physiological 

characteristics (e.g., large size, broad 

jaws, big teeth, large ears) and lower 

frequency echolocation make it well 

equipped for finding and taking 

relatively larger insects and harder prey 

items (Freeman 1979, entire; 1981, pp. 

166–173; Obrist et al. 1993, entire; 

Aguirre et al. 2003, p. 207; Timm and 

Genoways 2004, pp. 855–857; Mora and 

Torres 2008, p. 12). 

It is not clear if insect availability is 

limiting or sufficient; however, if the 

Florida bonneted bat is similar in its 

needs to other insectivorous bats, then 

reduced prey abundance or density 

could negatively affect the species, 

affecting survival, growth, and 

reproduction. We find that foraging 

habitat sufficient to support insect 

populations and the seasonal nutritional 

needs of the bat are essential to its 

conservation. Protecting natural habitats 

conducive to insect diversity (Marks 

2013, p. 2) is also essential to the 

Florida bonneted bat’s survival. 

Sources of drinking water are 

important for most insectivorous bat 

species (Kurta et al. 1989b, entire; 1990, 

pp. 59, 63; Adams and Hayes 2008, pp. 

1, 6). Water sources and wetlands also 

provide important sources and 

concentrations of prey (Belwood and 

Fenton 1976, entire; Swift and Racey 

1983, entire; Barclay 1991, pp. 174–176; 

Brigham et al. 1992, entire; Sullivan et 

al. 1993, entire; Racey et al. 1998, pp. 

200–201; Russo and Jones 2003, pp. 197, 

201; Nam et al. 2012, p. 1095; 

Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, p. 1289; 

Fukui et al. 2006, entire). 

Water sources (for drinking, prey, and 

structure) are important habitat 

components for the Florida bonneted 

bat. This species forages over ponds, 

streams, and wetlands and drink when 

flying over open water (Marks and 

Marks 2008a, p. 4; 2008c, p. 3). For 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16642 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

example, in Big Cypress National 

Preserve the vast majority of Florida 

bonneted bat calls were recorded in 

2014 at one remote pond surrounded by 

wetland forest (Arwood 2014a–c, pers. 

comm.). At Picayune Strand State Forest 

(PSSF), all sites where the species has 

been detected were located near canals 

(Smith 2013, pers. comm.). At Florida 

Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the 

highest detection of Florida bonneted 

bat calls occurred in areas with the 

largest amount of open water (Maehr 

2013, pp. 7–11; 2013a–c, pers. comm.). 

In the Miami area (Richmond pine 

rocklands (Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny 

Thompson Park, and the Martinez 

Preserve)), the species has been detected 

in a variety of habitat types, but peak 

activity occurred in areas of artificial 

freshwater lakes adjacent to intact pine 

rocklands (Ridgley 2013a–d, pers. 

comm.). 

We find that open water and wetlands 

provide drinking water, open foraging 

areas, and concentrations of prey that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species. During dry seasons, bats 

become more dependent on remaining 

ponds, streams, and wetland areas for 

foraging purposes, making these 

precious resources essential (Marks and 

Marks 2008c, p. 4; 2008d, p. 3). Because 

the Florida bonneted bat, like other 

Eumops, appears to be confined to 

foraging in open spaces due to its wing 

morphology (Norberg and Rayner 1987, 

pp. 399–400; Voigt and Holderied 2012, 

entire), larger water bodies and more 

open wetlands in general may be 

structurally better foraging habitat than 

smaller, more confined areas. 

The Florida bonneted bat’s 

physiological or behavioral responses to 

abiotic factors, such as artificial lighting, 

have not been specifically studied; 

however, some information about other 

bat species’ responses to artificial 

lighting is available for closely related 

bats and bat species with edge and open 

space foraging behaviors, similar to 

those of the Florida bonneted bat. 

Although edge and open space foraging 

bat species are considered to generally 

be more tolerant of artificial lighting 

than those species foraging in forests, 

tolerance to artificial light appears to 

vary among bat species with similar 

foraging strategies and flight techniques 

(Rowse et al. 2016, pp. 200–202). 

Responses to artificial light can vary 

depending on the development 

intensity, land use type, and vegetation 

community where artificial light occurs 

(Rowse et al. 2016, pp. 200–202; Voigt 

et al. 2020, pp. 190, 197–199). However, 

even open space foraging species that 

are considered to be light-tolerant can 

be impacted by artificial light, as 

evidenced by delays in night-time 

foraging activity and reduced 

abundance at foraging sites (Mariton et 

al. 2022, pp. 6–8). Additionally, urban 

habitats with artificial lights can act as 

ecological traps with lower habitat 

quality for reproduction and potential 

for lower survival in bat species that are 

more frequent or abundant in urban 

habitats (Russo and Ancillotto 2015, pp. 

209–210). 

Artificial light aversion has been 

documented in other species closely 

related to Florida bonneted bat (i.e., 

within Molossidae and/or Eumops) 

(Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 147–148; 

Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568–571). Despite 

increases in research of Florida 

bonneted bat ecology since the species’ 

listing in 2013, there has been no 

evidence that Florida bonneted bats 

exploit artificial light sources, and the 

highest Florida bonneted bat activity 

within an urban matrix has been 

associated with large, dark, open areas 

with tree cover (Bat Conservation 

International 2022, p. 18; Ridgley 2023, 

unpublished data; Ridgley and GambaRios 2023, unpublished data). Artificial 

lighting has been demonstrated to also 

have broadscale negative effects on 

insects and insect populations (e.g., 

reduced abundance; altered larval 

development, reproduction, and other 

behaviors) (van Grunsven et al. 2020, 

entire; Boyes et al. 2021, entire; Pennisi 

2021, entire), potentially reducing the 

availability of prey (Mariton et al. 2022, 

pp. 2, 7) and the quality of foraging 

habitat for Florida bonneted bats. In 

addition to effects on foraging habitat, 

artificial lighting can impact roosting 

habitat quality because light at 

emergence is thought to disrupt 

emergence cues and increase predation 

risk (or perceived predation risk) at 

emergence for other open-space-foraging 

and insectivorous bats (Rydell et al. 

1996, pp. 249, 251; Mariton et al. 2022, 

p. 8). Therefore, areas where roosting, 

foraging, and other natural behaviors, 

such as commuting, can occur with 

limited or no impacts from artificial 

light are important in considering the 

conservation of the species. 

Similarly, temperature requirements 

and tolerances for the Florida bonneted 

bat are not fully understood. The 

species is active year-round and 

considered semi-tropical (Ober et al. 

2016, entire). Florida bonneted bats 

have been detected in Polk and Osceola 

Counties (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1589), 

but future surveys in additional 

counties are needed to help determine 

the limit of the northern extent of the 

range. There are low probabilities of 

occurrence of bonneted bats in areas 

where historical mean minimum 

temperatures dropped below 15 degrees 

Celsius (°C) (59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), 

which suggests that the species may be 

limited to southern Florida due to 

temperature (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 

1591). At this time, the most northern 

known roost sites are located at Avon 

Park Air Force Range and its vicinity 

(Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; B. 

Myers 2018, pers. comm.; Webb 2018, 

pers. comm.). Mean monthly 

temperatures at this location range from 

15 to 28 °C (60–83 °F), with an average 

low of 8.3 °C (47 °F) (January) and an 

average high of 33.9 °C (93 °F) (July). 

Prolonged cold temperatures resulted in 

bonneted bat mortalities at one known 

colony site in North Fort Myers, Florida, 

during a severe cold snap in 2010 

(Trokey 2010a–b, pers. comm.; 2012a, 

pers. comm.; see also the discussion of 

Factor E factors in the final listing rule 

(78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 

61033–61034)). Limited data at survey 

sites in south Florida indicated reduced 

bat activity under conditions of lower 

ambient temperatures (Arwood 2014d, 

pers. comm.). In general, molossids that 

inhabit the warmer temperate and 

subtropical zones incur much higher 

energetic costs for thermoregulation 

during cold weather events than those 

inhabiting northern regions (Arlettaz et 

al. 2000, pp. 1004–1014; see also the 

discussion of Factor E factors in the 

final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 

2, 2013, pp. 61033–61034)). As a result, 

we recognize the species’ requirement of 

subtropical climate conditions for its 

long-term persistence. 

This species is suspected to 

seasonally vary its use of the northern 

and southern extent of its known range. 

This may relate to temperature 

sensitivity (as described above), 

different nutritional needs during peak 

reproductive seasons, or changes in prey 

availability. Florida bonneted bat 

detection is positively influenced by 

Julian date and minimum temperature 

of the survey night; thus, future 

monitoring efforts should be focused on 

warm nights later in the spring to 

maximize detection probabilities (Bailey 

et al. 2017a, pp. 1589, 1591). Florida 

bonneted bats were also ‘‘more common 

in areas with higher historical mean 

annual rainfall but seemed to prefer 

areas with lower rainfall during the 

spring’’ (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). 

The authors concluded that higher 

detection probabilities observed were 

likely a result of increased insect 

abundance due to increased 

temperatures, humidity, and 

precipitation influencing the bats’ 

activity (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). 

Therefore, we find that seasonal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16643 

differences and these other 

climatological conditions, in addition to 

temperature, likely influence the 

species’ distribution, habitat 

requirements, and foraging 

opportunities, thereby affecting its 

conservation. Differences in these 

environmental conditions may occur 

seasonally or on finer temporal scales. 

Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance 

Regimes 

The Florida bonneted bat not only 

requires healthy and ecologically 

diverse habitat, it also needs areas with 

an appropriate disturbance regime. The 

Florida bonneted bat’s entire range is 

within the fire-dependent and fireadapted landscape of central and south 

Florida (Noss 2018, entire). The species 

uses fire-dependent vegetation 

communities for roosting (Belwood 

1992, pp. 219–220; Angell and 

Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez 

et al. 2016, p. 240) and foraging (Bailey 

et al. 2017a, entire; Braun de Torrez et 

al. 2018a–c, entire). Florida bonneted 

bats appear to be attracted to recently 

burned areas (Braun de Torrez et al. 

2018a, entire); it appears that Florida 

bonneted bats are fire-adapted and 

benefit from prescribed burn programs 

that closely mimic historical fire 

regimes. Fires during the historical fire 

season (i.e., early wet season, April 

through June) at a moderate frequency 

(more than 3 to 5 years) appear to 

optimize habitat for bats in both pine 

flatwoods and prairies (Braun de Torrez 

et al. 2018b, pp. 6–9). Fire may result in 

an increase of suitable roosts (i.e., create 

more snags and cavities), more open 

flight space, and increased prey 

availability (Boyles and Aubrey 2006, 

pp. 111–113; Armitage and Ober 2012, 

pp. 107–109; O’Keefe and Loeb 2017, p. 

271; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, p. 

1120; 2018b, pp. 8–9). 

Fire also has the potential to harm 

bats through disturbance or destruction 

of roost trees (Morrison and Raphael 

1993, p. 328; Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 

2196–2200). Despite the risks that 

Florida bonneted bats may abandon 

roosts, or roosts and pups may be lost 

during fires, it is critical for fires to 

occur on the landscape to maintain 

suitable habitat; precautions can be 

taken to reduce risks appropriately (see 

Inadvertent Impacts from Land 

Management Practices, below). 

Therefore, based on the information in 

this discussion, we identify areas of 

diverse habitat types and ecological 

communities maintained via 

appropriate disturbance regimes as 

essential physical or biological features 

for this species. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Florida bonneted bat 

from studies of the species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history as described 

below and further in the Florida 

Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov) and the 

proposed and final listing rules (77 FR 

60750, October 4, 2012; 78 FR 61004, 

October 2, 2013). We have determined 

that the following physical or biological 

features are essential to the conservation 

of the Florida bonneted bat: 

(1) Habitats with sufficient darkness 

that provide for roosting and rearing of 

offspring. Such habitat provides 

structural features for rest, digestion of 

food, social interaction, mating, rearing 

of young, protection from sunlight and 

adverse weather conditions, and cover 

to reduce predation risks for adults and 

young, and is generally characterized 

by: 

(a) Live or dead trees and tree snags, 

especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald 

cypress, and royal palm, that are 

sufficiently large (in diameter) and tall 

and that have cavities of a sufficient size 

for roosts; and 

(b) Live or dead trees and tree snags 

with sufficient cavity height, spacing 

from adjacent trees, and relative canopy 

height to provide unobstructed space for 

Florida bonneted bats to emerge from 

roost trees; this may include open or 

semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. 

(2) Habitats that provide adequate 

prey and space for foraging, which may 

vary widely across the Florida bonneted 

bat’s range, in accordance with 

ecological conditions, seasons, and 

disturbance regimes that influence 

vegetation structure and prey species’ 

distributions. Foraging habitat may be 

separate and relatively far from roosting 

habitat. Essential foraging habitat 

consists of sufficiently dark open areas 

in or near areas of high insect 

production or congregation, commonly 

including, but not limited to: 

(a) Freshwater edges and freshwater 

herbaceous wetlands (permanent or 

seasonal); 

(b) Prairies; 

(c) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or 

(d) Wetland and upland forests. 

(3) A dynamic disturbance regime 

(e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest 

management) that maintains and 

regenerates forested habitat, including 

plant communities, open habitat 

structure, and temporary gaps, which is 

conducive to promoting a continual 

supply of roosting sites, prey items, and 

suitable foraging conditions. 

(4) A sufficient quantity and diversity 

of habitats to enable the species to be 

resilient to short-term impacts 

associated with disturbance over time 

(e.g., drought, forest disease). This 

quantity and diversity are essential to 

provide suitable conditions despite 

temporary alterations to habitat quality. 

The ecological communities the Florida 

bonneted bat inhabits differ in 

hydrology, fire frequency/intensity, 

climate, prey species, roosting sites, and 

threats, and include, but are not limited 

to: 

(a) Pine rocklands; 

(b) Cypress communities (cypress 

swamps, strand swamps, domes, 

sloughs, ponds); 

(c) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet 

flatwoods); 

(d) Mesic pine flatwoods; and 

(e) High pine. 

(5) Habitats that provide structural 

connectivity where needed to allow for 

dispersal, gene flow, and natural and 

adaptive movements, including those 

that may be necessitated by climate 

change. These connections may include 

linear corridors such as vegetated, 

riverine, or open-water habitat with 

opportunities for roosting and/or 

foraging, or patches (i.e., stepping 

stones) such as tree islands or other 

isolated natural areas within a matrix of 

otherwise low-quality habitat. 

(6) A subtropical climate that 

provides tolerable conditions for the 

species such that normal behavior, 

successful reproduction, and rearing of 

offspring are possible. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. Recovery 

of the Florida bonneted bat will require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the essential physical or 

biological features including passive 

(e.g., allowing natural processes to occur 

without intervention) and active (e.g., 

taking actions to restore and maintain 

habitat conditions or address threats) 

management. The features essential to 

the conservation of this species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to reduce 

the threats that are related to 

inadvertent impacts from land 

management practices are discussed 

below. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16644 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Habitat Loss 

Habitat loss, degradation, and 

modification from human population 

growth and associated development 

(including infrastructure and energy 

development) and agriculture have 

impacted the Florida bonneted bat and 

are expected to further curtail its limited 

range (see the Factor A discussion in the 

final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 

2, 2013, pp. 61026–61030); Bailey et al. 

2017a, entire). Based on the expected 

rates of human population growth and 

urbanization in southern Florida, nearly 

all agricultural and private natural lands 

are predicted to be converted to 

developed land by 2060 (Zwick and 

Carr 2006, pp. 15, 18). Of this, 

approximately 2.6 percent of designated 

critical habitat (30,716 ac (12,430 ha)) is 

predicted to be converted to developed 

land by 2070 (Carr and Zwick 2016, 

entire). The species occurs, in part, on 

publicly owned lands that are managed 

for conservation, ameliorating some of 

these threats (see Conservation Lands 

Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). However, 

any unknown extant populations of the 

bat or suitable habitat on private lands 

or non-conservation public lands are 

vulnerable to habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Retaining a habitat 

network of large and diverse natural 

areas for conservation purposes in a 

spatial configuration throughout the 

Florida bonneted bat’s range and 

actively managing those lands will 

likely be essential to conservation. In 

addition, conservation efforts on private 

lands can help reduce the threats of 

habitat loss, increasing the potential for 

long-term survival. 

Natural roosting habitat appears to be 

limiting, and competition for tree 

cavities is high (see Competition for 

Tree Cavities under the Factor E 

discussion in the final listing rule (78 

FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61034)). 

To help conserve the Florida bonneted 

bat, efforts should be made to retain tall 

trees, cavity trees, trees with hollows or 

other decay, and snags wherever 

possible to protect habitat, reduce 

competition for suitable roosts, and 

bolster or expand populations within 

the species’ known range (Angell and 

Thompson 2015, p. 187; Braun de 

Torrez et al. 2016, pp. 235, 240; Ober et 

al. 2016, p. 7). The use of artificial 

structures for the Florida bonneted bat 

may also be beneficial in some 

locations, especially where roosting 

structures are lacking or deficient (see 

Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) 

in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, 

October 2, 2013, p. 61010)). 

