Rule2024-04053
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 7, 2024
Effective
April 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 46 (Thursday, March 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16624-16681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04053]
[[Page 16623]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 46
March 7, 2024
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16624]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BE10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total,
approximately 1,160,625 acres (469,688 hectares) in 13 Florida counties
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This
rule extends the Act's protections to this species' critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and <a href="https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus">https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus</a>. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2019-0106.
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used
in preparing this rule are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus">https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus</a>, and at the
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone (352) 749-2462. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we are
required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be
completed by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule designates critical habitat for
the Florida bonneted bat. The designation includes approximately
1,160,625 acres (ac) (469,688 hectares (ha)) in portions of 13 Florida
counties.
The basis for our action. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the Florida bonneted bat's final listing rule (78
FR 61004; October 2, 2013), proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510; June 10, 2020), and revised proposed critical habitat rule (87
FR 71466; November 22, 2022) for a detailed description of previous
Federal actions concerning this species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the proposed critical habitat
rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020). We sent the proposed rule to six
independent peer reviewers and received two responses. Following the
public comment period for the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466;
November 22, 2022), we sent the revised proposed rule to five
independent peer reviewers and received one response. The peer reviews
can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106: (1) A table entitled, ``Conservation Lands Within Florida
Bonneted Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation,'' (2) coordinates from
which the final critical habitat maps are generated, (3) a list of
literature cited in this final rule, (4) the peer reviews of the
revised proposed rule and the accompanying conflict of interest forms,
and (5) a table of requested additions to the proposed and revised
proposed critical habitat designations and the outcome of our
evaluation for each area.
In this rule, we make many small, nonsubstantive changes and
corrections (e.g., updating the discussion under Background, below, in
response to comments and making minor clarifications) that do not
affect the designation. We also make several minor updates to the
biological information for and habitat use by the Florida bonneted bat
based on new and updated information. Specifically, we update
measurements of roost characteristics, add detail on foraging areas and
insects associated with agricultural crops, add information about the
Florida bonneted bat's use of
[[Page 16625]]
seasonally inundated forested wetlands, and add new information about
the species' breeding and resource defense. In addition, we update
citations supporting existing statements as needed. The following items
describe changes made between the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466;
November 22, 2022) and this final rule:
(1) In Cover or Shelter, under Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, below, we update roost
habitat characteristics and roost measurements, including both averages
and ranges in our description, and we clarify the role of artificial
roosts in Florida bonneted bat habitat.
(2) In Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements, under Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, below, we add information
on the influence of artificial lighting on Florida bonneted bat
habitat.
(3) In both the Summary of Essential Physical or Biological
Features, under Physical or Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of the Species, and in the rule portion of this document,
below, we modified the first and second physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat to include
sufficient darkness as a habitat feature, and we modified the first
physical or biological feature to qualitatively characterize roosting
habitat.
(4) Under Special Management Considerations or Protection, below,
we update estimates of the critical habitat area to be affected by sea
level rise or converted to developed land by 2070 based on the areas
included within this final critical habitat designation, and we add a
discussion under the heading Ecological Light Pollution to align with
the changes we make to the physical or biological features noted in (2)
and (3), above, regarding artificial lighting and sufficient darkness.
(5) Under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below, we adjust the
boundaries of Subunits 3B, 9M, 9N, and 9O to include a total of an
additional 1,179 ac (477 ha). Subunit 3B now includes an additional
1,118 ac (452 ha) of lands primarily owned by Lee County, based on a
peer review comment and to ensure we are designating the specific areas
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. Subunit 9M includes an
additional 10 ac (4 ha) of lands owned by Miami-Dade County, based on a
request from Miami-Dade County and new information indicating these
areas have the essential physical or biological features. Subunit 9N
includes an additional 10 ac (4 ha) of lands primarily owned by the
State of Florida and managed by Miami-Dade County, based on a request
from Miami-Dade County and new information indicating this area also
contains the essential physical or biological features. Subunit 9O
includes an additional 42 ac (17 ha) of lands primarily owned by Miami-
Dade County (38 ac (15 ha)) and the U.S. Coast Guard (4 ac (2 ha)),
based on new information indicating this area also contains the
essential physical or biological features.
(6) Under Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard,
below, we add excessive alteration of natural lighting as an action
that would significantly reduce habitat suitability or impact the prey
base for the Florida bonneted bat in the list of activities that we
may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
(7) We exclude the Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) on-site preserve and off-site mitigation areas in Subunit 9O from
this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
the provisions of the HCP. This amounts to a decrease of approximately
104 ac (42 ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
(8) We exclude Tribal lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida in
Unit 6. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 14,455 ac (5,850
ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
(9) We exclude Tribal lands of the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida in
Subunit 1B. This amounts to a decrease of approximately 1.25 ac (0.5
ha) from the critical habitat areas we proposed.
(10) We apply updated information on parcel boundaries and parcel
ownership that we obtained from counties, which changed some of the
areas of critical habitat by land ownership category from what we
presented in table 1 in the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466,
November 22, 2022, p. 71475; see table 1 under Final Critical Habitat
Designation, below, for comparison). However, the total area of
critical habitat in Units 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are the same as we
proposed. The total area has only substantially changed for those units
where exclusions or boundary adjustments were applied, as noted above
in (5), (7), (8), and (9).
(11) Because of the above boundary adjustments and exclusions, in
this rule, we revise the index map and maps for Units 1, 3, 6, and 9A-
9O in the rule portion of this document.
Beyond those changes, this critical habitat designation is
unchanged from what we proposed on November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71466).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested that all interested parties submit written comments on
the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510; June 10, 2020) and on
the revised proposed critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22,
2022) for the Florida bonneted bat. The comment period for the proposed
critical habitat rule closed on August 10, 2020; the comment period for
the revised proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 23, 2023.
For the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510; June 10,
2020), we contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposal. For the revised proposed
critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022), we again
contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal. In the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed rule, we stated that any comments we received in response to
the June 10, 2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they would
be fully considered in this final rule.
For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, newspaper notices inviting
general public comment were published in the Orlando Sentinel, Ft.
Myers News-Press, Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Miami Herald newspapers
on June 9, 2020. For the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, a
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the
Miami Herald newspaper on November 28, 2022.
For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we did not receive any
requests for a public hearing, but we held public informational
webinars on June 16 and 17, 2020. For the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed rule, we did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Because of the comprehensive changes we made to the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, some
substantive comments and information we received during the comment
period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule no longer apply, and we do
not address them below. All other substantive information we received
during both comment periods has either been
[[Page 16626]]
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.