Substantial losses in suitable foraging 

habitats are expected to occur in the 

coming decades as natural and 

agricultural areas are converted to other 

uses and as areas become urbanized 

(Carr and Zwick 2016, entire; Bailey et 

al. 2017a, p. 1591). Conservation of 

natural and semi-natural habitats and 

restoration with native plants is 

imperative to help maintain sufficient 

prey base. Natural habitats conducive to 

insect diversity should be protected and 

any pesticides should be used with 

caution (for more information, see the 

final listing rule (78 FR 61004; October 

2, 2013) under Life History (pp. 61005– 

61006), and Pesticides and 

Contaminants in the Factor E discussion 

(pp. 61035–61036). 

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise 

The effects resulting from climate 

change, including sea level rise, 

saltwater intrusion, and coastal squeeze, 

are expected to become severe in the 

future and result in additional habitat 

losses, including the loss of roost sites 

and foraging habitat (see the Factor A 

discussion in the final listing rule (78 

FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61026– 

61030)). Within the species’ range, lowlying areas along the coast are most 

vulnerable to inundation, and 

additional areas are likely to experience 

changes in plant species composition 

(decline in forested habitat such as 

cabbage palm forests, pine rockland, 

and coastal hardwood hammocks). 

Occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat 

located near the coast in south Florida 

(e.g., Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, 

Charlotte, Desoto, and Sarasota 

Counties) will be vulnerable to 

inundation and/or saltwater intrusion as 

sea levels rise. Based on source data 

used by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Sea Level Rise map viewer, an estimated 

8.7 percent (100,840 ac (40,809 ha)) of 

the designated occupied habitat area is 

projected to be inundated by 6 feet of 

salt water around 2070 (sea level rise 

plus tidal flooding; Sweet et al. 2017, 

entire; Sweet et al. 2018, entire; Sweet 

et al. 2019, entire; Sweet et al. 2022, 

entire). In addition, data from Florida’s 

statewide digital elevation model 

(University of Florida (UF) GeoPlan 

Center 2017, entire) indicate that an 

additional 14.3 percent (166,257 ac 

(67,282 ha)) of designated occupied 

habitat outside of the areas mapped by 

NOAA are at or below 6 feet in elevation 

and may also be affected by sea level 

rise (this does not include area in Unit 

1 due to the unlikelihood of sea level 

rise impacts). Although we are unable to 

accurately estimate the extent of other 

climate change-related effects, we 

expect additional occupied habitat will 

be impacted by saltwater intrusion, 

drier conditions, and increased 

variability in precipitation, likely 

resulting in changes to vegetation 

composition and prey availability, 

decreased forest regeneration, and 

potential increases in wildfire 

frequency, severity, and scale (for more 

information, see the final listing rule (78 

FR 61004; October 2, 2013) under the 

discussion of Factor A in Land Use 

Changes and Human Population Growth 

(pp. 61026–61027) and Climate Change 

and Sea Level Rise (pp. 61028–61029)). 

The trend toward higher temperatures 

and lower rainfall (or shifts in rainfall 

patterns) could result in the degradation 

of wetlands and other important open 

water habitats, or complete loss of 

affected foraging areas if drought-like 

conditions persist. Actual impacts may 

be greater or less than anticipated based 

upon high variability of factors involved 

(e.g., sea level rise, human population 

growth) and assumptions made. 

As a result of these impacts and other 

causes of habitat loss and degradation, 

the essential physical or biological 

features for the Florida bonneted bat 

may no longer be available in some 

areas, and the amount of suitable 

occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat is 

likely to shrink dramatically in the 

future. Habitat loss from sea level rise 

and saltwater intrusion will be greatest 

in areas closer to the coast and is likely 

to result in the loss of some bonneted 

bat populations, such as those in eastern 

Miami-Dade County, reducing the 

species’ ability to withstand 

catastrophic events (i.e., redundancy). 

We anticipate additional populations 

near the coast will be reduced in size, 

such as those in Charlotte, Lee, Collier, 

Monroe, and remaining areas in MiamiDade Counties, resulting in decreased 

overall health and fitness (i.e., 

resiliency) of those populations. 

Further, most of the remaining bat 

populations face similar threats and 

pressures (e.g., development pressure, 

effects of climate change, coastal 

squeeze, droughts, hurricanes) that are 

expected to reduce their resiliency. This 

limits the species’ ability to recover 

from population declines when many 

populations are similarly affected. 

However, we lack certainty as to the 

severity of impacts the effects of sea 

level rise may have on the Florida 

bonneted bat’s critical habitat. 

Directly addressing sea level rise is 

beyond the control of landowners or 

managers. However, while landowners 

or land managers may not be able 

prevent these events, they may be able 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16645 

to respond with management or 

protection. Management actions or 

activities that could ameliorate the 

effects of sea level rise on the Florida 

bonneted bat (i.e., loss and degradation 

of habitats that provide for roosting or 

foraging, especially those areas closer to 

the coast) include providing protection 

of inland or higher elevation suitable 

habitats (e.g., in the northern portion of 

the bat’s range) that are predicted to be 

unaffected or less affected by sea level 

rise, or habitat restoration or 

enhancement of these areas. 

Environmental Stochasticity 

Hurricanes, storm surges, and other 

catastrophic and stochastic events are of 

significant concern (for more 

information, see final listing rule (78 FR 

61004; October 2, 2013) under the 

discussion of Factor E in Environmental 

Stochasticity (pp. 61037–61039) and 

Aspects of the Species’ Life History and 

Climate Change Implications (p. 

61039)). In 2017 alone, at least four 

known roost trees were impacted by 

Hurricane Irma. While landowners or 

land managers cannot prevent these 

events, they may be able to respond 

with protection or management that can 

help reduce some effects or facilitate 

recovery from these events. Retention of 

large trees and snags wherever possible 

in multiple locations can help provide 

valuable roosting habitat throughout the 

species’ range (Braun de Torrez et al. 

2016, pp. 235, 240; Ober et al. 2016, p. 

7). Management actions or activities that 

could enhance forest recovery following 

storms may include hand or mechanical 

removal of damaged vegetation or 

prescribed fire, if or when conditions 

are suitable. If large trees, cavity trees, 

trees with hollows or other decay, or 

snags need to be removed due to safety 

issues, visual or other inspection should 

occur to ensure that active roosts are not 

removed in this process. 

Artificial structures could potentially 

help provide roosting opportunities in 

areas impacted by stochastic events or 

where suitable natural roosts are lacking 

or deficient. More research on the role 

of bat houses in bonneted bat 

conservation is needed, especially given 

the bat’s social structure (FWC 2013, pp. 

11–12; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). If used, 

bat houses should be appropriately 

designed, placed, maintained, and 

monitored; such structures may also 

need to be reinforced and duplicated to 

prevent loss. If an occupied area is 

severely impacted, causing major losses 

of suitable natural roosts, the use of 

artificial structures could be explored as 

one possible option to help regain lost 

roosting capacity. 

Pesticides and Contaminants 

More study is needed to fully assess 

the risk that pesticides (particularly 

insecticides) and contaminants pose to 

the Florida bonneted bat (see Pesticides 

and Contaminants under the Factor E 

discussion in the final listing rule (78 

FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61035– 

61036)). Although data are lacking, the 

species may be exposed to a variety of 

compounds through multiple routes of 

exposure. Areas with intensive pesticide 

activity may not support an adequate 

food base. Foraging habitat can be 

enhanced, in part, by limiting the use of 

pesticides, including agrochemicals 

(chemicals used in agriculture) (Russo 

and Jones 2003, pp. 206–207; 

Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp. 991– 

992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, 

entire). While exposure to some 

contaminants (e.g., mercury) may be 

beyond the realm of what individuals or 

agencies can rectify, risks from 

pesticides can be partially reduced at 

the local level. For example, landowners 

and land managers can help reduce 

some risks of exposure and improve 

foraging conditions for the Florida 

bonneted bat by avoiding or limiting use 

of insecticides (e.g., mosquito control, 

agricultural), wherever possible, and 

especially in areas known to be 

occupied by the Florida bonneted bat. 

An increased occurrence of bonneted 

bats was found in agricultural areas and 

was attributed to a combination of 

insect abundance in these areas and the 

species’ ability to forage in open spaces 

(Bailey et al. 2017a, pp. 1589, 1591). It 

is reasonable to assume that prey base 

(i.e., availability, abundance, and 

diversity of insects) would be more 

plentiful with reduction of insecticides, 

where possible. If pesticides cannot be 

avoided, ways to reduce impacts should 

be explored. Protecting natural and 

semi-natural habitats that support insect 

diversity can also improve foraging 

conditions and contribute to 

conservation. 

Ecological Light Pollution 

The Florida bonneted bat’s behavioral 

response to ecological light pollution 

has not specifically been examined (see 

Ecological Light Pollution under the 

Factor E discussion in the final listing 

rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 

61036)); however, there is evidence of 

closely related and other open space 

foraging bat species avoiding artificial 

lighting and of the Florida bonneted bat 

preferring darker landscapes within an 

urban matrix (Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 

147–148; Bat Conservation International 

2022, p. 18; Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568– 

571). Artificial lighting can impact 

roosting habitat quality as light at 

emergence can disrupt emergence cues 

and may increase predation risk (or 

perceived predation risk) for other open 

space foraging and insectivorous bats 

(Rydell et al. 1996, pp. 249, 251; 

Mariton et al. 2022, p. 8). Similarly, 

lighting can restrict habitat connectivity 

and fragment foraging areas (Voigt et al. 

2020, pp. 197–199). 

Artificial lighting can also affect the 

abundance and availability of insects 

(van Grunsven et al. 2020, entire; Boyes 

et al. 2021, entire; Pennisi 2021, entire; 

Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 2, 7), thereby 

reducing the quality of foraging habitat 

for Florida bonneted bats. Thus, at this 

time, we consider ecological light 

pollution a potential threat to the 

Florida bonneted bat and its habitat. 

Management actions or activities that 

could ameliorate ecological light 

pollution include avoiding and 

minimizing the use of artificial lighting, 

retaining natural light conditions, and 

promoting the use of environmentally 

friendly lighting practices to minimize 

impacts to wildlife (e.g., Voigt et al. 

2018, entire). 

Inadvertent Impacts From Land 

Management Practices 

Forest management can help maintain 

and improve the Florida bonneted bat’s 

roosting and foraging habitat (see Use of 

Forests and Other Natural Areas in the 

final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 

2, 2013, pp. 61007–61010)), and a lack 

of forest management, including a lack 

of prescribed fire or invasive plant 

control, can be detrimental to the 

species. For example, prescribed burns 

may benefit Florida bonneted bats by 

improving habitat structure, enhancing 

the prey base, and creating openings; 

restoration of fire to fire-dependent 

forests may improve foraging habitat for 

this species and create snags (Carter et 

al. 2000, p. 139; Boyles and Aubrey 

2006, pp. 111–113; Lacki et al. 2009, 

entire; Armitage and Ober 2012, pp. 

107–109; FWC 2013, pp. 9–11; Ober and 

McCleery 2014, pp. 1–3; Braun de 

Torrez et al. 2018a–b, entire). 

Fire is a vital component in 

maintaining suitable Florida bonneted 

bat habitat (Braun de Torrez et al. 

2018b, entire), and while many 

prescribed fire and other land 

management practices mimic natural 

processes and benefit native species on 

broad spatial and temporal scales, these 

activities can result in inadvertent 

negative impacts in the near term. For 

example, extensive removal of trees 

with cavities or hollows during 

activities associated with forest 

management, fuel reduction, vista 

management, off-road vehicle trail 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16646 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

maintenance, prescribed fire, or habitat 

restoration may inadvertently remove 

roost sites or reduce the availability of 

roost sites (see Land Management 

Practices in the final listing rule (78 FR 

61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61027)). 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to reduce 

threats and conserve these features. 

Actions that could ameliorate threats 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Retaining and actively managing a 

habitat network of large and diverse 

conservation lands throughout the 

Florida bonneted bat’s range; 

(2) Protecting, restoring, or enhancing 

inland or higher elevation habitats that 

are predicted to be unaffected or less 

affected by sea level rise; 

(3) Protecting habitats that support 

high insect diversity and abundance, 

and avoiding the excessive use of 

pesticides wherever possible; 

(4) Retaining potential roost trees and 

snags (see Cover or Shelter, above); and 

(5) Developing and implementing 

specific guidelines (see the Florida 

Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 

on https://www.regulations.gov) to 

minimize impacts of activities 

associated with hurricane clean-up, 

prescribed fire, invasive species 

management, forest management, and 

development. 

Conservation Strategy and Selection 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

Conservation Strategy 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. The 

occupied areas identified encompass the 

varying types and distribution of habitat 

needed by the species and provide 

sufficient habitat to allow for 

maintaining and potentially expanding 

the populations. 

To determine and select appropriate 

occupied areas that contain the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species or 

unoccupied areas otherwise essential for 

the conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat, we incorporated information from 

the conservation strategy for the species. 

The goal of our conservation strategy for 

the Florida bonneted bat is to recover 

the species to the point where the 

protections of the Act are no longer 

necessary. The role of critical habitat in 

achieving this conservation goal is to 

identify the specific areas within the 

Florida bonneted bat’s range that 

provide essential physical or biological 

features without which the Florida 

bonneted bat’s rangewide resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation could 

not be achieved. Specifically, this 

conservation strategy helped identify 

those areas within the Florida bonneted 

bat’s range that contain the physical or 

biological features without which 

rangewide resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation could not be achieved. 

Our conservation strategy identified 

goals, from which we developed the 

following six critical habitat criteria for 

determining the specific areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species: 

(1) Genetic diversity—To maintain 

viable populations in each of the known 

genetically differentiated areas (see 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior, 

above), critical habitat should include 

one unit within each of the four 

genetically differentiated populations. 

(2) Geographic extent—To maintain 

viable populations that are distributed 

across the geographic range of the 

Florida bonneted bat (see Current 

Distribution in the final listing rule (78 

FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61010– 

61011)), critical habitat units should 

represent the extent of the species’ 

existing known range. 

(3) Ecological diversity—To maintain 

at least one viable population in each 

major ecological community that 

provides roosting habitat for the Florida 

bonneted bat (see Habitats with 

Appropriate Disturbance Regimes, 

above), these community types should 

be well represented in critical habitat 

units. 

(4) Climate change resilience—To 

maintain at least one viable population 

in suitable habitat predicted to be 

unaffected or less affected by sea level 

rise and climate change, critical habitat 

should include one unit in the northern, 

inland portion of the Florida bonneted 

bat’s range. 

(5) High conservation value (HCV) 

habitat—To maintain sufficient habitat 

with HCV that supports the life history 

of the species within each population, 

critical habitat units should incorporate 

multiple areas that support roosting and 

foraging needs and that have HCV (as 

informed by habitat analysis results and 

telemetry data). 

(6) Structural connectivity—To 

maintain, enhance, and reestablish 

connectivity within and between 

Florida bonneted bat populations, 

critical habitat units should be 

configured within the central and south 

Florida landscape to provide 

connectivity based on the best available 

movement data for the species (see 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior, 

above). 

Selection Criteria and Methodology 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

To delineate the specific areas that are 

occupied by the species and that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the Florida 

bonneted bat’s conservation, we 

conducted a habitat analysis. 

Acknowledging some limitations in the 

information available, we used the best 

available data to conduct our habitat 

analysis (see Florida Bonneted Bat 

Habitat Analysis under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). Information used 

in the habitat analysis and/or the 

delineation of critical habitat units 

consists of the following: 

(1) Confirmed presence data compiled 

in our Geographic Information System 

(GIS) database from 2003 through 2021, 

and provided by FWC, UF, and other 

various sources, including survey 

reports, databases, and publications; 

(2) Vegetation cover types from the 

Cooperative Land Cover map (CLC; 

version 3.4) developed by FWC and 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory; 

(3) Canopy height from the global 

forest canopy height map (2019) 

developed by Global Land Analysis and 

Discovery; 

(4) Red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis) potential habitat 

(2016) developed by FWC, based on 

evidence indicating Florida bonneted 

bats use woodpecker cavities for 

roosting; 

(5) Artificial sky luminance from the 

New World Atlas of Artificial Sky 

Brightness developed by the Light 

Pollution Science and Technology 

Institute (Falchi et al. 2016, entire); 

(6) Fire frequency data provided by 

the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

program; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16647 

(7) Urban development data (2010 

baseline) from the Florida 2070 project 

developed by the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services, the 

UF GeoPlan Center, and 1000 Friends of 

Florida; 

(8) Maps of unpublished telemetry 

data collected and provided by UF and 

FWC; and 

(9) ArcGIS online basemap aerial 

imagery (2018–2020) to cross-check CLC 

data and ensure the presence of physical 

or biological features. 