During the comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we
received approximately 1,900 written comment letters on the proposed
critical habitat designation or the draft economic analysis (DEA) and
supplemental memo (IEc 2020a, b, entire). During the comment period on
the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we received an additional
41 comment letters on the revised proposed critical habitat designation
or the DEA and supplemental memo (IEc 2021a, b, entire). During the
comment period on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we also
received four requests for exclusion of areas that were not identified
as being considered for exclusion in the proposed rule or the revised
proposed rule. We reviewed each exclusion request, whether received in
response to the proposed or revised proposed rule, to determine if the
requester provided information or a reasoned rationale to initiate an
analysis of exclusion or support an exclusion (see Policy Regarding
Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (81 FR
7226; February 11, 2016), hereafter referred to as our 2016 section
4(b)(2) policy). All substantive information provided to us during both
comment periods has been incorporated directly into this final
determination or, in the case of substantive information regarding the
DEA received during the comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed
rule, was used to revise the economic analysis and supplemental memo
(IEc 2021a, b, entire) between the June 10, 2020, proposed and November
22, 2022, revised proposed rules.
Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two
peer reviewers on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule and one peer
reviewer on the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule. We reviewed
all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues
and new information regarding the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat
use and needs. The peer reviewers provided critiques of our methods but
generally concurred with our designation of critical habitat and
conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the designation. Our revised proposed critical
habitat rule (87 FR 71466; November 22, 2022) was developed in part to
address some of the critiques and information raised by the peer
reviewers in 2020. The additional details and information we received
or that were raised by the peer reviewers have been incorporated into
this final rule, as appropriate. Peer review comments are addressed in
the following summary.
(1) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed critical
habitat rule (85 FR 35510) and the November 22, 2022, revised proposed
critical habitat rule (87 FR 71466), we received peer review and public
comments requesting that we consider adding 71 areas to the critical
habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat. Specific additions
were recommended with supporting information, including information
regarding habitat and evidence of use by the Florida bonneted bat.
Commenters also stated their views that the critical habitat areas
included in the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised
proposed designations were not sufficient to ensure long-term
conservation of the species in light of future threats, such as climate
change and urbanization, and that unoccupied habitat should be
reexamined for inclusion.
Our Response: In preparing this final designation, we evaluated all
requests for the addition of specified areas (see ``Areas Requested for
Addition to Florida Bonneted Bat Critical Habitat'' under Supporting
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). In the November 22, 2022, revised proposed
designation, we included 24 additions requested in response to the June
10, 2020, proposed rule that resulted from our development of new
critical habitat criteria and analysis of physical or biological
features that are essential to the Florida bonneted bat, which guided a
new delineation of revised critical habitat units. Of those areas not
included in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, we determined
that four meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat, and we include these areas in this final designation as
reflected in boundary changes made to four subunits (Subunits 3B, 9M,
9N, and 9O; see Final Critical Habitat Designation, below). The
remaining areas, including identified golf courses, parks, and heavily
fragmented areas, are not included in this final designation. While we
agree that such areas can be important to the species and are
considered in recovery and regulatory processes, our evaluation
indicated the identified areas did not meet our criteria for
designating critical habitat.
A critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside
the designated area is unimportant or should not be managed or
conserved for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) section 9 of
the Act, which prohibits taking any individual of the species,
including taking caused by actions that affect habitat; and (3)
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2)
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure that actions that they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Thus,
Federal agencies must consult with the Service even if actions they
authorize, fund or carry out are conducted outside of designated
critical habitat if those activities may affect listed species.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are designating
critical habitat in specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. We acknowledge that a variety of roosting and foraging
habitats are important to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
However, a critical habitat designation identifies the habitat areas
essential to the species; it is not necessary to include in the
designation all areas that can be occupied by the species or where the
species has been detected. We may designate critical habitat that is
outside the geographical area occupied by the species if we determine
it to be essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly,
during the development of our November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule,
we evaluated areas both within and outside the species' current range
to identify those areas that have the essential physical or biological
features we established for inclusion in critical habitat. We then
evaluated whether the areas considered to be occupied are sufficient to
ensure conservation of the species. Based on our determination that the
occupied units included in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule
represent the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to
the species, we determined unoccupied areas are not essential for the
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. However, this designation
does include areas in the northern extremes of the species'
[[Page 16627]]
current range that, while currently occupied, may become of much higher
value to the species as the climate changes (see description of Unit 1
under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below).
(2) Comment: Peer reviewers recommended acknowledging the important
role artificial roosts play in Florida bonneted bat conservation and
recovery, and they suggested including artificial roosts (e.g., bat
houses, bat boxes) in the species' essential physical or biological
features and our habitat analysis.
Our Response: Physical or biological features are features that
support the species' life-history needs, such as reproduction. Roosting
habitat is essential to Florida bonneted bats to provide shelter and
support reproduction, socialization, and other natural behaviors. While
artificial roosts can provide alternative, long-term, and hurricane-
resilient roosting habitat for the species where roosting habitat is
limited, they are an imperfect surrogate for natural roosting habitat
and are not on their own a habitat feature essential for the species'
survival (see Cover or Shelter, below, for additional details). It is
also for this reason that we do not include roost measurements of
artificial or supplemental roosts in our description of roosting
habitat, although available locations of artificial roosts are included
in the presence dataset used for our habitat analysis (see ``Florida
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis'' under Supporting and Related Material
in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>).
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>) did not specifically
inform our consideration of urban areas as part of our revised proposed
critical habitat methodology or delineation. The MaxEnt model that we
used in our analysis did not identify the amount of urbanization as a
habitat-related variable having strong influence on the probability of
Florida bonneted bat occurrence. Thus, no urbanization covariate was
incorporated in our model output or analysis results, and we have no
model-related results to estimate its correlation (positive or
negative) with Florida bonneted bat occupancy or the relative
conservation value of these areas.
In addition, model covariate layers representing high-quality
foraging habitat include certain natural areas within the urban matrix
based on our evaluation of land cover type characteristics; thus, we
did not assume a broad negative association between foraging habitat
quality and urbanization. We acknowledge that choice of scale typically
impacts the results of any spatial analysis and that the influence and
association of urban areas with Florida bonneted bat occurrence and
habitat suitability may differ from our MaxEnt results if a different
scale (i.e., grid cell size) is
[[Page 16628]]
used. Based on the attributes of the available covariate data, as well
as on available sample size, we identified our grid cell size using the
best available data on Florida bonneted bat biology and habitat use at
the time of analysis (see ``Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis''
under Supporting and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106
on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>).