To help identify potential factors 

affecting Florida bonneted bat use, we 

conducted a spatial analysis to quantify 

relationships of habitat-related and 

other environmental variables with 

species occurrence (see Florida 

Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). Available 

presence data incorporated into the 

analysis primarily consisted of acoustic 

data, as well as locations of known 

roosts. Maps of telemetry locations were 

used to inform our evaluation of HCV 

areas but were not part of the habitat 

analysis dataset because coordinate data 

were not available at the time. We 

identified 10 covariates that related to 

habitat types (e.g., pine/cypress) and 

other factors (e.g., fire history) thought 

to influence habitat suitability and use 

by the Florida bonneted bat and 

modeled those at three spatial scales 

(see Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat 

Analysis under Supporting and Related 

Material in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES– 

2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). Model output 

included predictive maps representing 

the probability of species occurrence 

based on the covariates included in the 

final models, and we used these maps 

to characterize the relative habitat 

suitability and conservation value of 

areas within central and south Florida. 

We also conducted sensitivity/ 

specificity analyses to identify an 

objective threshold value for each 

model, which we then applied to 

identify areas with high conservation 

value to the species. For full details of 

our methodology and results, including 

links to data sources used, see the 

Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

We considered the model output and 

the conservation strategy to determine 

the specific areas occupied by the 

species on which are found the physical 

or biological features that are essential 

to the Florida bonneted bat. Those 

specific areas (critical habitat units) 

were identified and delineated using the 

following steps: 

(1) We identified areas having high 

conservation value (as described above) 

for the Florida bonneted bat based on 

model output because those areas are 

likely to contain the combination of 

characteristics that we have determined 

are essential physical or biological 

features for the Florida bonneted bat. 

(2) We refined these areas to eliminate 

any unsuitable or less suitable areas that 

are unlikely to contain features essential 

to the conservation of the species based 

on the Florida bonneted bat’s biology 

(e.g., temperature requirements) and 

aerial imagery. 

(3) We considered telemetry maps and 

certain critical habitat criteria that were 

not incorporated into the models (e.g., 

connectivity). Where telemetry maps 

indicated high use (e.g., HCV foraging 

habitat), or where additional area was 

needed to ensure sufficient 

connectivity, we delineated additional 

habitat using CLC data and aerial 

imagery and based on model output and 

covariate relationships identified in our 

habitat analysis. 

(4) We evaluated the resulting units to 

determine whether occupied habitat is 

adequate to ensure conservation of the 

species. We specifically evaluated 

occupied units to ensure they fulfill all 

critical habitat criteria and meet the 

goals and objectives in our conservation 

strategy for identifying the areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the Florida bonneted bat. Based on our 

determination that occupied areas are 

sufficient for the conservation of the 

species, no unoccupied habitat is 

included in this critical habitat 

designation. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other structures because such lands 

lack physical or biological features 

necessary for the Florida bonneted bat. 

The scale of the maps we prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed lands. Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

rule have been excluded by text and are 

not designated as critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Federal action involving 

these lands would not trigger section 7 

consultation with respect to critical 

habitat and the requirement of no 

adverse modification unless the specific 

action would affect the physical or 

biological features in the adjacent 

critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

areas that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 

currently occupied) and that contain 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features that are essential to support 

life-history processes of the species. We 

considered areas occupied at the time of 

listing if they have documented 

presence of Florida bonneted bats from 

October 2013 through 2021. Due to the 

species’ life span and high site fidelity, 

it is reasonable to conclude that these 

areas found to be occupied in 2013 to 

2021 would have been inhabited by 

Florida bonneted bats when the species 

was listed in 2013. Each critical habitat 

unit contains all the identified physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Regulation 

Promulgation. We include moredetailed information on the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation in the 

preamble of this document. We will 

make the coordinates or plot points or 

both on which each map is based 

available to the public on https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 and at the 

Florida bonneted bat species web page 

at https://www.fws.gov/species/floridabonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating nine units as 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat. The critical habitat areas we 

describe below constitute our current 

best assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we 

designate as critical habitat are: (1) 

Kissimmee Unit, (2) Peace River Unit, 

(3) Babcock Unit, (4) Fisheating Creek 

Unit, (5) Corkscrew Unit, (6) Big 

Cypress Unit, (7) Everglades Tree 

Islands Unit, (8) Long Pine Key Unit, 

and (9) Miami Rocklands Unit. All nine 

units are occupied by the species. Table 

1, below, shows the units and the 

approximate area of each unit/subunit 

within each land ownership category. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16648 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND SUBUNITS FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT, INCLUDING ACRES (ac) AND

HECTARES (ha) BY LAND OWNERSHIP CATEGORY

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, and land ownership was determined using the most recent parcel data 

provided by each county. All units are occupied] 

Critical habitat unit/subunit 

Land ownership: ac (ha) Total area: 

ac (ha) Federal State County Local Private/other Unidentified 

1. Kissimmee ................................................. 99 

(40) 

137,283 

(55,556) 

834 

(338) 

0 35,455 

(14,348) 

2,065 

(836) 

175,735 

(71,118) 

1A ........................................................... 90 

(36) 

136,846 

(55,380) 

629 

(255) 

0 29,701 

(12,020) 

2,065 

(836) 

169,331 

(68,526) 

1B ........................................................... 9 

(4) 

437 

(177) 

205 

(83) 

0 5,753 

(2,328) 

<1 6,404 

(2,592) 

2. Peace River .............................................. 32 

(13) 

6,369 

(2,577) 

710 

(287) 

165 

(67) 

18,874 

(7,638) 

1,897 

(768) 

28,046 

(11,350) 

2A ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 2,603 

(1,053) 

0 2,603 

(1,053) 

2B ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 5,478 

(2,217) 

200 

(81) 

5,678 

(2,298) 

2C ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 2,029 

(821) 

2 

(1) 

2,031 

(822) 

2D ........................................................... 32 

(13) 

6,369 

(2,577) 

710 

(287) 

165 

(67) 

8,765 

(3,547) 

1,694 

(686) 

17,734 

(7,177) 

3. Babcock .................................................... 0 108,748 

(44,009) 

1,843 

(746) 

19 

(8) 

23,739 

(9,607) 

328 

(133) 

134,677 

(54,502) 

3A ........................................................... 0 80,238 

(32,471) 

782 

(316) 

19 

(8) 

7,193 

(2,911) 

328 

(133) 

88,559 

(35,839) 

3B ........................................................... 0 28,510 

(11,538) 

1,062 

(430) 

0 16,546 

(6,696) 

0 46,118 

(18,663) 

4. Fisheating Creek ....................................... 0 7,689 

(3,112) 

<1 0 5,300 

(2,145) 

6 

(2) 

12,995 

(5,259) 

5. Corkscrew ................................................. 0 26,313 

(10,648) 

5,188 

(2,100) 

0 17,324 

(7,011) 

41 

(16) 

48,865 

(19,775) 

6. Big Cypress ............................................... 533,227 

(215,789) 

152,559 

(61,738) 

8,421 

(3,408) 

229 

(93) 

16,011 

(6,480) 

3,638 

(1,472) 

714,085 

(288,980) 

7. Everglades Tree Islands ........................... 16,596 

(6,716) 

1 

(1) 

4 

(2) 

0 2 

(1) 

1 

(1) 

16,604 

(6,719) 

8. Long Pine Key .......................................... 25,147 

(10,177) 

2 (1) 0 0 187 

(76) 

0 25,337 

(10,253) 

9. Miami Rocklands ....................................... 603 

(244) 

785 

(318) 

2,458 

(995) 

8 (3) 381 

(154) 

46 

(19) 

4,281 

(1,732) 

9A ........................................................... 0 0 52 

(21) 

0 0 1 

(<1) 

53 

(21) 

9B ........................................................... 0 0 104 

(42) 

0 0 1 

(<1) 

104 

(42) 

9C ........................................................... 0 0 5 

(2) 

0 0 0 5 

(2) 

9D ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 28 

(11) 

<1 28 

(12) 

9E ........................................................... 0 21 

(9) 

230 

(93) 

<1 13 

(5) 

2 

(1) 

267 

(108) 

9F ........................................................... 140 

(57) 

0 <1 0 <1 0 140 

(57) 

9G .......................................................... 0 8 

(3) 

0 0 19 

(8) 

<1 28 

(11) 

9H ........................................................... 0 235 

(95) 

0 0 0 3 

(1) 

238 

(96) 

9I ............................................................ 0 0 22 

(9) 

0 0 0 22 

(9) 

9J ........................................................... 0 60 

(24) 

<1 8 

(3) 

28 

(11) 

3 

(1) 

99 

(40) 

9K ........................................................... 0 26 

(10) 

11 

(4) 

0 0 0 37 

(15) 

9L ........................................................... 0 77 

(31) 

<1 0 <1 0 77 

(31) 

9M .......................................................... 0 0 123 

(50) 

0 0 0 123 

(50) 

9N ........................................................... 0 28 

(11) 

0 0 <1 0 28 

(11) 

9O .......................................................... 462 

(187) 

0 1,215 

(492) 

0 22 

(9) 

1 

(<1) 

1,700 

(688) 

9P ........................................................... 0 48 

(19) 

0 0 13 

(5) 

<1 61 

(25) 

9Q .......................................................... 0 <1 7 

(3) 

0 7 

(3) 

0 14 

(6) 

9R ........................................................... 0 36 

(15) 

22 

(9) 

0 14 

(6) 

8 

(3) 

80 

(32) 

9S ........................................................... 0 34 

(14) 

63 

(26) 

0 35 

(14) 

2 

(1) 

135 

(55) 

9T ........................................................... 0 10 

(4) 

0 0 25 

(10) 

<1 36 

(14) 

9U ........................................................... 0 18 

(7) 

4 

(2) 

0 1 

(<1) 

<1 23 

(9) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16649 

TABLE 1—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND SUBUNITS FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT, INCLUDING ACRES (ac) AND

HECTARES (ha) BY LAND OWNERSHIP CATEGORY—Continued 

[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) Total area: 

ac (ha) Federal State County Local Private/other Unidentified 

9V ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 30 

(12) 

1 

(1) 

31 

(13) 

9W .......................................................... 0 9 

(4) 

103 

(42) 

0 <1 <1 112 

(45) 

9X ........................................................... 0 0 10 

(4) 

0 20 

(8) 

<1 30 

(12) 

9Y ........................................................... 0 0 18 

(7) 

0 11 

(4) 

4 

(1) 

32 

(13) 

9Z ........................................................... 0 0 28 

(11) 

0 <1 3 

(1) 

31 

(13) 

9AA ........................................................ 0 22 

(9) 

24 

(10) 

0 37 

(15) 

0 84 

(34) 

9BB ........................................................ 0 0 19 

(8) 

0 23 

(9) 

1 

(<1) 

43 

(17) 

9CC ........................................................ 0 0 9 

(4) 

0 15 

(6) 

<1 24 

(10) 

9DD ........................................................ 0 19 

(8) 

0 0 0 0 19 

(8) 

9EE ........................................................ 0 12 

(5) 

<1 0 1 

(<1) 

5 

(2) 

18 

(7) 

9FF ......................................................... 0 0 39 

(16) 

0 <1 0 39 

(16) 

9GG ........................................................ 0 81 

(33) 

240 

(97) 

0 28 

(12) 

1 

(<1) 

351 

(142) 

9HH ........................................................ 0 22 

(9) 

0 0 <1 0 22 

(9) 

9II ........................................................... 0 18 

(7) 

5 

(2) 

0 10 

(4) 

6 

(2) 

39 

(16) 

9JJ .......................................................... <1 0 105 

(42) 

0 0 2 

(1) 

108 

(44) 

Total ................................................ 575,703 

(232,979) 

439,750 

(177,960) 

19,459 

(7,875) 

421 

(170) 

117,272 

(47,458) 

8,021 

(3,246) 

1,160,625 

(469,688) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat, below. 

Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit 

Unit 1 encompasses 175,735 ac 

(71,118 ha) of lands in Polk, Osceola, 

Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, 

Florida. This unit consists of two 

subunits generally located along the 

eastern bank of Lake Kissimmee 

northeast to SR–192, north of SR–60; 

and along portions of the Kissimmee 

River, south of SR–60. Unit 1 

predominately consists of State-owned 

conservation lands (137,283 ac (55,556 

ha)) and private lands (35,455 ac (14,348 

ha)). The largest conservation 

landholdings within this unit include 

Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park, 

Three Lakes WMA, Herky Huffman/Bull 

Creek WMA, Triple N Ranch WMA, and 

South Florida Water Management 

District lands along the Kissimmee 

River. Other smaller conservation lands 

also occur within this unit (for more 

information, see Conservation Lands 

Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). We 

excluded approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) 

of Tribal lands (Miccosukee Tribe of 

Florida) that occur within Subunit 1B 

from this final critical habitat 

designation (see Exclusions Based on 

Other Relevant Impacts, below). 

Unit 1 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. The 

Kissimmee Unit represents the northern 

extent of the species’ range and provides 

resiliency against the expected impacts 

from habitat loss due to climate change 

as the unit includes areas considered 

less vulnerable to these effects. Habitat 

in this unit provides ecological diversity 

(i.e., high pine and mesic flatwoods) and 

includes areas identified as having HCV, 

specifically high-quality roosting habitat 

(e.g., potential roost trees, red-cockaded 

woodpecker activity in the area) and 

foraging habitat (e.g., open water, 

abundant prey). In addition, the Florida 

bonneted bats in this area are 

genetically differentiated from those 

occurring elsewhere in the range 

(Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus 

contribute to the genetic diversity of the 

overall population. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 1 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss and 

fragmentation from changes in land use 

(e.g., land clearing for residential/ 

commercial development); lack of 

habitat management and/or inadvertent 

impacts from these habitat management 

practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag 

removal); and excessive pesticide use 

(see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, 

we are exempting Avon Park Air Force 

Range lands (99,523 ac (40,276 ha)) from 

the critical habitat designation because 

the U.S. Air Force has an approved 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) that 

provides benefits to the Florida 

bonneted bat and its habitat (see 

Exemptions, below, for more detailed 

information). 

Unit 2: Peace River Unit 

Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 

ha) of lands in Hardee, DeSoto, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16650 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit 

consists of four subunits located along 

portions of the Peace River and its 

tributaries (e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie 

Creek), south of CR–64 with the 

majority west of U.S.–17. Unit 2 

predominately consists of privately 

owned lands (18,874 ac (7,638 ha)) and 

State-owned conservation lands (6,369 

ac (2,577 ha)). The largest conservation 

landholdings within this unit include 

the Peace River State Forest and the 

Deep Creek Preserve. Other smaller 

conservation lands also occur within 

this unit (for more information, see 

Conservation Lands Within Florida 

Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat 

Designation under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). 

Unit 2 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. The 

Peace River Unit encompasses a known 

movement corridor (generally 

connecting Units 1 and 3), allowing 

gene flow between these populations, 

and includes areas identified as having 

HCV, specifically high-quality foraging 

habitat along the Peace River and 

adjacent forested lands that provide 

open water and abundant prey. In 

addition, this unit adds ecological 

diversity (a natural river corridor) to the 

overall designation. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 2 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation from 

changes in land use (e.g., land clearing 

for residential/commercial 

development); lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive 

pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., 

sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 3: Babcock Unit 

Unit 3 encompasses 134,677 ac 

(54,502 ha) of lands in Charlotte, Lee, 

and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit 

consists of two subunits, with the 

majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte 

County, east of I–75; other portions are 

in northwestern Lee and western Glades 

Counties. This unit predominately 

consists of State-owned conservation 

lands (108,748 ac (44,009 ha)) and 

private lands (23,739 ac (9,607 ha)). The 

largest conservation landholdings 

within this unit are Babcock-Webb 

WMA and Babcock Ranch Preserve; 

other smaller conservation lands also 

occur within this unit (for more 

information, see Conservation Lands 

Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). 

Unit 3 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat 

in the Babcock Unit provides ecological 

diversity (i.e., hydric and mesic 

flatwoods) and includes areas identified 

as having HCV, specifically superior 

roosting and foraging habitat. BabcockWebb WMA and surrounding areas 

support a large population of Florida 

bonneted bats and many of the known 

roost sites. In addition, the Florida 

bonneted bats in this westernmost 

extent of the species’ range are 

genetically differentiated from those 

occurring elsewhere in the range 

(Austin et al. 2022, entire), thus 

contributing to the genetic diversity of 

the overall population. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 3 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation from 

changes in land use (e.g., land clearing 

for residential/commercial 

development); lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive 

pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., 

sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit 

Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259 

ha) of lands in Glades and Highlands 

Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 

4 is located in Glades County, west of 

US–27; the remaining portion of the 

unit extends north into southern 

Highlands County. This unit 

predominately consists of State-owned 

conservation lands (7,689 ac (3,112 ha)) 

and private lands (5,300 ac (2,145 ha)). 

Conservation landholdings within this 

unit are Fisheating Creek WMA, 

Fisheating Creek/Lykes Brothers 

Conservation Easement, and Platt 

Branch Wildlife and Environmental 

Area. 

Unit 4 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. Highquality foraging habitat along Fisheating 

Creek and adjacent forested lands 

provide open water and abundant prey. 

This unit serves as important foraging 

habitat connecting bats traveling 

between Unit 3 and areas to the north 

and east, and, along with Unit 2, this 

unit adds ecological diversity (natural 

river corridors) to the overall 

designation. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 4 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation from 

changes in land use (e.g., land clearing 

for residential/commercial 

development); lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed fire, snag removal, 

hydrologic restoration); excessive 

pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., 

sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit 

Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775 

ha) of lands in Lee and Collier Counties, 

Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/ 

Collier county line, east of I–75, and 

predominately consists of State-owned 

conservation lands (26,313 ac (10,648 

ha)) and private lands (17,324 ac (7,011 

ha)). The largest conservation 

landholdings within this unit are 

Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem 

Watershed and the National Audubon 

Society’s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary; 

other smaller conservation lands also 

occur within this unit (for more 

information, see Conservation Lands 

Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). 

Unit 5 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat 

within the Corkscrew Unit provides 

ecological diversity (i.e., cypress and 

hydric flatwoods) and includes areas 

identified as having HCV. Corkscrew 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16651 

Swamp Sanctuary was established to 

protect one of the largest remaining 

stands of cypress in North America, and 

this area likely includes high-quality 

roosting habitat. The area also provides 

connectivity between Babcock-Webb 

WMA and areas south. The natural 

habitat within Unit 5 serves as 

important habitat in an area that is 

otherwise under high development 

pressure. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 5 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

or degradation from changes in land use 

(e.g., land clearing for residential/ 

commercial development); lack of 

habitat management and/or inadvertent 

impacts from land management 

practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag 

removal); and climate change (e.g., sea 

level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit 

Unit 6 encompasses 714,085 ac 

(288,980 ha) of lands in Collier, Hendry, 

and Monroe Counties, Florida. The 

majority of Unit 6 is located in Collier 

County, south of I–75; the remainder 

occurs in southern Hendry County and 

mainland portions of Monroe County. 

This unit predominately consists of 

Federal (533,227 ac (215,789 ha)) and 

State-owned (152,559 ac (61,738 ha)) 

conservation lands. The largest 

landholdings within this unit are Big 

Cypress National Preserve, Florida 

Panther National Wildlife Refuge, 

Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, 

and Picayune Strand State Forest; other 

smaller conservation lands also occur 

within this unit (for more information, 

see Conservation Lands Within Florida 

Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat 

Designation under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov). We excluded 

approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of 

Tribal lands (Seminole Tribe of Florida) 

that occur within Unit 6 from this final 

critical habitat designation (see 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts, below). 

Unit 6 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat 

in the Big Cypress Unit, along with Unit 

5, provides ecological diversity (i.e., 

cypress and hydric flatwoods) and 

includes areas identified as having HCV. 

Roosting habitat within this unit is of 

particularly high quality. Despite 

challenges in accessing this site to 

conduct surveys, a large Florida 

bonneted bat population has been 

documented in this unit, including the 

discovery of 25 natural roosts (the most 

of any unit). The Florida bonneted bats 

in this area are genetically differentiated 

from those occurring elsewhere in the 

range (Austin et al. 2022, entire), and 

thus contribute to the genetic diversity 

of the overall population. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 6 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation from 

changes in land use (e.g., land clearing 

for residential, commercial, 

transportation, or energy-related 

development); lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat 

and hydrologic restoration); excessive 

pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., 

sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation, coastal squeeze) (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection, above). 

Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit 

Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719 

ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and 

west of Krome Avenue. Nearly this 

entire unit is Federal land within 

Everglades National Park (ENP; 16,596 

ac (6,716 ha)). 

Unit 7 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. The 

Everglades Tree Islands Unit provides 

connectivity between Unit 6 and the 

southeast coast (Units 8 and 9), allowing 

gene flow between these populations. It 

also includes areas identified as having 

HCV. Despite limited effort and 

challenges accessing the area to conduct 

surveys, the Florida bonneted bat has 

been documented throughout this unit. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 7 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following threats: Lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat 

and hydrologic restoration) and climate 

change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, 

saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit 

Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,253 

ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, along ENP’s Main Park Road 

(SR–9336) between Mahogany 

Hammock and SW 237th Avenue. 

Nearly this entire unit is Federal land 

within ENP (25,147 ac (10,177 ha)). 

Unit 8 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat 

in the unit provides ecological diversity 

(i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas 

identified as having HCV, specifically 

high-quality roosting and foraging 

habitat within Long Pine Key, the 

largest remaining contiguous occurrence 

of pine rockland habitat. This unit 

includes the southernmost extent of the 

species’ range and provides additional 

connectivity between Units 6 and 9. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 8 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following: Lack of habitat management 

and/or inadvertent impacts from land 

management practices (e.g., prescribed 

fire, snag removal) and climate change 

(e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater 

intrusion, habitat alteration/ 

degradation) (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit 

Unit 9 encompasses 4,281 ac (1,732 

ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. This unit consists of 36 

subunits located between Tamiami Trail 

to the north and SR–9336 to the south, 

and is surrounded by a dense urban 

matrix typical of the Miami 

metropolitan area. This unit 

predominately consists of conservation 

lands owned by county (2,458 ac (995 

ha)), State (785 ac (318 ha)), and Federal 

(603 ac (244 ha)) agencies. The largest 

landholdings within this unit are Zoo 

Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson 

Park, the U.S. Coast Guard 

Communication Station, Navy Wells, 

and the Deering Estate. Many countyowned preserves and parks, as well as 

other smaller conservation lands, also 

occur within this unit (for more 

information, see Conservation Lands 

Within Florida Bonneted Bat Final 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16652 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

https://www.regulations.gov). We 

excluded approximately 104 ac (42 ha) 

from Unit 9 associated with the Coral 

Reef Commons HCP from this final 

critical habitat designation (see 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts, below). 

Unit 9 contains all of the essential 

physical or biological features for the 

Florida bonneted bat and is considered 

occupied at the time of listing based on 

documented presence of Florida 

bonneted bats within the unit. The 

Miami Rocklands Unit represents the 

easternmost extent of the species’ range. 

Habitat in this unit provides ecological 

diversity (i.e., pine rocklands) and 

includes areas identified as having HCV. 

This unit includes remaining fragments 

of pine rockland and rockland hammock 

habitat within an urbanized landscape. 

These fragments of natural habitat are 

used extensively by Florida bonneted 

bats and provide connectivity within 

the unit. Florida bonneted bats 

inhabiting the area are the most 

genetically differentiated from those 

occurring elsewhere in the range 

(Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus 

contribute to the genetic diversity of the 

overall population. 

The physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat in Unit 9 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection due to the 

following: Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

or degradation from changes in land use 

(e.g., land clearing for residential, 

commercial, transportation, or energyrelated development); lack of habitat 

management and/or inadvertent impacts 

from land management practices (e.g., 

prescribed burns, snag removal, habitat 

restoration); excessive pesticide use; 

and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/ 

inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat 

alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze) 

(see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). 

Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, 

we are exempting Homestead Air 

Reserve Base (Base) lands (280 ac (113 

ha)) from critical habitat designation 

because the U.S. Air Force has an 

approved INRMP that provides benefits 

to the Florida bonneted bat and its 

habitat (see Exemptions, below, for 

more detailed information). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation on previously 

reviewed actions. These requirements 

apply when the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law) and, subsequent to 

the previous consultation: (a) if the 

amount or extent of taking specified in 

the incidental take statement is 

exceeded; (b) if new information reveals 

effects of the action that may affect 

listed species or critical habitat in a 

manner or to an extent not previously 

considered; (c) if the identified action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that 

causes an effect to the listed species or 

critical habitat that was not considered 

in the biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (d) if a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

The reinitiation requirement applies 

only to actions that remain subject to 

some discretionary Federal involvement 

or control. As provided in 50 CFR 

402.16, the requirement to reinitiate 

consultations for new species listings or 

critical habitat designation does not 

apply to certain agency actions (e.g., 

land management plans issued by the 

Bureau of Land Management in certain 

circumstances). 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16653 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that we may, during a 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, consider likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

alter roosting or foraging habitat or 

habitat connectivity such that they 

appreciably diminish the value of 

critical habitat as a whole. Such 

activities may include, but are not 

limited to: Land clearing for residential, 

commercial, transportation, energyrelated or other development; water 

diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or 

conversion; and excessive alteration of 

natural lighting (that disrupts roosting, 

movements, or foraging conditions or 

impacts prey). These activities could 

destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting 

and foraging sites (necessary for food, 

shelter, protection from predation, and 

reproduction), reduce habitat conditions 

below what is necessary for the species’ 

survival and growth, and/or eliminate or 

reduce the habitat necessary for 

successful reproduction, dispersal, and 

population expansion (see Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species, above). 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter vegetation structure or composition 

such that they appreciably diminish the 

value of critical habitat as a whole. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: Vegetation removal 

conducted in a manner that leads to 

significant, irreversible diminishment of 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Florida 

bonneted bat. Habitat management or 

restoration activities that are intended to 

benefit Florida bonneted bat critical 

habitat (e.g., habitat or hydrologic 

restoration, prescribed burning and 

other forest management activities, or 

removal of invasive plants), following 

state and federal guidelines, and with 

previously approved management plans, 

under most circumstances would not 

significantly adverselyalter designated 

critical habitat. These activities could 

affect habitat that provides for the 

Florida bonneted bat’s roosting and 

rearing, foraging and prey, refuge from 

short-term changes to habitat, and/or 

protection from predation (see Physical 

or Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species, above). 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

reduce suitability of habitat or impact 

prey base (e.g., availability, abundance, 

density, diversity) such that they 

appreciably diminish the value of 

critical habitat as a whole. These actions 

include, but are not limited to: 

Hydrologic alteration, excessive 

pesticide applications, or excessive 

alteration of natural lighting that impact 

prey or alter foraging behavior or 

movement. These activities could 

significantly modify habitat that 

currently provides adequate prey and 

space for foraging for the Florida 

bonneted bat (see Physical or Biological 

Features Essential to the Conservation of 

the Species, above). 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to 

adversely affect critical habitat but not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat include actions that 

significantly affect the unit or subunit’s 

ability to fulfill its primary functions 

(e.g., connectivity, foraging or roosting 

habitat, genetic representation), but do 

not appreciably diminish the value of 

critical habitat as a whole. Such 

activities may include a landscape-scale 

hydrologic restoration project that 

would convert large amounts of roosting 

habitat to foraging habitat within a unit; 

development that would eliminate a 

small amount of high-value foraging 

area or affect a known corridor; or 

habitat or invasive species management 

programs that are overall beneficial to 

Florida bonneted bat habitat but may 

result in inadvertent, but significant, 

impacts to roosting habitat. 

When conducted with guidance from 

the Service or using established best 

management practices (BMPs) that 

prevent or minimize impacts, the 

actions mentioned above are beneficial 

and are encouraged as a part of standard 

land management practices. Avoidance 

and minimization measures can also 

reduce the impacts of habitat loss and 

other impacts from development 

projects, habitat alteration, and habitat 

conversion. General guidance has 

already been developed and is in use 

(see the Florida Bonneted Bat 

Consultation Guidelines, appendices D 

and E, and the Florida Bonneted Bat 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

under Supporting and Related Material 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 

on https://www.regulations.gov); 

additional guidance is under 

development to address habitat 

management practices on conservation 

lands. 

Other activities that the Service may 

consider that may affect, but are 

unlikely to adversely affect, critical 

habitat include actions that are wholly 

beneficial (i.e., those that maintain, 

improve, or restore the functionality of 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat without causing adverse effects to 

the essential physical or biological 

features), discountable (i.e., unlikely to 

occur), or insignificant. In such cases, 

the Act’s section 7 consultation 

requirements can be satisfied through 

the informal concurrence process. 

Whether an action will have 

insignificant effects must be considered 

within the context of the unit or subunit 

in which the action occurs. A localized 

reduction in roosting or foraging habitat 

within a stand may have such a small 

impact on the essential physical or 

biological features within that stand that 

a ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ 

determination is appropriate. Similarly, 

effects to roosting habitat may be 

negligible where a hazard tree removal 

project occurs in a stand with many 

suitable roosting trees. 

Exemptions 

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

provides that the Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of Defense 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16654 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(DoD), or designated for its use, that are 

subject to an INRMP prepared under 

section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 

670a), if the Secretary determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation. 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. We analyzed INRMPs 

developed by military installations 

located within the range of the critical 

habitat designation for Florida bonneted 

bat to determine if they meet the criteria 

for exemption from critical habitat 

under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The 

following areas are DoD lands with 

completed, Service-approved INRMPs 

within the critical habitat designation. 

Approved INRMPs 

For discussion of the approved 

INRMP for Avon Park Air Force Range 

(Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; 99,523 ac 

(40,276 ha)), see Exemptions in the 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

35510, June 10, 2020, p. 35531). 

For discussion of the approved 

INRMP for Homestead Air Reserve Base 

(Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit— 

Subunits KK, LL; 280 ac (113 ha)), see 

Exemptions in the revised proposed 

critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022, p. 71480). 

In accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that the identified lands are 

subject to Avon Park Air Force Range’s 

and Homestead Air Reserve Base’s 

INRMPs and that conservation efforts 

identified in the INRMPs will provide a 

benefit to the Florida bonneted bat. 

Therefore, lands within these 

installations are exempt from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act. Accordingly, we are not 

including approximately 99,803 ac 

(40,389 ha) of habitat in this final 

critical habitat designation because of 

these exemptions. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. Exclusion 

decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 

2016)—both of which were developed 

jointly with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer 

to a 2008 Department of the Interior 

Solicitor’s opinion entitled, ‘‘The 

Secretary’s Authority to Exclude Areas 

from a Critical Habitat Designation 

under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). We explain 

each decision to exclude areas, as well 

as decisions not to exclude, to 

demonstrate that the decision is 

reasonable. 

The Secretary may exclude any 

particular area if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of including such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive due to the protection 

from destruction of adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus; the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species; and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. In the 

case of the Florida bonneted bat, the 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of 

Florida bonneted bat and the 

importance of habitat protection, and, 

where a Federal nexus exists, increased 

habitat protection for the Florida 

bonneted bat due to the protection from 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

When identifying the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation or 

in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. 

Additionally, continued 

implementation of an ongoing 

management plan that provides equal to 

or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would reduce the 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

We evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of inclusion. We consider a 

variety of factors, including, but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical or biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an IEM and 

screening analysis, including a memo 

addressing supplemental information on 

land values, which, together with our 

narrative and interpretation of effects, 

we consider our economic analysis of 

the critical habitat designation and 

related factors (IEc 2021a, b, entire). The 

original DEA, dated February 14, 2020, 

and the memo providing supplemental 

data supporting the original DEA, dated 

February 6, 2020, were made available 

for public review from June 10 through 

August 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510; June 10, 

2020). The IEM and the economic 

analysis were revised prior to 

publication of the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule, and the revised 

analyses, both dated September 1, 2021, 

were made available for public review 

from November 22, 2022, through 

January 23, 2023 (87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022). The economic 

analysis addressed probable economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation 

for Florida bonneted bat. Following the 

close of the comment period on the 

November 22, 2022, revised proposed 

rule, we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during both 

comment periods that may pertain to 

our consideration of the probable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16655 

incremental economic impacts of this 

critical habitat designation. Additional 

information relevant to the probable 

incremental economic impacts of 

critical habitat designation for the 

Florida bonneted bat is summarized 

below and available in the screening 

analysis for the Florida bonneted bat 

(IEc 2021a, entire), available at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat, first we identified, 

in the revised IEM dated June 22, 2021, 

probable incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: (1) Commercial or 

residential development; (2) 

transportation; (3) utilities; (4) energy 

(including solar, wind, and oil and gas); 

(5) water management (including water 

supply, flood control, and water 

quality); (6) recreation; (7) land 

management (including prescribed 

burning and invasive species control); 

and (8) habitat and hydrologic 

restoration. We considered each 

industry or category individually. 

Additionally, we considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation generally will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; under the Act, designation 

of critical habitat only affects activities 

conducted, funded, permitted, or 

authorized by Federal agencies. Because 

the Florida bonneted bat is already 

listed under the Act, in areas where the 

species is present, Federal agencies are 

currently required to consult with the 

Service under section 7 of the Act on 

activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the species. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat will be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

result from the species being listed and 

those attributable to the critical habitat 

designation (i.e., difference between the 

jeopardy and adverse modification 

standards) for the Florida bonneted bat’s 

critical habitat. The following specific 

circumstances in this case help to 

inform our evaluation: (1) The essential 

physical or biological features identified 

for critical habitat are the same features 

essential for the life requisites of the 

species, and (2) any actions that would 

result in sufficient harm to constitute 

jeopardy to the Florida bonneted bat 

would also likely adversely affect the 

essential physical or biological features 

of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our 

rationale concerning this limited 

distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat for this species. This evaluation 

of the incremental effects has been used 

as the basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

designation of critical habitat. 