Given acknowledged limitations of the habitat analysis, additional
criteria were applied to identify areas containing the essential
physical or biological features and delineate critical habitat (see
Selection Criteria and Methodology Used to Identify Critical Habitat,
below), including in urban areas.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public commenters stated
their views that habitat is a three-dimensional concept, and therefore
the airspace above the substrate, where the Florida bonneted bat
forages and socializes, is essential to the conservation of the
species. The peer reviewer also mentioned that because this three-
dimensional habitat approach has been used in critical habitat for
aquatic and fossorial species, the same approach should be applied to
the Florida bonneted bat as a flying species. Some commenters
suggested, citing Diehl et al. 2017 and other studies, that airspace
above disturbed areas, including over paved surfaces, is vital habitat
and heavily used by the species in some areas.
Our Response: We agree that airspace is important to this species.
``Open areas,'' as described in the second essential physical or
biological feature for the Florida bonneted bat, include the ground,
water, vegetation, and air where the Florida bonneted bat forages and
socializes above those surfaces; thereby, the air above the surfaces
where the Florida bonneted bat forages and socializes is included in
the open areas described in in the essential physical or biological
features for the species. Since the species' listing, consultations
have considered the species' use of habitat in three dimensions, and
the evaluation of impacts to Florida bonneted bat habitat addressed in
the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines also considers habitat
use in three dimensions (see Supporting and Related Material in Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>).
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public commenters
expressed concerns regarding policy and language in the proposed rule
that states that critical habitat does not include lands covered by
buildings, pavement, and other structures (see paragraph (3) in the
proposed rule text for the Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat
designation at 85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020, p. 35539). Commenters stated
their views that excluding these areas is arbitrary and unsupported by
the best data available on the Florida bonneted bat, and thus these
areas are inappropriately omitted from the critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: The Florida bonneted bat may roost in buildings and
forage above human-made structures, but critical habitat is not
intended to include all areas and locations that the species uses.
While certain human-made structures and the lands on which they are
located are not included in the designated critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat, impacts to bats using these areas may still be
considered during consultations for effects to the species.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that live oaks (Quercus
virginiana) be included in the Cover or Shelter discussion as a
potential roost tree species. The reviewer mentioned that a non-volant
(flightless) pup was found below bisected tree cavity in a live oak,
providing evidence that the Florida bonneted bat will roost in live oak
trees. The peer reviewer also noted that the rule should acknowledge
live oak as a potential roost tree species considering mature trees of
this species with cavities are plentiful near known Florida bonneted
bat foraging areas.
Our Response: Known natural roosts with Florida bonneted bat
colonies have been documented in slash pine (Pinus elliottii), longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and royal
palm (Roystonea regia) (see Cover or Shelter, below). All trees of
appropriate size, regardless of species, are considered to be possible
roost trees when project areas are evaluated and surveyed for
consultations. While no tree species is omitted from consideration
under the Florida bonneted bat's essential physical or biological
feature describing roosting habitat, we do not have the information
needed to specifically identify live oak trees as a species in which
roosts with Florida bonneted bat colonies have repeatedly been
observed.
Federal Agency Comments
(7) Comment: Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Miami-Dade County recommended that conservation plans and additional
conservation measures for the Florida bonneted bat be included either
as part of the final rule or shared with Federal and local governments
outside of the rulemaking process. Other suggestions included that the
Service provide funding for land acquisition, incentives for limiting
pesticide use, guidance regarding bat-friendly lighting and exclusions,
and outreach materials.
Our Response: We appreciate our partners' support for conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat and interest in specific and additional
ways to conserve the species and its habitat. While critical habitat is
one tool that supports conservation of the species, providing
additional or specific conservation recommendations or funding
conservation is not within the scope of a critical habitat designation.
Additional discussion of conservation actions can be found in the
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy and the Florida Bonneted Bat
Consultation Guidelines (see Supporting and Related Material in Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>) and will be
more fully addressed in the species' recovery plan. For further
coordination on development of conservation plans related to the
Florida bonneted bat or other listed species, please contact the
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
(8) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that private lands enrolled in
the Wetland Reserve Easement Partnership Program (WREPP, formerly the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)) and lands within the Picayune Strand
Restoration Project be excluded from critical habitat designation. They
suggested that exclusion should be considered on an economic basis for
both areas of land and, for lands enrolled in WREPP, that exclusion
should also be considered due to the conservation benefits associated
with the program.
Our Response: We listed this exclusion request in table 2 in the
Exclusion Requests Received During the Previous Public Comment Period
section of the revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022,
p. 71481). In this final rule, we do not conduct an analysis of these
lands to determine whether the benefits of potentially excluding any
specific area from this critical habitat designation outweigh the
benefits of including that area in the designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Under our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, we may
choose to exclude proposed critical habitat if there is a signed
conservation plan or program that provides for the necessary long-term
conservation and management of habitat for a species and an analysis
has determined that the benefits of
[[Page 16629]]
excluding outweigh the benefits of including the area in critical
habitat.
This comment was received in the context of the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule, and the WREPP lands that were requested for exclusion
(Wolf Island) were in Unit 1 of the proposed designation. Under the
revised physical or biological features proposed in the November 22,
2022, revised proposed rule, those WREPP lands no longer meet the
definition of critical habitat.
However, in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed designation,
there were other WREPP lands that overlapped with our revised proposed
critical habitat units, consisting of 387 ac (157 ha) in Subunit 2A.
Because of this, we extrapolated the logic of the initial request to
exclude WREPP lands, and we considered this initial request to also
apply to WREPP lands in the revised proposal, although we did not
receive a comment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting that
we consider these other WREPP lands for exclusion. However, we did not
conduct an analysis considering the benefits of excluding WREPP lands
covered by a non-permitted voluntary conservation plan because the
initial request did not provide information on the benefits of
exclusion that would be needed to weigh the potential benefits of
excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation against
including them in the designation. Further, we did not receive any
other comments about this request. Additionally, it is our
understanding that the conservation in agreements under the WREPP
program is highly variable among landowners, and no landowner for these
WREPP lands provided information or comment on either the June 10,
2020, proposed or November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule. Similarly,
we do not conduct an exclusion analysis based on economic impacts for
either WREPP lands or lands within the Picayune Strand Restoration
Project (consisting of 64,490 ac (26,098 ha) in Unit 6) because the
commenter described an economic burden that is purely associated with
listing, and they did not describe any additional anticipated project
modifications or costs anticipated to result from the designation of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
State Comments
(9) Comment: Two State agencies (the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and Florida Farm Bureau) and other commenters
recommended that the Service provide assurances that the critical
habitat designation would not negatively affect a land manager's or
private landowner's ability to implement resource management activities
(e.g., prescribed fire, invasive species management, grazing, tree
harvesting) or recreational activities (e.g., hunting, off road vehicle
use) within critical habitat, and that it will not add regulatory
burden. Further, commenters recommended that the Service identify which
activities are likely to require (or not require) consultation with the
Service and clarify the project modifications that would be needed to
avoid adverse effects to or the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
Our Response: The purpose of the designation of critical habitat is
to identify those areas critical to the conservation of the species,
not to impede resource or habitat management. Section 7(a)(2) states
that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the
Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its
action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect
listed species or critical habitat. To help Federal and State agencies
and members of the public recognize the actions considered to have
potential effects on designated critical habitat, we generally identify
those types of actions that could potentially result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat (see Application of
the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard, below). The actual effects of a
proposed action on designated critical habitat are dependent on many
project-specific factors related to both the action being proposed and
the project area. Therefore, we cannot determine or provide specific
thresholds for adverse effects or adverse modification within this
rule. Determination of adverse effects or adverse modification is
conducted through the section 7 process, during which specific factors
of the proposed action and conditions within the project area can be
evaluated. This consultation requirement under section 7 is not a
prohibition of otherwise lawful actions; rather, it is a means by which
they may proceed in a manner that avoids destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Even in areas absent designated
critical habitat, if the action may affect a listed species,
consultation is still required to ensure the action is not likely to
jeopardize the species. There is not expected to be any difference
between a jeopardy analysis (on the species) and an adverse
modification analysis (on the species' critical habitat) conducted as
part of the consultation because threats to the Florida bonneted bat
are largely habitat-related and all critical habitat units are
occupied.
Additionally, there are opportunities for collaboration and
cooperation with our partners to develop conservation strategies,
conservation plans, and programmatic consultations to streamline
regulatory procedures and compliance and to benefit listed species.
Public Comments
(10) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter requested clarification
regarding how all peer review, public comments, and new information
provided in response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule were
considered in our revised proposed designation process. They also asked
what changes were made from the proposed rule to the revised proposed
designation and reasons for those changes.
Our Response: All peer review, public comments, and new information
we received on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule were thoroughly
reviewed and considered in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed
designation. Based on this review, we determined that changes were
needed to the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat and the criteria and
methodology used to identify those specific areas that constitute
critical habitat for the species (see New Information and Revisions to
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat at 87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022,
p. 71469). To sufficiently address comments we received and incorporate
new information, we comprehensively rewrote the proposed designation
based on the development of a conservation strategy and corresponding
critical habitat criteria, a new habitat analysis, and new essential
physical or biological features, all based on the best available
science. Given the significant and substantive changes we made in
identifying the essential physical or biological features and,
accordingly, the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Florida bonneted bat, we determined it was necessary to revise the
proposal and provide for notice and comment; therefore, we published
the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466). In this
final rule, we are providing responses to peer review and public
comments we received on both the June 10, 2020, proposed and November
22, 2022, revised proposed rules, and, where appropriate, we have noted
how our November 22, 2022,
[[Page 16630]]
revised proposed designation addressed comments on the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule.
(11) Comment: One commenter stated their view that the November 22,
2022, revised proposed rule explains how genetic diversity, geographic
extent, and ecological diversity were incorporated in the revised
proposed critical habitat designation, but it does not show that the
designation is sufficient to achieve resiliency, redundancy, and
representation.
Our Response: To determine and select appropriate areas, we
incorporated information from the conservation strategy for the species
(see ``Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy'' under Supporting
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>), 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>), we recognize that the majority of
acoustic data were collected during pre-development surveys and thus
may exhibit a certain level of habitat bias based on project locations
(but not due to survey protocol, as agricultural areas are included in
potential foraging habitat to be surveyed (see ``Florida Bonneted Bat
Consultation Guidelines'' under Supporting and Related Material in
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106
[[Page 16631]]
on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>)). 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). Many land cover types, including most
agricultural types, were classified as high-quality foraging habitat
(based on prey production); cover types we associated with lower prey
production consisted of saltwater/saline habitats, highly manicured
areas (e.g., lawns), and unvegetated cover types. Of those cover types
classified as high-quality foraging, all having an open habitat
structure were classified as high-quality open foraging habitat. These
classifications were then used to develop model covariate layers to
investigate their potential influence on Florida bonneted bat
occurrence. The MaxEnt model that we used in our analysis does not
identify the amount of high-quality or high-quality open foraging
habitat as having a strong influence on the probability of Florida
bonneted bat occurrence; thus, these covariates were not incorporated
in our model output or analysis results.
(14) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed critical habitat rule, commenters stated concerns about
various aspects of how current and future land use, the overall spatial
extent of the designation, ownership, and habitat quality were
considered in the revised proposed designation of critical habitat.
Some commenters stated their views that private lands, urban areas, and
agricultural areas were seemingly arbitrarily avoided in our revised
critical habitat designation and that the spatial extent of the
designation was arbitrarily reduced from the June 10, 2020, proposal.
Other commenters expressed concern with the revised proposed critical
habitat not aligning with ownership boundaries, such as conservation
easements, property lines, or other easements, or suggested that the
Service should consider future development plans when delineating
critical habitat and aim to avoid or protect areas with plans for
development. One commenter requested additional information regarding
how we considered ``hot spots'' identified by the habitat analysis,
specifically expressing concerns that some apparently high-quality
areas were omitted from the revised proposed designation.