The critical habitat designation for the 

Florida bonneted bat consists of nine 

units, all occupied by the species, 

totaling 1,160,625 ac (469,688 ha) and 

including lands under Federal, State, 

county, local, and private ownership 

(see table 1, above). Because all areas are 

occupied, the economic impacts of 

implementing the rule through section 7 

of the Act will most likely be limited to 

additional administrative effort to 

consider adverse modification. This 

finding is based on the following 

factors: 

• Any activities with a Federal nexus 

occurring within occupied habitat will 

be subject to section 7 consultation 

requirements regardless of critical 

habitat designation, due to the presence 

of the listed species; and 

• In most cases, project modifications 

requested to avoid adverse modification 

are likely to be the same as those needed 

to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat. 

Our analysis considers the potential 

need to consult on development, 

transportation, utilities, land 

management, habitat restoration, and 

other activities authorized, undertaken, 

or funded by Federal agencies within 

critical habitat. The total incremental 

section 7 costs associated with this 

designation are estimated to be less than 

$70,800 per year, with the highest costs 

expected in Unit 6 (IEc 2021a, pp. 2, 

25). While the designated critical habitat 

area is relatively large, incremental 

section 7 costs are kept comparatively 

low due to the strong baseline 

protections that already exist for this 

species due to its listed status, the 

existence of a consultation area map 

that alerts managing agencies about the 

location of the species and its habitat, 

and the presence of other listed species 

in the area. 

Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT) Rights-of-Way 

Based on a request for exclusion from 

FDOT, we are examining the benefits of 

inclusion or exclusion of areas of 

critical habitat that overlap with FDOT 

rights-of-way in all critical habitat units 

(Units 1–9). FDOT requested exclusion 

because they expect this critical habitat 

designation to significantly increase 

consultation actions for the regular and 

frequent activities for work FDOT 

conducts within its transportation 

rights-of-way, thus resulting in an 

undue economic hardship to FDOT. 

Because all critical habitat units are 

occupied, any inclusion of rights-of-way 

would be occupied areas. FDOT 

receives Federal agency funding and has 

assumed responsibility for 

environmental reviews from the Federal 

Highway Administration. It also 

receives authorization (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers) for many of their activities 

along their rights-of-way. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in critical habitat designation is the 

requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must also consult with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

listed species and ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

The analysis of effects to critical habitat 

is a separate and different analysis from 

that of the effects to the species. 

Therefore, the difference in outcomes of 

these two analyses represents the 

regulatory benefit of critical habitat. In 

some cases, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to critical habitat will often result in 

effects to the species. This would 

generally be in cases where the species 

is considered present in the action area 

and may be affected by the proposed 

action and when any voluntary or 

required measures to avoid jeopardy are 

the same as those measures to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat; that is the case here. 

Additionally, there may be educational 

benefits associated with the designation 

of critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat 

designation may provide greater benefits 

to the recovery of a species than listing 

would alone. 

Critical habitat designation is 

expected to provide some benefit 

(although likely less of a benefit than if 

the units were unoccupied) through the 

conservation measures associated with 

future section 7 consultations associated 

with FDOT actions that involve a 

Federal nexus. Another possible benefit 

of including lands in critical habitat is 

public and agency education regarding 

the potential conservation value of these 

areas. For FDOT actions without a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16656 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal nexus, there is no requirement 

to consider effects to critical habitat, but 

there is still a requirement to consider 

potential effects to the species itself 

(e.g., take of a listed species). 

Designation of critical habitat would 

provide educational benefits by 

informing Federal agencies and the 

public about the presence of listed 

species within FDOT rights-of-way. 

Florida bonneted bats are typically 

associated with a diversity of ecological 

communities, including pine rocklands, 

cypress communities, hydric pine 

flatwoods, mesic pine flatwoods, and 

high pine, but they also occur in a 

variety of other habitats that provide 

adequate prey and space for foraging 

(e.g., freshwater edges and freshwater 

herbaceous wetlands, prairies, wetland 

and upland shrub communities, and 

wetland and upland forests), including 

habitat edges adjacent to roads and 

mowed areas (see Physical or Biological 

Features Essential to the Conservation of 

the Species, above). FDOT rights-of-way 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and these rights-of-way 

overlap designated critical habitat units, 

all of which are occupied by Florida 

bonneted bats. 

Including FDOT rights-of-way in 

designated critical habitat provides an 

opportunity to highlight FDOT rights-ofway as important for the conservation of 

the species, thus increasing awareness 

of the species and its habitat use and 

needs. Therefore, we foresee 

educational value that a designation 

would be expected to provide to FDOT, 

Federal agencies, and the public. There 

is also the possible benefit that 

additional funding could be generated 

for habitat improvement by an area 

being designated as critical habitat. 

Some funding sources may rank a 

project higher if the area is designated 

as critical habitat. 

We also evaluated whether there were 

any conservation plans or other 

conservation measures that may reduce 

the benefits of including FDOT rightsof-way in this designation of critical 

habitat. However, there are no specific 

Florida bonneted bat management 

plans, habitat plans, or specific 

conservation measures that have been 

developed by FDOT that would provide 

a conservation benefit to the Florida 

bonneted bat in these areas. 

Thus, we find that inclusion of areas 

that overlap with FDOT rights-of-way in 

designated critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat would provide: (1) 

A regulatory benefit when there is a 

Federal nexus; and (2) significant 

educational benefits for the Florida 

bonneted bat and its habitat. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation or 

in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. We 

expect to continue to work with FDOT 

on efforts to conserve the Florida 

bonneted bat and other co-occurring 

federally listed species. Working with 

our Federal partners or, in the case of 

FDOT, entities that have assumed some 

responsibility from a Federal partner, 

there are opportunities to develop 

section 7(a)(1) conservation strategies 

and programmatic section 7(a)(2) 

consultations to streamline regulatory 

procedures and benefit listed species. 

There are also opportunities to develop 

conservation plans for non-Federal 

actions to streamline regulatory 

compliance. 

We also considered the potential 

economic impact of designating critical 

habitat. The total number of future 

section 7 consultations expected over 

the next 10 years are modest at 

approximately 4 formal consultations, 

19 informal consultations, and 2 

technical assistance actions (IEc 2021a, 

p. 2); however, it is anticipated that all 

FDOT projects would result in only 

informal consultation on Florida 

bonneted bat critical habitat, each of 

which is estimated to have a total cost 

of $2,600 compared to estimated costs of 

$5,300 for a formal consultation or 

$9,800 for a programmatic consultation 

(IEc 2021a, pp. 10, 12–15, 18, 24). There 

is not expected to be any difference 

between a jeopardy analysis and a 

destruction or adverse modification 

analysis conducted as part of the 

consultation because threats to the 

Florida bonneted bat are largely habitat 

related. Because all areas of critical 

habitat are occupied, there would 

always be a consultation due to the 

presence of the species when there is a 

Federal nexus, and the designation of 

critical habitat would then result in only 

minor additional administrative 

economic costs due to the additional 

analysis required for the destruction or 

adverse modification analysis. The 

Service has developed a consultation 

area map (see Florida Bonneted Bat 

Consultation Guidelines under 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov), which is 

routinely used by FDOT, that can help 

streamline consultation and reduce the 

administrative burden associated with 

consultation. The Florida Bonneted Bat 

Consultation Guidelines alert managing 

agencies about the location of the 

species and its habitat. Agencies can use 

the consultation guidelines to screen 

projects for potential impacts to the 

species; to determine whether 

additional consultation with the Service 

is required; and, where appropriate, to 

reach a determination that an action 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, designated critical habitat. Prior 

to publication of this final rule, the 

Service updated the consultation 

guidelines to include critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat, which 

increases the usefulness of this tool to 

FDOT for section 7 consultations 

involving Florida bonneted bat critical 

habitat. Therefore, we anticipate that 

this will help streamline consultation 

for FDOT and reduce the administrative 

burden associated with consultation, 

thus reducing the overall cost of 

consultation to FDOT associated with 

this critical habitat designation. 

The total estimated cost of 

considering destruction or adverse 

modification of Florida bonneted bat 

critical habitat during all section 7 

consultations will result in incremental 

costs of approximately $70,800 per year, 

of which approximately $50,800 are the 

incremental costs associated with all 

informal consultations (IEc 2021a, p. 

25). Incremental costs for FDOT are 

expected to only comprise a portion of 

the annual estimated incremental costs, 

although FDOT is one of several 

agencies most likely to consult with the 

Service with regard to the Florida 

bonneted bat over the next 10 years. It 

is estimated that approximately 62 

FDOT projects may intersect with 

critical habitat in Units 1 through 6; 

there are no planned FDOT projects in 

or near Units 7 through 9 (IEc 2021a, p. 

8). Thus, excluding the rights-of-way 

could moderately reduce costs for 

FDOT. 

Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Exclusion 

In weighing the benefits of including 

versus the benefits of excluding FDOT 

rights-of-way in our critical habitat 

designation, we find that the benefits of 

inclusion of these lands outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion of these lands in 

the designation. The benefits of 

exclusion are small and are primarily 

the avoidance of potential future costs 

due to section 7 consultation. Because 

the entire critical habitat designation is 

occupied by the Florida bonneted bat, 

any consultation would result from the 

presence of a listed species; there would 

be an additional minor administrative 

cost for the destruction or adverse 

modification analysis. Any project 

modifications to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification would likely be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16657 

the same as those modifications already 

undertaken to avoid jeopardy; thus, we 

anticipate that conducting a destruction 

or adverse modification analysis would 

have only a minor administrative cost 

beyond the cost of the analysis that 

would already be conducted to avoid 

jeopardy. 

In contrast, the benefits of inclusion 

are higher than those of exclusion 

because of educational opportunities 

and the regulatory benefit of potential 

section 7 consultations. Because critical 

habitat is one conservation tool that can 

contribute to the recovery of the species, 

the recovery of the Florida bonneted bat 

is best served by the inclusion of FDOT 

rights-of-way in critical habitat units. 

Further, there are no specific Florida 

bonneted bat management plans, habitat 

plans, or specific conservation measures 

that have been developed by FDOT that 

would provide a conservation benefit to 

the Florida bonneted bat in these areas. 

Therefore, we conclude that the benefits 

of inclusion are greater than the benefits 

of exclusion, and we are including 

FDOT rights-of-way in the designation 

of critical habitat for the Florida 

bonneted bat. 

Florida Power and Light (FPL) Power 

Line Easements and Rights-of-Way 

Based on a request for exclusion from 

FPL, we are examining the benefits of 

inclusion or exclusion of areas of 

critical habitat in Units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 

9 that overlap with FPL power line 

easements and rights-of-way. FPL 

requested exclusion because they expect 

this critical habitat designation to 

significantly increase costs and time to 

conduct activities associated with 

existing and potential future facilities 

within its power line easements and 

rights-of-way, thus resulting in an 

undue economic hardship to FPL. 

Because all critical habitat units are 

occupied, any inclusion of power line 

easements and rights-of-way would be 

occupied areas. In total, FPL has 

approximately 73 mi (118 km) of 

transmission lines and 46 mi (74 km) of 

distribution lines within power line 

easements and rights-of-way that 

overlap with critical habitat, with 21 mi 

(33 km) of transmission lines and 2.5 mi 

(4 km) of distribution lines in Unit 2, 40 

mi (64 km) of transmission lines and 12 

mi (20 km) of distribution lines in Unit 

3, 10 mi (16 km) of transmission lines 

and 3 mi (5 km) of distribution lines in 

Unit 5, 15 mi (24 km) of distribution 

lines in Unit 6, 0.05 mi (0.07 km) of 

distribution lines in Unit 8, and 2 mi (4 

km) of transmission lines and 13 mi (21 

km) of distribution lines in Unit 9. FPL 

maintains existing facilities on Federal 

lands and receives Federal agency 

funding (e.g., U.S. Department of 

Energy) or authorization (e.g., U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers) for many of 

their activities within their power line 

easements and rights-of-way. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must also consult with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

listed species and ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

The analysis of effects to critical habitat 

is a separate and different analysis from 

that of the effects to the species. 

Therefore, the difference in outcomes of 

these two analyses represents the 

regulatory benefit of critical habitat. In 

some cases, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to critical habitat will often result in 

effects to the species. This would 

generally be in cases where the species 

is considered present in the action area 

and may be affected by the proposed 

action and when any voluntary or 

required measures to avoid jeopardy are 

the same as those measures to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat; that is the case here. 

Additionally, there may be educational 

benefits associated with the designation 

of critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat 

designation may provide greater benefits 

to the recovery of a species than listing 

would alone. 

Critical habitat designation is 

expected to provide some benefit 

(although likely less of a benefit than if 

the units were unoccupied) through the 

conservation measures associated with 

future section 7 consultations associated 

with FPL actions that involve a Federal 

nexus. Another possible benefit of 

including lands in critical habitat is 

public and agency education regarding 

the potential conservation value of these 

areas. For FPL actions without a Federal 

nexus, there is no requirement to 

consider effects to critical habitat, but 

there is still a requirement to consider 

potential effects to the species itself 

(e.g., take of a listed species). 

Designation of critical habitat would 

provide educational benefits by 

informing Federal agencies and the 

public about the presence of listed 

species within FPL power line 

easements and rights-of-way. Florida 

bonneted bats are typically associated 

with a diversity of ecological 

communities, including pine rocklands, 

cypress communities, hydric pine 

flatwoods, mesic pine flatwoods, and 

high pine, but they also occur in a 

variety of other habitats that provide 

adequate prey and space for foraging 

(e.g., freshwater edges and freshwater 

herbaceous wetlands, prairies, wetland 

and upland shrub communities, and 

wetland and upland forests) (see 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species, 

above). FPL power line easements and 

rights-of-way are within these ecological 

communities and habitats occupied by 

Florida bonneted bat; contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species; and 

overlap designated critical habitat units, 

all of which are occupied by Florida 

bonneted bats. 

Including FPL power line easements 

and rights-of-way in designated critical 

habitat provides an opportunity to 

highlight these areas as important for 

the conservation of the species, thus 

increasing awareness of the species and 

its habitat use and needs. Since the 

publication of the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule, communication between 

the Service and FPL has increased, and 

designating critical habitat may 

continue to encourage communication 

that provides an educational value. 

Therefore, we anticipate that a critical 

habitat designation including FPL 

power line easements and rights-of-way 

would provide continued educational 

value to FPL, Federal agencies, and the 

public. There is also the possible benefit 

that additional funding could be 

generated for habitat improvement by an 

area being designated as critical habitat. 

Some funding sources may rank a 

project higher if the area is designated 

as critical habitat. 

We also evaluated whether there were 

any conservation plans or other 

conservation measures that may reduce 

the benefits of including FPL power line 

easements and rights-of-way in this 

designation of critical habitat. Before 

initiating work at a utility pole location, 

FPL follows a well-established process 

for managing and protecting migratory 

bird nests, including inspecting poles 

for migratory bird nests, such as active 

woodpecker cavities. FPL plans to 

continue this best practice and expand 

it to include determining the presence 

or absence of any Florida bonneted bat 

or Florida bonneted bat active roost. If 

a Florida bonneted bat or Florida 

bonneted bat roost is confirmed within 

an FPL pole or on any FPL equipment 

during pre-removal inspection, FPL will 

promptly notify and coordinate with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16658 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Service. However, there are no specific 

Florida bonneted bat management 

plans, habitat plans, or formalized 

conservation measures that have been 

developed by FPL that would provide a 

conservation benefit to the Florida 

bonneted bat or its habitat in these 

areas. Thus, we find that inclusion of 

areas that overlap with FPL power line 

easements and rights-of-way in the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Florida bonneted bat would provide: (1) 

A regulatory benefit when there is a 

Federal nexus; and (2) significant 

educational benefits for the Florida 

bonneted bat and its habitat. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation or 

in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. We 

expect to continue to work with FPL on 

efforts to conserve the Florida bonneted 

bat and other co-occurring federally 

listed species. Working with our Federal 

partners, there are opportunities to 

develop section 7(a)(1) conservation 

strategies and programmatic section 

7(a)(2) consultations to streamline 

regulatory procedures and benefit listed 

species. There are also opportunities to 

develop conservation plans for nonFederal actions to streamline regulatory 

compliance. 

We also considered the potential 

economic impact of designating critical 

habitat. The total number of future 

section 7 consultations expected over 

the next 10 years are modest at 

approximately 4 formal consultations, 

19 informal consultations, and 2 

technical assistance actions (IEc 2021a, 

p. 2). However, we estimate only 

approximately one future FPL utility 

project-related action would require 

informal consultation in each critical 

habitat unit annually over the next 10 

years in addition to consultations 

forecast from their consultation history 

for Florida bonneted bat in or near 

proposed critical habitat areas (IEc 

2021a, pp. 10–13, 15, 18–22). There is 

not expected to be any difference 

between a jeopardy analysis and a 

destruction or adverse modification 

analysis conducted as part of the 

consultation because threats to the 

Florida bonneted bat are habitat-related. 