Our Response: Critical habitat, as defined in section 3 of the Act,
includes the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. In the development of our November 22, 2022, revised
proposed designation, we followed this approach to identify and
delineate critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat using a step-
wise process incorporating critical habitat criteria based on the
species' conservation strategy, results of our spatially explicit
habitat analysis, and additional information that could not be
incorporated into our spatial analysis (see Conservation Strategy and
Selection Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below). We did
not consider ownership or management of any areas during this process,
and ownership and management information (including easements) is not
evaluated until after critical habitat delineation is completed; future
development plans are not considered in the definition or delineation
of critical habitat. Thus, private lands were not purposefully avoided,
and most units include private lands to some degree. Urban and
agricultural areas, while not specifically avoided, are less prevalent
than certain land cover types (e.g., forested lands, freshwater
wetlands) in the designation; this is primarily a result of their lower
likelihood of containing the essential physical or biological features
or their lower conservation value. For example, despite their use by
Florida bonneted bats and their local importance in the southeastern
extent of the species' range, many urban areas have lower conservation
value to the species as a whole and do not contain the physical or
biological features essential for the conservation of the Florida
bonneted bat, as further discussed above in our response to (3)
Comment. Likewise, although some agricultural areas are known to
provide foraging habitat for the species, the conservation value of
these areas is generally lower than that of other open foraging
habitats that are dominated by native vegetation and not exposed to
regular pesticide applications. Regardless of critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies are required to fulfill their
conservation responsibilities by consulting with the Service if the
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out ``may affect'' listed
species; therefore, Florida bonneted bats and their habitat are still
protected by the Act where they occur, including in urbanized and
agriculture areas.
Just as the composition of our November 22, 2022, revised proposed
designation was guided by the factors described above, so were the
spatial arrangement and extent of our revised critical habitat units.
During the development of our revised proposed rule, we evaluated areas
both within and outside the species' known range to identify those
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. This evaluation
included areas identified as potential ``hot spots'' (areas having
higher probability of Florida bonneted bat occurrence) in the
predictive maps produced based on our MaxEnt model. We further
evaluated these areas for the temperature limitations of the species
and to ensure that land cover data were correctly categorized, and we
eliminated areas that were unlikely to contain the physical or
biological features essential to the species (e.g., areas at the far
northern edge of the model's spatial extent where winter temperatures
are typically too low for the bat, areas where aerial imagery indicated
poor habitat quality). Other areas identified as ``hot spots'' by the
model but that were not occupied (e.g., area east of Lake Okeechobee)
were eliminated in a later step of our delineation process because we
determined unoccupied
[[Page 16632]]
areas are not essential for the conservation of the Florida bonneted
bat, as further discussed in our response to (1) Comment, above. The
remaining areas were included in our November 22, 2022, revised
proposed designation, as were additional areas where the physical or
biological features essential to the species are found and which we
determined were necessary to fulfill critical habitat criteria (e.g.,
areas for connectivity between model-identified ``hot spots'' that fall
within the geographical area occupied by the species as defined at 50
CFR 424.02). These methods produced the specific critical habitat units
included in our November 22, 2022, revised proposed designation, and
any differences in unit size, arrangement, or composition between the
June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed units
are a result of delineations made following revised criteria to
identify the essential physical or biological features rather than
arbitrary changes (see also our response to (10) Comment, above).
(15) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed critical habitat rule, one commenter questioned the removal of
minimum patch size as a criterion for critical habitat units and
suggested that this was not supported other than to allow for
additional connectivity, including the addition of smaller patches or
``stepping stones.'' The commenter also requested that a definition be
provided for the term ``stepping stones.''
Our Response: Based on peer review and public comments on the June
10, 2020, proposed rule and new information, we determined that use of
a minimum patch size was not appropriate for the Florida bonneted bat
because using a minimum patch size would have eliminated areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and that provide necessary ecological
community and genetic representation. ``Stepping stones'' are
characterized in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule and in
this rule under Space for Individual and Population Growth and for
Normal Behavior, below, as suitable habitat in the form of linear
corridors or patches and are described more specifically in the
description of the essential physical or biological features as patches
such as tree islands or other isolated natural areas within a matrix of
otherwise low-quality habitat.
(16) Comment: Several comments expressed concerns that many threats
to the Florida bonneted bat, as well as details related to some of the
outlined threats (e.g., habitat loss, climate change, environmental
stochasticity, pesticides and contaminants), were not mentioned or
fully addressed in the Special Managements Considerations or Protection
discussions in the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022,
revised proposed rules.
Our Response: The threats included in the discussion under Special
Management Considerations or Protection, below, as well as in the June
10, 2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules, are
potential threats to the physical and biological features, not threats
directly to the Florida bonneted bat. Additionally, the threats
included in our discussion are not intended to be an exhaustive list.
Additional discussion of threats to the Florida bonneted bat can be
found in the final rule to list the Florida bonneted bat as an
endangered species (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) A comprehensive
discussion of current and future threats to the species will be a part
of the species' upcoming recovery plan.
(17) Comment: Several commenters stated that the baseline approach
used by the Service to assess economic impacts, which considers only
impacts solely attributable to the critical habitat designation, is
flawed and severely underestimates costs presented in the DEA.
Commenters further suggested that considering all costs regardless of
whether they are incremental to critical habitat designation, thus
including those costs likely to be incurred to avoid adverse habitat
modification as well as jeopardy to the species, would more accurately
analyze how a critical habitat designation affects property owners.
Our Response: Because the primary purposes of the Service's
economic analysis are to facilitate the mandatory consideration of the
economic impact of the designation of critical habitat, to inform the
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, and to determine
compliance with relevant statutes and Executive orders, our economic
analysis focuses on the incremental impact of the designation. The
economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat follows this incremental approach. As such, costs
associated with actions that are anticipated to occur regardless of
critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat are not
included.
The Service acknowledges that historically the method for assessing
the economic impact of critical habitat designations has been the
subject of significant debate. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit in New Mexico Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. FWS, 248 F.3d
1277 (10th Cir. 2001) found that the regulatory definition of the
jeopardy standard fully encompassed the adverse modification standard,
rendering any purported economic analysis done utilizing the baseline
approach, which only considers economic impacts that would not occur
``but for'' the critical habitat, virtually meaningless. For this
reason, the court rejected the baseline approach to economic analysis.
Later, in 2004, the Ninth Circuit (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS,
378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)) invalidated the regulatory definition of
``destruction or adverse modification.'' The court held that the
definition gave too little protection to critical habitat by not giving
weight to Congress' intent that designated critical habitat supports
the recovery of listed species. On August 27, 2019, the Service issued
a final rule (84 FR 44976) revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification in a way that allows the Service to define an
incremental effect of the designation. This process eliminated the
predicate for the Tenth Circuit's analysis and decision. Therefore, the
Service has concluded that it is appropriate to consider the impacts of
designation on an incremental basis. Indeed, no court outside of the
Tenth Circuit has followed New Mexico Cattle Growers since the Ninth
Circuit issued Gifford Pinchot Task Force and the Service revised its
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification.''
Most recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
incremental approach as lawful explaining that ``the very notion of
conducting a cost/benefit analysis is undercut by incorporating in that
analysis costs that will exist regardless of the decision made.''
Further, when the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to specifically answer the question of
whether the government is required to ``analyze all of the economic
impacts of `critical habitat' designation (regardless of whether the
impacts are co-extensive with, or cumulative of, other causes), as the
Tenth Circuit decided, or instead only those impacts for which
`critical habitat' designation is a `but for' cause, as the Ninth
Circuit decided,'' the Supreme Court declined to hear the case (Home
Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed
2d 301, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); citing Arizona
Cattle Growers v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,
179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011
[[Page 16633]]
U.S. Lexis 1362, 79 U.S. L.W. 3475 (2011)). Subsequently, on August 28,
2013, the Service issued a final rule (78 FR 53058) revising its
approach to conducting impact analyses for designations of critical
habitat, specifying that we will compare the impacts with and without
the designation (50 CFR 424.19(b)).
(18) Comment: Several commenters stated concerns that critical
habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat will alter land
management, development, and conservation activities and will result in
economic impacts that are not included or are underestimated in the
DEA. Commenters specifically cited concerns that the costs that private
entities incur during section 7 consultation (e.g., biologist and
consultant fees, project modifications and mitigation, costs associated
with permit and project delays) and potential increased litigation risk
are a significant economic burden.
Our Response: Section 4 of the economic analysis (IEc 2021a, pp.
22-25) outlines the substantial baseline protections currently afforded
the Florida bonneted bat throughout areas in the revised proposed
critical habitat designation. These baseline protections result from
the listing of the Florida bonneted bat under the Act and the presence
of the species in all critical habitat units, as well as overlap with
habitat of other, similar listed species and designated critical
habitat. Specifically, once a species is listed as endangered or
threatened, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Service to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or
carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species,
even absent critical habitat designation. For designated critical
habitat, section 7 also requires Federal agencies to ensure that their
actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Thus, a
key focus of the economic screening analysis is evaluating whether the
designation of critical habitat would trigger project modifications to
avoid adverse modification that would be above and beyond modifications
that would already have been undertaken to avoid adverse effects to the
species itself. The jeopardy analysis conducted as part of consultation
would focus on the same impacts that an adverse modification standard
analysis would because threats to the Florida bonneted bat are habitat-
related (e.g., removal, fragmentation, or degradation of habitat due to
construction, development, or climate change). Under those
circumstances, project modifications or conservation measures would
likely be required to address the species, regardless of whether there
is designated critical habitat, because of the effects on the species.
Therefore, it is unlikely that an analysis would identify a difference
between measures needed to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat from measures needed to avoid
jeopardizing the species. Thus, the designation of critical habitat is
unlikely to generate recommendations for additional project
modifications in occupied areas. As such, we do not forecast any
incremental costs associated with project modifications that would
involve additional conservation efforts resulting from this critical
habitat designation. Incremental costs include additional time for the
Service, action agencies, and third parties to participate in
consultations related to designated critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat.
The Service makes its decision whether to specify any particular
area as critical habitat based on the best available science after
taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact. We do not consider the costs
of litigation surrounding the critical habitat rule itself when
considering the economic impacts of the rule. The extent to which
litigation could increase the costs of a critical habitat designation
is purely speculative and inappropriate for consideration.
(19) Comment: Several commenters stated that the number of actions
that would be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat, and thus the costs associated with those actions,
may be larger than estimated in the DEA. Commenters specifically stated
that the number of consultations associated with private projects that
require Federal authorization (e.g., those triggering consultation
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) are
underestimated in the DEA.
Our Response: The economic analysis forecasts the likely number of
future section 7 consultation actions based on the number of
consultations for the Florida bonneted bat that have occurred since its
listing in 2013 and information from the Service about likely future
actions in particular units. The analysis also incorporates information
provided by several government agencies, as well as by several public
commenters, into the forecast of the number of likely actions that will
require section 7 consultation. Specifically, the analysis incorporates
information from the National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Service's
Southwest Florida Refuge Complex, the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, the
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida Power and Light (FPL), and other
commenters. By adding the number of annual consultations based on the
historical rate to the specific known actions and actions identified
through commenter input, our estimate of the number of future
consultation actions is likely to be overstated because some of these
actions would have also been captured in the historical number of
consultations. Also, see our response to (18) Comment, regarding the
substantial baseline protections currently afforded the Florida
bonneted bat throughout areas in the revised proposed critical habitat
designation.
(20) Comment: Several commenters stated that the DEA underestimates
the effect of the designation of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat on private land values, primarily because it does not
account for the full perceptional effects of designating critical
habitat.
Our Response: Section 5 of the economic analysis discusses the
possible perceptional effects of the proposed designation on private
property values. Specifically, this section of the economic analysis
discusses comments and concerns submitted in response to previous
critical habitat rulemakings that the designation of critical habitat
may affect the value of a private property due to the public perception
that the Act may preclude, limit, or slow development or somehow alter
the highest and best use of the property. The analysis acknowledges
that incremental costs from public perception of the critical habitat
designation for Florida bonneted bat could be possible. As stated in
the analysis, public attitudes and concerns about the regulatory
effects of the Act can cause real economic effects to the owners of
property, regardless of whether such concerns and effects are actually
realized. Over time, as public awareness grows with respect to the role
of critical habitat and the impacts of a critical habitat designation,
particularly where no Federal nexus compelling a section 7 consultation
exists, concerns regarding the effect of critical habitat designation
on properties may subside.
While existing economic literature and prior public comments on
previous designations suggest that costs may result from public
perception about how critical habitat may affect private lands, given
the differences in circumstances, including varying species, geographic
[[Page 16634]]
locations, public attitudes, and potential for a Federal nexus, we lack
the ability to calculate costs associated with public perception in a
manner that does not require extensive speculation. Additionally, we
are unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related impacts to
property values likely to result from this designation. We are unable
to do this due to existing data limitations regarding the probability
that such effects will occur, the likelihood of perception effects
above and beyond those associated with the listing, and the presence of
other co-occurring listed species and designated critical habitats.