Because of this, there would always be 

a consultation due to the presence of the 

species when there is a Federal nexus, 

and the designation of critical habitat 

would then result in only minor 

additional administrative economic 

costs due to the additional analysis 

required for the destruction or adverse 

modification analysis. The Service has 

developed a consultation area map (see 

the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation 

Guidelines under Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov), which is 

routinely used by FPL, that can help 

streamline consultation and reduce the 

administrative burden associated with 

consultation. The Florida Bonneted Bat 

Consultation Guidelines alert managing 

agencies about the location of the 

species and its habitat. Agencies can use 

the consultation guidelines to screen 

projects for potential impacts to the 

species; to determine whether 

additional consultation with the Service 

is required; and, where appropriate, to 

reach a determination that an action 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, designated critical habitat. Prior 

to publication of this final rule, the 

Service updated the consultation 

guidelines to include critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat, which further 

increases the usefulness of this tool to 

FPL for section 7 consultations 

involving Florida bonneted bat critical 

habitat. Therefore, we anticipate that 

this will help streamline consultation 

for FPL and reduce the administrative 

burden associated with consultation, 

thus reducing the overall cost of 

consultation to FPL associated with this 

critical habitat designation. 

The total estimated cost of 

considering destruction or adverse 

modification of Florida bonneted bat 

critical habitat during section 7 

consultation will result in incremental 

costs of approximately $70,800 per year 

throughout the entirety of designated 

critical habitat (IEc 2021a, p. 25); 

however, incremental costs for FPL are 

expected to only comprise a portion of 

these annual estimated incremental 

costs. Thus, excluding FPL’s power line 

easements and rights-of-way could 

moderately reduce costs for FPL. 

Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Exclusion 

In weighing the benefits of including 

versus the benefits of excluding FPL 

power line easements and rights-of-way 

in our critical habitat designation, we 

find that the benefits of inclusion of 

these lands outweigh the benefits of 

exclusion of these lands in the 

designation. The benefits of exclusion 

are small and are primarily the 

avoidance of potential future costs due 

to section 7 consultation. Because the 

entire critical habitat designation is 

occupied by the Florida bonneted bat, 

any consultation would result from the 

presence of a listed species; there would 

be an additional minor administrative 

cost for the destruction or adverse 

modification analysis. Any project 

modifications to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification would likely be 

the same as those modifications already 

undertaken to avoid jeopardy; thus, we 

anticipate that conducting a destruction 

or adverse modification analysis would 

have only a minor administrative cost 

beyond the cost of the analysis that 

would already be conducted to avoid 

jeopardy. 

In contrast, the benefits of inclusion 

are greater than those of exclusion. This 

is primarily because of the regulatory 

benefit associated with future section 7 

consultations when FPL undertakes 

actions with a Federal nexus. In 

addition, as discussed above under 

Benefits of Inclusion, in this instance 

we also expect significant educational 

benefits from designating critical habitat 

along FPL power line easements and 

rights-of-way. The clear mapping of 

critical habitat provides helpful 

information to FPL to better understand 

where additional management actions 

may be appropriate (with or without a 

Federal nexus). FPL has no current 

Florida bonneted bat habitat 

conservation plans or other management 

plans or agreements with the Service in 

place to rely upon at this time. 

Therefore, coordination with the Service 

would be expected to provide education 

about critical habitat that would help 

FPL understand how to accomplish 

their needs while supporting 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and its habitat. This education would 

also be expected to result in better 

regulatory coordination with the Service 

both when there is a Federal nexus and 

when there is not a Federal nexus. The 

recovery of the Florida bonneted bat is 

best served by the inclusion of FPL 

power line easements and rights-of-way 

in designated critical habitat. Therefore, 

we conclude that the benefits of 

inclusion are greater than the benefits of 

exclusion, and we are including FPL 

power line easements and rights-of-way 

in the designation of critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat. 

As discussed above, we considered 

the economic impacts of the critical 

habitat designation, and the Secretary is 

not exercising her discretion to exclude 

any areas from this designation of 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat based on economic impacts. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16659 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ Nevertheless, when 

designating critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must 

consider impacts on national security, 

including homeland security, on lands 

or areas not covered by section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will 

always consider for exclusion from the 

designation areas for which DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns. 

We consulted with DoD and DHS on 

this designation. Neither agency 

identified any potential nationalsecurity impact nor requested an 

exclusion from critical habitat based on 

potential national-security impacts. 

Additionally, we did not receive any 

new information or public comments 

regarding our intended determination to 

not exclude DHS and DoD lands in 

Subunit 9O identified in the November 

22, 2022, revised proposed rule (87 FR 

71466). Consequently, the Secretary is 

not exercising her discretion to exclude 

any areas from this designation based on 

impacts on national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. To 

identify other relevant impacts that may 

affect the exclusion analysis, we 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, or candidate conservation 

agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or 

whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

whether Tribal conservation plans or 

partnerships, Tribal resources, or 

government-to-government 

relationships of the United States with 

Tribal entities may be affected by the 

designation. We also consider any State, 

local, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus, the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species, and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. In the 

case of the Florida bonneted bat, the 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of the 

Florida bonneted bat and the 

importance of habitat protection and, 

where a Federal nexus exists, increased 

habitat protection for the Florida 

bonneted bat due to protection from 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

When identifying the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation, 

or in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. 

Additionally, continued 

implementation of an ongoing 

management plan that provides equal to 

or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would reduce the 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

We evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of inclusion. We consider a 

variety of factors, including, but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical or biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Based on the information provided to 

us by entities seeking exclusion, as well 

as additional public comments we 

received, and the best scientific data 

available, we evaluated whether certain 

lands in all final critical habitat units 

(i.e., Units 1–9) are appropriate for 

exclusion from this final designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If our 

analysis indicates that the benefits of 

excluding lands from the final 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

designating those lands as critical 

habitat, then the Secretary may exercise 

her discretion to exclude the lands from 

the final designation. In the paragraphs 

below, we provide a detailed balancing 

analysis of the areas we are excluding 

from the designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans Related to Permits 

Under Section 10 of the Act 

HCPs for incidental take permits 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 

provide for partnerships with nonFederal entities to minimize and 

mitigate impacts to listed species and 

their habitats. In some cases, HCP 

permittees agree to do more for the 

conservation of the species and their 

habitats on private lands than 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide alone. We place great value on 

the partnerships that are developed 

during the preparation and 

implementation of HCPs. 

CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary 

agreements designed to conserve 

candidate and listed species, 

respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 

exchange for actions that contribute to 

the conservation of species on nonFederal lands, participating property 

owners are covered by an ‘‘enhancement 

of survival’’ permit under section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which authorizes 

incidental take of the covered species 

that may result from implementation of 

conservation actions, specific land uses, 

and, in the case of SHAs, the option to 

return to a baseline condition under the 

agreements. We also provide enrollees 

assurances that we will not impose 

further land-, water-, or resource-use 

restrictions, or require additional 

commitments of land, water, or 

finances, beyond those agreed to in the 

agreements. 

When we undertake a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we 

will always consider areas covered by 

an approved CCAA/SHA/HCP, and we 

anticipate consistently excluding such 

areas if incidental take caused by the 

activities in those areas is covered by 

the permit under section 10 of the Act 

and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all of 

the following three factors (see the 2016 

section 4(b)(2) policy for additional 

details): 

a. The permittee is properly 

implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16660 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

is expected to continue to do so for the 

term of the agreement. A CCAA/SHA/ 

HCP is properly implemented if the 

permittee is, and has been, fully 

implementing the commitments and 

provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 

implementing agreement, and permit. 

b. The species for which critical 

habitat is being designated is a covered 

species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very 

similar in its habitat requirements to a 

covered species. The recognition that 

we extend to such an agreement 

depends on the degree to which the 

conservation measures undertaken in 

the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect 

the habitat features of the similar 

species. 

c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically 

addresses the habitat of the species for 

which critical habitat is being 

designated and meets the conservation 

needs of the species in the planning 

area. 

Coral Reef Commons (CRC) Habitat 

Conservation Plan 

CRC is a mixed-use community, 

which consists of 900 apartments, retail 

stores, restaurants, and parking. In 2017, 

an HCP and associated permit under 

section 10 of the Act were developed 

and issued, respectively, for the CRC 

development. We have determined that 

lands associated with the CRC HCP 

were included within the boundaries of 

our November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed critical habitat rule for the 

Florida bonneted bat. These lands 

include an on-site preserve and an offsite mitigation area, both of which 

overlap with proposed Subunit 9O 

(composing approximately 6 percent of 

the subunit and approximately 3 

percent of the unit as a whole). 

Specifically, as part of the HCP and 

permit, the on-site preserve was 

established under a conservation 

encumbrance that will be managed in 

perpetuity for pine rockland habitat and 

sensitive and listed species, including 

the Florida bonneted bat. An additional 

area within the University of Miami’s 

Center for Southeastern Tropical 

Advanced Remote Sensing facility site 

comprises the off-site mitigation area for 

CRC. Portions of both the on-site 

preserve and the off-site mitigation area 

(approximately 48 ac (19 ha) and 56 ac 

(23 ha), respectively) are included in the 

area for proposed critical habitat 

designation and are being managed to 

maintain healthy pine rockland habitat 

using invasive, nonnative plant 

management; mechanical treatment; and 

prescribed fire. This management 

addresses both the habitat and 

conservation needs of the Florida 

bonneted bat. 

Within the HCP, biological goals, 

objectives, and success criteria of the 

HCP have been identified that apply to 

the on-site preserve and the off-site 

mitigation area. For the on-site preserve, 

success criteria that focus on restoration 

and conservation of pine rockland 

habitat have been established, with 

initial targets set for 5 years after 

initiation. For both the on-site preserve 

and the off-site mitigation area, the CRC 

HCP also includes a plan for 

implementing a long-term conservation 

program with mitigation measures to 

support specific listed species, 

including the Florida bonneted bat. 

Within the on-site preserve area, 

mitigation measures, some of which are 

designed to offset impacts to the Florida 

bonneted bat (e.g., implementing 

wildlife-friendly lighting, installing bat 

houses), are to be implemented during 

construction and within the resulting 

development. 

Since initiating the CRC HCP, pine 

rockland restoration efforts have been 

conducted within all of the management 

units in both the on-site preserve and 

the off-site mitigation area. Currently, 

the on-site preserve meets or exceeds 

the success criteria described for 

restoration and conservation of pine 

rockland habitat within the HCP. 

However, partially because the site is 

still under construction, mitigation 

measures associated with 

implementation of the conservation 

program within the on-site preserve, 

such as incorporation of wildlifefriendly lighting, have not been reported 

on or fully implemented. The Service 

and CRC partnership is strong and 

working well; we are currently 

communicating through the partnership 

to ensure full implementation of the 

HCP and permit and considering 

whether slight modifications to the 

conservation program would be possible 

under the adaptive management strategy 

described within the HCP. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must also consult with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

listed species and ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

Therefore, the primary benefit of 

including the on-site preserve and offsite mitigation area associated with the 

CRC HCP is the potential additional 

regulatory oversight due to section 7 

consultations associated with future 

Federal actions. However, because the 

Florida bonneted bat is a covered 

species under the HCP and the pine 

rockland habitat management 

provisions in the HCP are being 

implemented, and because we do not 

expect any future actions in this area to 

be authorized, funded, or carried out by 

a Federal agency, the additional benefits 

of the inclusion of these areas in 

designated critical habitat may be 

limited. Therefore, the benefit of the 

inclusion of these parcels in critical 

habitat is expected to be minimal. 

A secondary benefit to the inclusion 

of the on-site preserve and off-site 

mitigation area in the critical habitat 

designation for the Florida bonneted bat 

is an educational benefit through 

ensuring public awareness regarding the 

importance of these specific parcels to 

the Florida bonneted bat and its longterm conservation. Due to the high 

potential of human-wildlife interaction 

with this species in the area and the 

reliance of this species on the remaining 

pine rockland habitat, the relative 

importance of these parcels to the 

species is high; however, the added 

benefits of education from the 

designation of critical habitat are likely 

minimal as the public was previously 

aware of the area’s importance due to 

the CRC HCP. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

The Florida bonneted bat is a species 

included in the CRC HCP. As part of the 

HCP, the on-site preserve and off-site 

mitigation area were established to 

protect and conserve the species and its 

habitat. While some mitigation 

measures in the HCP that are important 

to Florida bonneted bat habitat have not 

been implemented, the primary goals for 

pine rockland habitat management and 

restoration established for these parcels 

as part of the HCP and section 10 permit 

are being fully implemented. The 

conservation partnership with the CRC 

development advocate is wellestablished and could be significantly 

harmed by the failure to acknowledge 

the conservation value of the HCP and 

the considerable efforts that have been 

made to implement many of the 

measures of the HCP and section 10 

permit. Additionally, failure to 

acknowledge these agreements would 

most likely send a chilling effect to 

other potential conservation partners, 

which could render conservation efforts 

in south Florida for the Florida 

bonneted bat and other listed and at-risk 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16661 

species more difficult and potentially 

harm species and sensitive habitats. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

We have found that, on balance, the 

benefits of excluding the on-site 

preserve and off-site mitigation area 

associated with the CRC HCP outweigh 

the benefits of including the specific 

parcels in designated critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat. We have 

determined that benefits of preserving 

the conservation partnership with CRC 

and the continued habitat management 

implemented on these parcels, 

including the ability to modify or 

amend the HCP to incorporate 

appropriate additional or improved 

mitigation measures for the Florida 

bonneted bat, outweigh the potential 

additional regulatory benefits associated 

with the inclusion of these parcels in 

the critical habitat designation. 

Additionally, the acknowledgement of 

the productive cooperative partnership 

is important for not only this species 

and situation, but for other existing and 

future conservation efforts, and to not 

exclude these lands given that there is 

a signed HCP that covers the species 

would have a detrimental effect on 

existing and future conservation 

partnerships. Further, while we find 

that the educational benefits associated 

with including the parcels in the final 

designation are valuable, we have 

determined that the public was 

educated about the importance of these 

parcels to pine rockland habitat in our 

detailed discussion of these areas and 

the HCP in our November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed critical habitat rule 

(see ‘‘Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans Related to Permits 

Under Section 10 of the Act’’ and the 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act at 87 FR 71466, 

November 22, 2022, pp. 71484–71486). 

Moreover, the public was highly 

engaged during the development of this 

HCP and, as such, is already aware of 

the areas’ importance for multiple 

species because of the CRC HCP. 

Therefore, the existence of the HCP and 

the educational benefits it has already 

provided reduce the educational benefit 

of inclusion of these areas in designated 

critical habitat. We anticipate minimal 

further benefit if the areas were to be 

included in this final designation. 

Therefore, we are excluding those 

specific lands associated with the CRC 

HCP that are in the on-site preserve and 

off-site mitigation area from this final 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat because we find 

that the benefit of excluding them from 

designated critical habitat outweighs the 

benefit of their inclusion. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

As discussed above, the habitat 

management provisions set forth in the 

CRC HCP to manage the on-site preserve 

and off-site mitigation area for the 

Florida bonneted bat and pine rockland 

habitat are being fully implemented. 

Mitigation measures important to the 

species have not been reported and have 

not been fully implemented; however, 

there is a record that the project 

proponent is a cooperating partner in 

the conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat, and adaptive management strategies 

that are built into the HCP provide the 

flexibility to incorporate additional 

conservation measures. As a result, we 

do not find that the exclusion of these 

specific areas from designated critical 

habitat is a threat to the viability of the 

Florida bonneted bat. Further, because 

the Florida bonneted bat is listed as an 

endangered species and these areas are 

occupied, if at any time the parcels are 

no longer being managed appropriately, 

the species continues to be protected by 

the provisions of the Act and the permit 

for the HCP can be revisited. We 

conclude that the exclusion of these 

specific parcels from designated critical 

habitat will not result in the extinction 

of the Florida bonneted bat. 

We have further determined that there 

are no additional HCPs or other 

management plans for the Florida 

bonneted bat within the critical habitat 

designation. 

Tribal Lands 

Several Executive Orders, Secretary’s 

Orders, and policies concern working 

with Tribes. These guidance documents 

generally confirm our trust 

responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that 

Tribes have sovereign authority to 

control Tribal lands, emphasize the 

importance of developing partnerships 

with Tribal governments, and direct the 

Service to consult with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. 

A joint Secretary’s Order that applies 

to both the Service and NMFS— 

Secretary’s Order 3206, American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal–Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) 

(S.O. 3206)—is the most comprehensive 

of the various guidance documents 

related to Tribal relationships and Act 

implementation, and it provides the 

most detail directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat. In 

addition to the general direction 

discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 

3206 explicitly recognizes the right of 

Tribes to participate fully in any listing 

process that may affect Tribal rights or 

Tribal trust resources; this includes the 

designation of critical habitat. Section 

3(B)(4) of the appendix requires us to 

consult with affected Tribes when 

considering the designation of critical 

habitat in an area that may impact 

Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned 

fee lands, or the exercise of Tribal 

rights. That provision also instructs us 

to avoid including Tribal lands within 

a critical habitat designation unless the 

area is essential to conserve a listed 

species, and it requires us to evaluate 

and document the extent to which the 

conservation needs of the listed species 

can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to other lands. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19 and the 2016 section 4(b)(2) 

policy are consistent with S.O. 3206. 