(21) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, one
commenter stated that the Service should account for and incorporate
planned land use changes in the economic impacts of critical habitat
designation considered in the DEA.
Our Response: Planned land use changes were considered and
incorporated into our economic analysis of this critical habitat
designation. Section 3 of the economic analysis forecasts section 7
consultations based on data on past consultation efforts for the
Florida bonneted bat in or near proposed critical habitat areas and
identifies known or probable projects in proposed critical habitat that
may affect critical habitat designation or require consultation under
section 7 of the Act. Known or probable projects were identified based
on information we received from Federal agencies during the development
of the incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and from the public in
response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule. In addition, public
comments we received on the proposed rule from FPL, Collier Enterprises
Management, and a number of other interested parties provided
information about potential effects of the critical habitat designation
for Florida bonneted bat on ongoing activities. We used this
information, as well as comments from Federal and State agencies, to
forecast the number of consultations that will occur for the Florida
bonneted bat in proposed critical habitat areas over the next 10 years.
Information we received during the public comment period for the
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule about potential effects of
critical habitat designation for Florida bonneted bat on ongoing
activities was also considered in our analysis of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to account
for private development on county-owned leased lands in the Miami-Dade
Rocklands Unit (Unit 9) and thus does not adequately estimate
incremental costs, including those associated with perceptional
effects, associated with private development on county-owned leased
lands.
Our Response: We appreciate the information the commenter submitted
with respect to Unit 9. We did consider potential activity on all areas
within this unit, including county-owned leased lands, when evaluating
the economic impacts. Because the primary purposes of the economic
analysis are to facilitate the mandatory consideration of the economic
impact of the designation of critical habitat, to inform the
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, and to determine
compliance with relevant statutes and Executive orders, the economic
analysis focuses on the incremental impact of the designation. The
economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat follows this incremental approach. Based on the
consultation history and public and agency comments, the economic
analysis anticipates that approximately 2 formal consultations, 15
informal consultations, and 3 technical assistance efforts will occur
in the Miami-Dade Rocklands Unit that will consider Florida bonneted
bat critical habitat during the next 10 years, or approximately 2
consultation actions annually. These forecasted consultations are not
specific to particular landowners and may include county-owned lands.
Critical habitat would only affect a private development project on
county-owned leased lands if there were a Federal nexus for the project
or the designation of critical habitat triggered regulatory compliance
under State or local laws. We are aware of Miami-Dade County approving
a long-term lease for lands within Unit 9. Because this area is
considered occupied for Florida bonneted bat and co-occurs with other
listed species and their critical habitats, should there be a Federal
nexus for a project conducted on these lands, the incremental economic
impact as a result of this critical habitat designation would be
limited to minor additional administrative economic costs due to the
additional analysis required for the destruction or adverse
modification analysis.
As the commenter notes, the economic analysis specifically
discusses perception-related impacts as related to privately owned
lands. Perception-related effects are also possible for county-owned
lands that may be leased to private developers. However, for the
reasons discussed above (see our response to (20) Comment), we are
unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related impacts to
property values that may result from this designation.
(23) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule,
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. requested that we exclude the
lands within the boundary of the draft East Collier Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), totaling 3,772 ac (1,526 ha) within
Units 5 and 6 of the revised proposed designation.
Our Response: We listed this exclusion request in table 2 of the
revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, pp. 71481-
71482); however, we did not conduct an analysis to determine whether
the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the
benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
because this HCP was withdrawn prior to the publication of this final
rule.
(24) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed rule,
Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC, requested that we exclude the property
owned by JB Ranch I, LLC, and Sunniland Family Limited Partnership
lands. In addition, Miami-Dade Limestone Products Association requested
that we exclude lands overlapping the Florida legislature-designated
Lake Belt mining area.
Our Response: We listed these exclusion requests in table 2 of the
revised proposed rule (87 FR 71466, November 22, 2022, pp. 71481-
71482), and we noted that these requests do not overlap with the
revised proposed designation for the Florida bonneted bat. In this
final rule, we did not conduct an analysis to determine whether the
benefits of potentially excluding these specific areas outweigh the
benefits of including them under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the
lands identified in these requests do not overlap with the final
critical habitat designation.
(25) Comment: In response to the June 10, 2020, proposed and
November 22, 2022, revised proposed rules, several commenters requested
that broad areas of land (e.g., all private property; all currently
operating cattle ranches, associated rights-of-way, and access points
within proposed critical habitat; all Federal and other publicly owned
lands; entire proposed critical habitat units; and/or all proposed
critical habitat) be excluded from designation because of economic and
regulatory burdens. Commenters expressed concerns that critical habitat
designation would restrict or prevent
[[Page 16635]]
actions from proceeding on those lands. One commenter supported their
request for exclusion by stating that our approach for assessing the
economic impacts of critical habitat designation was flawed and
advocated for a coextensive approach. One commenter further stated that
all Federal and publicly owned lands should be excluded from the
critical habitat designation because the Service has not demonstrated
that exclusion of all lands from critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the Florida bonneted bat.
Our Response: We considered these requests according to our 2016
section 4(b)(2) policy, which outlines measures we consider when
excluding any areas from critical habitat. The commenters provided
general statements of their desire to be excluded but provided no
specific information about the economic impacts or reasoned rationale
about the benefits of excluding any specific areas. To properly
evaluate an exclusion request, the commenters must provide information
concerning the economic impacts of the designation, and hence the need
for exclusion. Thus, we did not conduct an analysis to balance or weigh
the benefits of excluding the areas against the benefits of including
the areas in the critical habitat designation. Neither the Act nor the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 requires the Secretaries of
the Interior and Commerce (Secretaries) to conduct a discretionary
section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2010)).
Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether to conduct that
analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider exclusion of any
particular area, no additional analysis is required.
Regarding the concern that the critical habitat designation would
restrict or prevent actions, the requirement to consult with us on
actions with a Federal nexus that may affect designated critical
habitat is designed to allow actions to proceed while avoiding
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, as further
discussed in our responses to (9) Comment and (18) Comment.
Regarding the concern that our approach for assessing the economic
impacts is flawed, the economic analysis for the designation of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat follows an incremental
approach, which has been upheld by the courts, as further discussed in
(17) Comment.