When we undertake a discretionary 

exclusion analysis, in accordance with 

S.O. 3206, we consult with any Tribe 

whose Tribal trust resources, Triballyowned fee lands, or Tribal rights may be 

affected by including any particular 

areas in the designation, and we 

evaluate the extent to which the 

conservation needs of the species can be 

achieved by limiting the designation to 

other areas. When we undertake a 

discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, 

we always consider exclusion of Tribal 

lands, and give great weight to Tribal 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

However, S.O. 3206 does not override 

the Act’s statutory requirement of 

designation of critical habitat. As stated 

above, we must consult with any Tribe 

when a designation of critical habitat 

may affect Tribal lands or resources. 

The Act requires us to identify areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ (i.e., areas occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the essential 

physical or biological features that may 

require special management or 

protection and unoccupied areas that 

are essential to the conservation of a 

species), without regard to land 

ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides 

important direction, it expressly states 

that it does not modify the Secretary’s 

statutory authority under the Act or 

other statutes. 

Unit 6 (Big Cypress)—Seminole Tribe of 

Florida 

We proposed 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of 

critical habitat in Unit 6 that occur on 

Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands. 

This area is considered occupied at the 

time of listing and meets the definition 

of critical habitat. However, the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida is recognized 

as a sovereign nation and as such is the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate entity to manage natural 

resources on Seminole Tribal land. 

Further, the Seminole Tribe Wildlife 

Conservation Plan (see Supporting and 

Related Material in Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2019–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov) covers these lands 

for the protection of listed and 

endangered species, including the 

Florida bonneted bat. The Service 

reviewed this plan, together with the 

Seminole Tribe Fire Management Plan 

and Forest Management Plan, and 

issued a non-jeopardy programmatic 

biological opinion on December 19, 

2014, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

which we amended on June 9, 2017 (see 

Supporting and Related Material in 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 on 

https://www.regulations.gov). This 

biological opinion considered projects 

in development, land management, 

temporary construction, and 

maintenance categories, as described by 

the Tribe. The Wildlife Conservation 

Plan includes conservation measures in 

place that support the Florida bonneted 

bat and its habitat (e.g., limit impacts to 

potential roost trees during prescribed 

burns and home site/access road 

construction, maintain bonneted bat 

habitat through prescribed burning and 

construction of bat houses). The 

conservation measures specifically 

address conservation of roosting and 

foraging habitat (i.e., the first four 

identified essential physical or 

biological features for the species; see 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features, above) and 

maintenance of that habitat through 

active management; therefore, the 

measures appear to meet the 

conservation needs of the Florida 

bonneted bat within the area covered by 

the plan. We have a productive working 

relationship with the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and coordinated with them 

during the critical habitat designation 

process. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must also consult with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

listed species and ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

The difference in the outcomes of the 

jeopardy analysis and the destruction or 

adverse modification analysis represents 

the regulatory benefit and costs of 

critical habitat. Because the species 

occurs in the area, the regulatory 

benefits of a critical habitat designation 

are limited to the difference in 

consultation outcomes between 

avoidance of jeopardy and destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat on the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands of 

proposed Unit 6 could potentially 

benefit the Florida bonneted bat because 

that area provides habitat for the 

species, encompasses features essential 

to conservation of the species, and is 

occupied by the species. However, 

section 7 consultations within the 

proposed critical habitat area are 

anticipated to be rare, due to a general 

lack of Federal actions requiring 

consultations in this area beyond the 

actions already covered in the 

programmatic biological opinion, and 

we do not expect this trend to change 

in the future (IEc 2021a, p. 15). With 

few section 7 consultations anticipated, 

we anticipate limited regulatory benefits 

for the designation of critical habitat for 

the Florida bonneted bat in this portion 

of proposed Unit 6. Therefore, the effect 

of a critical habitat designation on these 

lands is minimized. 

In addition to the few anticipated 

Federal actions within the area, there is 

another regulatory process that applies 

to the proposed critical habitat area that 

overlaps Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Trust lands. The Seminole Tribe of 

Florida has created and implemented a 

regulatory process that mirrors that of 

the Service’s section 7 processes, but 

that has a greater level of review 

because they review all proposed 

projects, even those lacking a Federal 

nexus. Similar to the Service’s section 7 

process, they review projects to ensure 

that a project is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any federally 

endangered or threatened species or to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat of such species. They also 

examine conservation measures 

associated with the project for their 

value in the conservation of these listed 

species. The existence of this Tribal 

regulatory process reduces the benefits 

of including their lands in critical 

habitat, and, because this Tribal 

regulatory process is duplicative of ours, 

it makes our process redundant. 

A possible benefit is that the 

designation of critical habitat can serve 

to educate the landowner and public 

regarding the potential conservation 

value of an area, and this may focus and 

contribute to conservation efforts by 

other parties by clearly delineating areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

other parties engaged in conservation 

activities, would be considered 

valuable. The Seminole Tribe of Florida 

is fully aware of the importance of 

Florida bonneted bat habitat and 

conservation, and their natural resource 

staff frequently provide education on 

these topics. Given that regulatory 

actions have already informed the 

public about the value of these areas 

and helped to focus potential 

conservation actions and that the Tribe 

is already providing education on these 

topics, the educational benefits from 

designating critical habitat would be 

small. 

Finally, there is the possible benefit 

that additional funding could be 

generated for habitat improvement by an 

area being designated as critical habitat. 

Some funding sources may rank a 

project higher if the area is designated 

as critical habitat. Tribes often seek 

additional sources of funding in order to 

conduct wildlife-related conservation 

activities. Therefore, having an area 

designated as critical habitat could 

improve the chances of receiving 

funding for Florida bonneted bat 

habitat-related projects. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefits of excluding these Tribal 

lands from designated critical habitat 

are significant. We have determined that 

the primary benefits that would be 

realized by foregoing the designation of 

critical habitat on this area include: (1) 

Our deference to the Tribe as a 

sovereign nation to develop and 

implement conservation and natural 

resource management plans for their 

lands and resources, which may include 

benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and 

its habitat that might not otherwise 

occur; and (2) the continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationships with the Tribe to promote 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and its habitat, as well as other federally 

listed species. 

We have found that fish, wildlife, and 

other natural resources on Tribal lands 

are better managed under Tribal 

authorities, policies, and programs than 

through Federal regulations wherever 

possible and practicable. As stated 

above, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has 

developed their Wildlife Conservation 

Plan with a primary goal to provide for 

sustainable use and protection of 

wildlife and other natural resources for 

the benefit of the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and its members. The plan 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16663 

strives to balance management 

objectives so that conformity with the 

policy of the Act is achieved without 

the Tribe being faced with a 

disproportionate burden. The plan 

offers resource management protocols 

and measures for listed species and 

addresses: (1) Present conditions and 

practices on the reservations and Tribal 

land; (2) alternatives that allow the 

Tribe to continue growing while still 

protecting listed species; (3) alternatives 

for mitigation of effects to listed species 

for the continued growth of the Tribe; 

and (4) maintenance of the existing level 

of scientific knowledge regarding the 

reservation and its wildlife resources. 

The plan discusses the Florida bonneted 

bat and proposes conservation measures 

related to prescribed burning and home 

site/access road construction in the Big 

Cypress area. These conservation 

measures are generally expected to be 

compatible with, and benefit, 

conservation of the Florida bonneted 

bat. Overall, the commitments toward 

management of Florida bonneted bat 

habitat by the Seminole Tribe of Florida 

likely accomplish greater conservation 

than would be available through a 

designation of critical habitat. 

During this rulemaking process, we 

have communicated with the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida to discuss how they 

might be affected by the designation of 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat. As such, we have strengthened our 

existing beneficial relationship to 

support Florida bonneted bat 

conservation. As part of our 

relationship, we have provided 

technical assistance to the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida to refine measures to 

conserve the Florida bonneted bat and 

its habitat on their lands. These 

measures are contained within the 

Wildlife Conservation Plan developed 

by the Tribe. Therefore, consistent with 

our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, we place 

great weight on our working 

relationship with the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and determine that it would be 

better maintained if these lands are 

excluded from the designation of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. We 

view maintaining our partnership as a 

substantial benefit of exclusion. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The benefits of excluding this area 

from critical habitat include deference 

to the Tribe as a sovereign nation to 

manage its own lands, continuing and 

strengthening our effective working 

relationship with the Tribe, and 

working in collaboration and 

cooperation with the Tribe to promote 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and its habitat. 

The benefits of including Seminole 

Tribe of Florida lands in the critical 

habitat designation are limited to the 

incremental benefits gained through the 

regulatory requirement to consult under 

section 7 and consideration of the need 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, agency 

and educational awareness, potential 

additional grant funding, and the 

implementation of other law and 

regulations. However, due to the rarity 

of Federal actions resulting in section 7 

consultations within the proposed 

critical habitat area, the benefits of a 

critical habitat designation are minimal. 

The benefits of including these lands in 

this critical habitat designation are 

further reduced by the Tribe’s regulatory 

process that mirrors the Service’s 

section 7, as described above. In 

addition, the benefits of consultation are 

further minimized because any 

conservation measures that may have 

resulted from consultation are already 

provided through the conservation 

benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and 

its habitat from implementation of the 

Seminole Tribe Wildlife Conservation 

Plan. Additionally, through the already 

beneficial working relationship between 

the Service and the Tribe, the Service 

can provide technical assistance and 

easily communicate as needed to benefit 

the conservation of listed species, 

including the Florida bonneted bat. The 

Service’s working relationship with the 

Tribe will be better maintained if this 

area located on Seminole Tribe of 

Florida lands in proposed Unit 6 is 

excluded from the designation. We view 

this as a substantial benefit since we are 

committed to cooperative relationships 

with Tribes for the mutual benefit of 

endangered and threatened species, 

including the Florida bonneted bat. For 

these reasons, we have determined that 

designation of critical habitat in this 

area would have few, if any, additional 

benefits beyond those that will result 

from the presence of the species. 

In summary, the benefits of including 

Seminole Tribe of Florida lands in 

critical habitat are low and are limited 

to insignificant educational benefits as 

well as the potential for additional 

funding for habitat improvement 

projects. Educational opportunities 

would predominately benefit members 

of the Tribe rather than the general 

public, and even this benefit would be 

minimal because the Tribe is already 

aware of the importance of Florida 

bonneted bat habitat and conservation. 

However, the ability of the Tribe to 

manage natural resources on their land 

without the perception of Federal 

Government intrusion is a significant 

benefit. This philosophy is also 

consistent with our published policies 

on Native American natural resource 

management. In this particular case, 

exclusion from critical habitat is 

consistent with Secretary’s Order 3206, 

Executive Order 13175, and the relevant 

provision of the Departmental Manual 

of the Department of the Interior (512 

DM 2). The exclusion of this area will 

likely also provide additional benefits to 

the species that would not otherwise be 

available, such as ensuring continued 

cooperative working relationships with 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida. We find 

that the benefits of excluding this area 

from critical habitat designation 

outweigh the benefits of including this 

area and that these areas are not 

essential to the conservation of the 

Florida bonneted bat. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

We have determined that exclusion of 

Seminole Tribe of Florida lands will not 

result in extinction of the species. As 

discussed above under Section 7 

Consultation in the Effects of Critical 

Habitat Designation discussion, if a 

Federal action or permitting occurs, the 

known presence of Florida bonneted bat 

would require evaluation under the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the 

Act, even absent the designation of 

critical habitat, and thus will protect the 

species against extinction. Furthermore, 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida has a 

long-term record of conserving species 

and habitat and is committed to 

protecting and managing their Tribal 

lands and species found on those lands 

according to their Tribal and cultural 

management plans and natural resource 

management objectives. In short, the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida is committed 

to greater conservation measures on 

their land than would be available 

through the designation of critical 

habitat. Additionally, the area we are 

excluding (14,455 ac (5,850 ha)) would 

have accounted for approximately 1 

percent of areas we are designating as 

critical habitat. Accordingly, we have 

determined that all 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) 

of Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands 

within Unit 6 of the proposed critical 

habitat designation are excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and will not cause 

the extinction of the species. 

Unit 1 (Kissimmee)—Miccosukee Tribe 

of Florida 

We proposed 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of 

critical habitat in Unit 1 that occurs on 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

This area is considered occupied at the 

time of listing and meets the definition 

of critical habitat. However, the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is 

recognized as a sovereign nation and as 

such is the appropriate entity to manage 

natural resources on Miccosukee Tribal 

lands. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must also consult with the 

Service on actions that may affect a 

listed species, and ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

The difference in the outcomes of the 

jeopardy analysis and the destruction or 

adverse modification analysis represents 

the regulatory benefit and costs of 

critical habitat. Because the species 

occurs in the area, the regulatory 

benefits of a critical habitat designation 

are limited to the difference in 

consultation outcomes between 

avoidance of jeopardy and destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat on the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands of 

proposed Unit 1 could potentially 

benefit the Florida bonneted bat because 

that area provides habitat for the 

species, encompasses features essential 

to conservation of the species, and is 

occupied by the species. However, 

section 7 consultations within the 

proposed critical habitat area are 

anticipated to be rare, due to a general 

lack of Federal actions requiring 

consultations in this area, and we do not 

expect this trend to change in the future 

(IEc 2021a, p. 10). With few section 7 

consultations anticipated, we anticipate 

limited regulatory benefits for the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat in this portion of 

proposed Unit 1. Therefore, we would 

similarly expect limited additional 

conservation benefits through the 

section 7 process from the inclusion of 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands in 

the final critical habitat designation. 

A possible benefit is that the 

designation of critical habitat can serve 

to educate the landowner and public 

regarding the potential conservation 

value of an area, and this may focus and 

contribute to conservation efforts by 

other parties by clearly delineating areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Florida bonneted bat and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

other parties engaged in conservation 

activities, would be considered 

valuable. 

Finally, there is the possible benefit 

that additional funding could be 

generated for habitat improvement by an 

area being designated as critical habitat. 

Some funding sources may rank a 

project higher if the area is designated 

as critical habitat. Tribes often seek 

additional sources of funding in order to 

conduct wildlife-related conservation 

activities. Therefore, having an area 

designated as critical habitat could 

improve the chances of receiving 

funding for Florida bonneted bat 

habitat-related projects. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefits of excluding these Tribal 

lands from designated critical habitat 

are significant. We have determined that 

the primary benefits that would be 

realized by foregoing the designation of 

critical habitat on this area include: (1) 

Our deference to the Tribe as a 

sovereign nation to develop and 

implement conservation and natural 

resource management plans for their 

lands and resources, which may include 

benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and 

its habitat that might not otherwise 

occur; and (2) the continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationship with the Tribe to promote 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and its habitat, as well as other federally 

listed species. We have found that fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources on 

Tribal lands are better managed under 

Tribal authorities, policies, and 

programs than through Federal 

regulations wherever possible and 

practicable. Additionally, this critical 

habitat designation may compromise 

our working relationship with the Tribe, 

which is essential to achieving our 

mutual goals of managing for healthy 

ecosystems upon which the viability of 

populations of endangered and 

threatened species depend. Therefore, 

consistent with our 2016 section 4(b)(2) 

policy, we place great weight on our 

working relationship with the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida and 

determine that it would be better 

maintained if the Tribe’s lands are 

excluded from the designation of critical 

habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. We 

view maintaining our partnership as a 

substantial benefit of exclusion. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The benefits of excluding this area 

from critical habitat include deference 

to the Tribe as a sovereign nation to 

manage its own lands, continuing and 

strengthening our effective working 

relationships with the Tribe, and 

working in collaboration and 

cooperation with the Tribe to promote 

conservation of the Florida bonneted bat 

and its habitat. 

The benefits of including the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida in the 

critical habitat designation are limited 

to the incremental benefits gained 

through the regulatory requirement to 

consult under section 7 and 

consideration of the need to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, agency and educational 

awareness, potential additional grant 

funding, and the implementation of 

other law and regulations. However, due 

to the rarity of Federal actions resulting 

in section 7 consultations within the 

proposed critical habitat area, the 

benefits of a critical habitat designation 

are minimal. The Service’s working 

relationship with the Tribe will be 

better maintained if this area in 

proposed Unit 1 located on Miccosukee 

Tribe of Florida lands is excluded from 

the designation. We view this as a 

substantial benefit since we are 

committed to cooperative relationships 

with Tribes for the mutual benefit of 

endangered and threatened species, 

including the Florida bonneted bat. For 

these reasons, we have determined that 

designation of critical habitat at this site 

would have minimal additional benefits 

beyond those that will result from the 

presence of the species. 

In summary, the benefits of including 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida lands in 

critical habitat are low and are limited 

to insignificant educational benefits and 

the potential for additional funding for 

habitat improvements projects. 

Educational opportunities would 

predominately benefit members of the 

Tribe rather than the general public. 

However, the ability of the Tribe to 

manage natural resources on their land 

without the perception of Federal 

Government intrusion is a significant 

benefit. This philosophy is also 

consistent with our published policies 

on Native American natural resource 

management. In this particular case, 

exclusion from critical habitat is 

consistent with Secretary’s Order 3206, 

Executive Order 13175, and the relevant 

provision of the Departmental Manual 

of the Department of the Interior (512 

DM 2). The exclusion of this area will 

likely also provide additional benefits to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16665 

the species that would not otherwise be 

available, such as ensuring continued 

cooperative working relationships with 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. We 

find that the benefits of excluding this 

area from critical habitat designation 

outweigh the benefits of including this 

area. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

We have determined that exclusion of 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida lands will 

not result in extinction of the species. 

As discussed above under Section 7 

Consultation in the Effects of Critical 

Habitat Designation discussion, if a 

Federal action or permitting occurs, the 

known presence of Florida bonneted bat 

would require evaluation under the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the 

Act, even absent the designation of 

critical habitat, and thus will protect the 

species against extinction. Furthermore, 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida has a 

long-term record of conserving species 

and habitat and is committed to 

protecting and managing their Tribal 

lands and species found on those lands 

according to their Tribal and cultural 

management plans and natural resource 

management objectives. In short, the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is 

committed to greater conservation 

measures on their land than would be 

available through the designation of 

critical habitat. Additionally, the areas 

we are excluding (1.25 ac (0.5 ha)) 

would have accounted for an 

infinitesimal portion of the total area we 

are designating as critical habitat. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

all 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe 

of Florida lands in Unit 1 of the 

proposed critical habitat designation are 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act because the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion and 

will not cause the extinction of the 

species. 

Summary of Exclusions 

As discussed above, based on the 

information provided by entities seeking 

exclusion, as well as any additional 

public comments we received, we 

evaluated whether certain lands in the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Florida bonneted bat were 

appropriate for exclusion from this final 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. We are excluding the 

following areas from critical habitat 

designation for the Florida bonneted 

bat: A total of 104 ac (42 ha) within the 

Coral Reef Commons HCP on-site 

preserve and off-site mitigation area in 

proposed Unit 9; a total of 14,455 ac 

(5,850 ha) of Tribal lands of the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida in proposed 

Unit 6; and a total of 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of 

Tribal lands of the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Florida land in proposed Unit 1. 

TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE FLORIDA

BONNETED BAT

Unit Specific area 

Areas meeting 

the definition 

of critical 

habitat, in 

acres 

(hectares) 

Areas 

excluded, in 

acres 

(hectares) 

Unit 1: Kissimmee ........................................................ Miccosukee Tribe of Florida ......................................... 1.25 (0.5) 1.25 (0.5) 

Unit 6: Big Cypress ...................................................... Seminole Tribe of Florida ............................................. 14,455 (5,850) 14,455 (5,850) 

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands .............................................. Coral Reef Commons ................................................... 104 (42) 104 (42) 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. E.O. 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA in 

OMB waived E.O. 12866 review of this 

rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and 

following recent court decisions, 

Federal agencies are required to 

evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. The RFA does not 

require evaluation of the potential 

impacts to entities not directly 

regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies 

are not small entities. Therefore, 

because no small entities will be 

directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

we certify that this critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

During the development of this final 

rule, we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment periods on the June 10, 2020, 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

35510) and the November 22, 2022, 

revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466) 

that may pertain to our consideration of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts of this critical habitat 

designation. Based on this information, 

we affirm our certification that this 

critical habitat designation will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this critical habitat designation will 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. As most of the area 

included in this final critical habitat 

designation occurs on conservation 

lands (approximately 91 percent), the 

likelihood of energy development 

within critical habitat is low. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or more (adjusted annually for 

inflation) in any year; that is, it is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. 

Additionally, 91 percent of the areas 

within critical habitat units for the 

Florida bonneted bat are already 

managed for natural resource 

conservation. Further, 9 percent of the 

designated critical habitat for the 

Florida bonneted bat overlaps with 

designated critical habitat for cooccurring federally listed species, which 

means that any actions with a Federal 

nexus proposed in those areas are 

already subject to the requirements of 

section 7 of the Act. Consequently, we 

do not believe that this critical habitat 

designation will significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Therefore, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for Florida 

bonneted bat in a takings implications 

assessment. The Act does not authorize 

us to regulate private actions on private 

lands or confiscate private property as a 

result of critical habitat designation. 

Designation of critical habitat does not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16667 

affect land ownership, or establish any 

closures, or restrictions on use of or 

access to the designated areas. 

Furthermore, the designation of critical 

habitat does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. However, Federal agencies are 

prohibited from carrying out, funding, 

or authorizing actions that would 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Florida bonneted 

bat does not pose significant takings 

implications for lands within or affected 

by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this critical 

habitat designation with, appropriate 

State resource agencies. From a 

federalism perspective, the designation 

of critical habitat directly affects only 

the responsibilities of Federal agencies. 

The Act imposes no other duties with 

respect to critical habitat, either for 

States and local governments, or for 

anyone else. As a result, this final rule 

does not have substantial direct effects 

either on the States, or on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be 

required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule will not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this final rule 

identifies the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The designated areas of 

critical habitat are presented on maps, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor, and 

you are not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations. In a line of cases 

starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 

48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts 

have upheld this position. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

are the main Tribes whose lands and 

trust resources may be affected by this 

rule. There may be some other Tribes 

with trust resources in the area, but we 

have no specific documentation of this 

and have not received information with 

respect to other potential Tribes within 

the designation area. We briefed both 

Tribes on the development of the 

proposed critical habitat designation in 

October 2019. We provided notice of the 

publication of the June 10, 2020, 

proposed rule and the availability of the 

DEA to both Tribes in June 2020, and 

we provided notice of the publication of 

the November 22, 2022, revised 

proposed rule and the availability of the 

revised DEA to both Tribes in November 

2022, to allow for the maximum time to 

submit comments. In these notifications, 

we also described the exclusion process 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 

offered to engage in further 

conversation. We offered both the 

Seminole Tribe and the Miccosukee 

Tribe opportunities for further 

conversation about the proposed and 

revised proposed critical habitat 

designations. We met with the 

Miccosukee Tribe to discuss the June 

10, 2020, proposed critical habitat 

designation, but they did not request 

further conversation on the November 

22, 2022, revised proposed critical 

habitat designation. We met with the 

Seminole Tribe in July 2020 and July 

2021 to discuss the proposed critical 

habitat designation, and then again in 

December 2022 to discuss the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Neither Tribe requested Government-toGovernment consultations. We 

considered these Tribal lands for 

exclusion from this final critical habitat 

designation to the extent consistent with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and, subsequently, excluded the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

lands from this final designation. After 

considering impacts of the critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, we are excluding 

approximately 14,457 ac (5,850 ha) of 

Tribal land from the final critical habitat 

designation (14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of 

Seminole Tribe of Florida lands and 

1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida lands; see Tribal 

Lands under Exclusions Based on Other 

Relevant Impacts, above). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by revising the entry for ‘‘Bat, 

Florida bonneted’’ under MAMMALS to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Mammals 

*******

Bat, Florida bonneted ......................... Eumops floridanus ............... Wherever found ............ E 78 FR 61004, 10/2/2013; 50 CFR 

17.95(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Florida Bonneted 

Bat (Eumops floridanus)’’ before the 

entry for ‘‘Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

(a) Mammals. 

Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops 

floridanus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, 

Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, MiamiDade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Osceola, 

and Polk Counties, Florida, on the maps 

in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Florida bonneted bat 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Habitats with sufficient darkness 

that provide for roosting and rearing of 

offspring. Such habitat provides 

structural features for rest, digestion of 

food, social interaction, mating, rearing 

of young, protection from sunlight and 

adverse weather conditions, and cover 

to reduce predation risks for adults and 

young, and is generally characterized 

by: 

(A) Live or dead trees and tree snags, 

especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald 

cypress, and royal palm, that are 

sufficiently large (in diameter) and tall 

and have cavities of a sufficient size for 

roosts; and 

(B) Live or dead trees and tree snags 

with sufficient cavity height, spacing 

from adjacent trees, and relative canopy 

height to provide unobstructed space for 

Florida bonneted bats to emerge from 

roost trees; this may include open or 

semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. 

(ii) Habitats that provide adequate 

prey and space for foraging, which may 

vary widely across the Florida bonneted 

bat’s range, in accordance with 

ecological conditions, seasons, and 

disturbance regimes that influence 

vegetation structure and prey species’ 

distributions. Foraging habitat may be 

separate and relatively far from roosting 

habitat. Essential foraging habitat 

consists of sufficiently dark open areas 

in or near areas of high insect 

production or congregation, commonly 

including, but not limited to: 

(A) Freshwater edges, and freshwater 

herbaceous wetlands (permanent or 

seasonal); 

(B) Prairies; 

(C) Wetland and upland shrub; and/ 

or 

(D) Wetland and upland forests. 

(iii) A dynamic disturbance regime 

(e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest 

management) that maintains and 

regenerates forested habitat, including 

plant communities, open habitat 

structure, and temporary gaps, which is 

conducive to promoting a continual 

supply of roosting sites, prey items, and 

suitable foraging conditions. 

(iv) A sufficient quantity and diversity 

of habitats to enable the species to be 

resilient to short-term impacts 

associated with disturbance over time 

(e.g., drought, forest disease). The 

ecological communities the Florida 

bonneted bat inhabits differ in 

hydrology, fire frequency/intensity, 

climate, prey species, roosting sites, and 

threats, and include, but are not limited 

to: 

(A) Pine rocklands; 

(B) Cypress communities (cypress 

swamps, strand swamps, domes, 

sloughs, ponds); 

(C) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet 

flatwoods); 

(D) Mesic pine flatwoods; and 

(E) High pine. 

(v) Habitats that provide structural 

connectivity where needed to allow for 

dispersal, gene flow, and natural and 

adaptive movements, including those 

that may be necessitated by climate 

change. These connections may include 

linear corridors such as vegetated, 

riverine, or open-water habitat with 

opportunities for roosting and/or 

foraging, or patches (i.e., stepping 

stones) such as tree islands or other 

isolated natural areas within a matrix of 

otherwise low-quality habitat. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16669 

(vi) A subtropical climate that 

provides tolerable conditions for the 

species such that normal behavior, 

successful reproduction, and rearing of 

offspring are possible. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas) and the land on 

which they are located existing within 

the legal boundaries on April 8, 2024. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using ESRI ArcGIS 

mapping software along with various 

spatial data layers. ArcGIS was also 

used to calculate the size of habitat 

areas. The projection used in mapping 

and calculating distances and locations 

within the units was World Geodetic 

System 1984, Universal Transverse 

Mercator Zone 17 North. The maps in 

this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106, the 

Florida bonneted bat species web page 

at https://www.fws.gov/species/floridabonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus, and at 

the field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

Figure 1 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) Paragraph (5) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
16670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; Polk, 

Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee 

Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 1 encompasses 175,735 acres 

(ac) (71,118 hectares (ha)) of lands in 

Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and 

Okeechobee Counties, Florida. This unit 

consists of two subunits generally 

located along the eastern bank of Lake 

Kissimmee northeast to SR–192, north 

of SR–60; and along portions of the 

Kissimmee River, south of SR–60. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 

Figure 2 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (6)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.000</GPH>

Index Map of Critical Habitat Units for 

Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus), Florida 

Gulf of 

Mexico 

Atlantic 

Ocean 

1111 Critical Habitat 

0 20 40 60 80 Kilometer& 

I l l l I 

0 20 40 60 80 Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16671 

(7) Unit 2: Peace River Unit; Hardee, 

DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac 

(11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee, DeSoto, 

and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This 

unit consists of four subunits located 

along portions of the Peace River and its 

tributaries (e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie 

Creek), south of CR–64 with the 

majority west of U.S.–17. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 

Figure 3 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (7)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.001</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit, 

Polk, Osceola, Highlands and Okeechobee Counties, Florida 

BREVARD 

POLK 

~ 1B INDIAN RIVER 

HIGHLANDS 

OKEECHOBEE 

~ Critical Habitat 

0 5 10 15 20 Kilometers 

D 5 10 15 2D Miles 
16672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 3: Babcock Unit; Charlotte, 

Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 3 encompasses 134,677 ac 

(54,502 ha) of lands in Charlotte, Lee, 

and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit 

consists of two subunits, with the 

majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte 

County, east of I–75; other portions are 

in northern Lee and western Glades 

Counties. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows: 

Figure 4 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (8)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.002</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 2: Peace River Unit, 

Hardee, DeSoto and Charlotte Counties, Florida 

SARASOTA DESOTO 

CHARLOTTE 

1111 Critical Habitat 

0 5 10 15 KIiometers 

0 5 10 15 Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16673 

(9) Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit; 

Glades and Highlands Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac 

(5,259 ha) of lands in Glades and 

Highlands Counties, Florida. The 

majority of Unit 4 is located in Glades 

County, west of U.S.–27; the remainder 

of the unit extends north into southern 

Highlands County. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 

Figure 5 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (9)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.003</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops fioridanus) 

Unit 3: Babcock Unit, 

Charlotte, Glades and Lee Counties, Florida 

CHARLOTTE 

- Critical Habttat 

O 2.5 5 7.5 10 Kilomeler& 

HENDRY 
16674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit; Lee and 

Collier Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac 

(19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and Collier 

Counties, Florida. This unit straddles 

the Lee/Collier county line, east of I–75. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: 

Figure 6 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (10)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.004</GPH>

DESOTO 

CHARLOTTE 

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit, 

Glades and Highlands Counties, Florida 

HIGHLANDS 

- Critical Habitat 

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 Kilometers 

0 1.6 4.6 6 Miles-
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16675 

(11) Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit; Collier, 

Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 6 encompasses 714,085 ac 

(288,980 ha) of lands in Collier, Hendry, 

and Monroe Counties, Florida. The 

majority of Unit 6 is located in Collier 

County, south of I–75; the remainder of 

the unit occurs in southern Hendry 

County and mainland portions of 

Monroe County. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: 

Figure 7 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (11)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.005</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit, 

Bonita 

Springs 

7 

Lee and Collier Counties, Florida 

HENDRY 

LEE 

COLLIER 

1111 Critical Habitat 

O 2 4 6 8 KIiometers 

0 2 4 6 8 Miles 

29 
16676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(12) Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands 

Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

(i) Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac 

(6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail 

and west of Krome Avenue. 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: 

Figure 8 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (12)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.006</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit, 

Collier, Hendry and Monroe Counties, Florida 

PALM BEACH 

HENDRY 

COLLIER 

BROWARD 

Gulf of Mexico MONROE MIAMI-DADE 

Ill Critical Habitat 

Florida 

t 

0 5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers 

0 5 10 15 20 25Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16677 

(13) Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit; 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

(i) Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac 

(10,253 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, along Main Park Road 

(SR–9336) between Mahogany 

Hammock and SW 237th Avenue. 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.007</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

MIAMI-DADE 

Tamiami Trail 

~ Critical Habitat 

0 2 4 6 Kilometers 

0 2 4 6 Miles 
16678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Figure 9 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (13)(ii) 

(14) Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit; 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

(i) Unit 9 encompasses 4,281 ac (1,732 

ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. This unit consists of 36 

subunits located between Tamiami Trail 

to the north and SR–9336 to the south, 

and is surrounded by a dense urban 

matrix typical of the Miami 

metropolitan area. 

(ii) Maps of Unit 9 follow: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.008</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

MIAMI-DADE 

,, MONROE ,. 

1111 Critical Habitat 

0 2 4 6 Kilometers 

0 2 4 6Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16679 

Figure 10 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.009</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops tlorldanus) 

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit (northern portion). 

NKendalDr 

-

9M r 

9N 

Miami-Dade County. Florida 

CoralReef 

Manlic 

Ocean 

- Clfflcal Habitat 

I 

0 

t 

0 1 2 3 Klclneters 

I I I I 

I 

1 

I 

2 

I 

3111es 
16680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Figure 11 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.010</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit (central portion), 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

SW232nd St 

..... -N 

..... 

.... 

~ 

(1) 

~ 

-.I 

LJL-l-1-+--E--+--1~-i ~J 

1111 Critical Habitat 

0 2 3 Kilometers 

0 2 3Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 16681 

Figure 12 to Florida Bonneted Bat 

(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii) 

* * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

3–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER07MR24.011</GPH>

Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus) 

Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit (southern portion), 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

I 9AA 

SW304 St 

~ B' ... 3 co (1) 

;t 

:::,- r ~ (1) 

(1) 

~9BB 

(J) • 

~ 

1') 

0 

""";"gee en ~ :;E C. 

~ CD 

st (1) 

~ (1) 

90D 

SW 344thSt 

9Il-~ 9EE I 

9FF 

~ Critical Habitat 

0 0.5 1.5 Kilometers 

0 0.5 1.5Miles 

(I) 

0 

C 

5' 

g 

25. 

(1) 

J