Regarding one commenter's assertion that all critical habitat
should be excluded because this would not result in extinction of the
species, we are mandated by the Act to designate critical habitat for
listed species, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. The Act
does not require us to exclude lands from the designation if that
exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. Rather,
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may exclude any particular
area if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including such area as part of the critical habitat, unless
she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species (see Consideration of Impacts under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act, below). As stated earlier in this comment response,
because the commenter did not provide specific information or reasoned
rationale about the benefits of excluding any specific areas, we chose
not to conduct an analysis to balance or weigh the benefits of
excluding the areas against the benefits of including the areas in the
critical habitat designation.
(26) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed rule, Miami-Dade County requested that we exclude the 327 ac
(132 ha) of the developed footprint of Zoo Miami due to concerns that
including this area in the critical habitat designation would prevent
the zoo from conducting activities needed to adhere to Association of
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accreditation standards. The commenter
expressed concern that if they were not able to meet AZA standards,
they could lose their AZA accreditation, which impacts the zoo's
economic capacity.
Our Response: We appreciate our partners' efforts to conserve
wildlife and inspire stewardship for local wildlife as well as species
around the world. We considered this request for exclusion according to
our 2016 section 4(b)(2) policy, and we consulted with AZA
accreditation experts and reviewed the AZA accreditation standards and
related policies (AZA 2024, entire).
Because a focus on conservation and active stewardship of the
natural environment, including wildlife, is part of the accreditation
process and standards (AZA 2024, pp. 6, 12, 27-28), it is reasonable to
assume that a demonstrated commitment to supporting the conservation of
an endangered species, such as the Florida bonneted bat, would benefit
an organization seeking accreditation.
Human-altered areas such as buildings or pavement without any type
of vegetation that could provide roosting habitat or support insect
populations that provide prey for the Florida bonneted bat may not
possess the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and would not meet the definition of
critical habitat. These areas are ``excluded by text'' from the
designation. However, the Zoo Miami property does include areas that
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the Florida bonneted as well as features essential to
five other species with designated critical habitat within the Zoo
Miami area.
Also, critical habitat designations do not affect activities by
private landowners unless projects have a Federal nexus (e.g., on
Federal property, using Federal funding, authorized or carried out by a
Federal agency). Furthermore, any regulatory burden related to updating
or improving exhibits or expanding the developed areas of Zoo Miami to
maintain accreditation would be associated with the species' listing,
not the critical habitat designation. Therefore, since the designation
of critical habitat is unlikely to have a negative effect on the
ability of Zoo Miami to continue AZA accreditation and any foreseen
regulatory burden would be purely associated with listing, we did not
conduct an analysis to determine whether the benefits of potentially
excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Neither the Act nor the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 require the Secretaries to
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30
(D.D.C. 2010)). Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether
to conduct that analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider
exclusion of any particular area, no additional analysis is required.
(27) Comment: We received comments from the Division of Charlotte
County Mosquito Control and the Collier Mosquito Control District
requesting that the areas of critical habitat overlapping their
respective mosquito control districts be excluded from critical
habitat; we also received comments expressing concern about designating
the portions of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte Counties for which taxes
fund mosquito control services. Commentors expressed concerns that the
designation of critical habitat would restrict their ability to conduct
mosquito control practices within critical habitat, resulting in
negative impacts to public health, suppression of economic growth, and
reductions in land value.
[[Page 16636]]
Our Response: We considered this request for exclusion under our
2016 section 4(b)(2) policy. No specific information was provided to
enable us to conduct an analysis to balance or weigh the benefits of
excluding the areas against the benefits of including the areas in the
designation. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis to determine
whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. Neither the Act nor the implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 require the Secretaries to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis (see, e.g., Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2010)).
Rather, the Secretaries have discretion as to whether to conduct that
analysis. If the Secretary decides not to consider exclusion of any
particular area, no additional analysis is required.
The lands included in this critical habitat designation are all
considered occupied by the Florida bonneted bat. Therefore, regardless
of any critical habitat designation, activities that may take Florida
bonneted bat are subject to prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. We
would recommend protective measures be established for the Florida
bonneted bat regardless of critical habitat designation within mosquito
control districts because of potential impacts to the species, but this
critical habitat designation does not limit or stop mosquito control
operations or reduce efforts to protect communities from mosquito-borne
viruses.
(28) Comment: Miami-Dade County and several other commenters
requested clarification regarding the areas that are excluded from
designation ``by text,'' specified at paragraph (3) in the regulatory
text of the critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat,
and what meets the characteristics of natural habitats at the time of
critical habitat designation. Commenters also stated their views that
some areas within Unit 9 in the November 22, 2022, revised proposed
designation should not be included in the final designation because
they should be considered developed or because they do not contain the
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our Response: As specified at paragraph (3) of the regulatory text
in this rule (see Regulation Promulgation, below), critical habitat
does not include human-made structures (such as buildings, aqueducts,
runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are
located. These types of structures and lands that are within critical
habitat units on the effective date of this final rule (see DATES,
above) are excluded from designation ``by text.'' Areas within
delineated critical habitat units that (1) are not human-made
structures or the land on which they are located and (2) include any of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Florida bonneted bat are designated critical habitat. These areas
could include human-altered areas such as areas near buildings or
pavement with any type of vegetation that could provide roosting
habitat or could support insect populations that provide prey for the
Florida bonneted bat. Where specific areas were identified by
commenters, we evaluated and determined that removal from the final
designation was not appropriate or required because the areas would
already be excluded from the designation under paragraph (3) of the
regulatory text or because they have at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species that
requires special management considerations or protection (and, thus, do
meet our criteria for designating critical habitat). Questions
regarding whether other specific areas are included in the designation
should be directed to the Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Even absent critical habitat designation, Federal agencies
are still required to consult with the Service if any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed species, so impacts to
Florida bonneted bats using these areas may still be considered during
consultations for effects to the species.
(29) Comment: One commenter requests an explanation of how the
State of Florida's assumption of permitting authority under section 404
of the Clean Water Act program affects the consideration of critical
habitat in reviews of projects or actions impacting Florida bonneted
bats.
Our Response: Consistent with the biological opinion, which is
titled, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Approval of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's Assumption of the
Administration of the Dredge and Fill Permitting Program under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act'' (Service 2020, entire), and a memorandum
of understanding between the Service, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide technical assistance to FDEP
to ensure that no State 404 permit action jeopardizes the continued
existence of federally listed species or adversely modifies or destroys
critical habitat, pursuant to 40 CFR 233.20(a). We continue to consult
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer on permits they issue pursuant to
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should prepare
an environmental impact statement to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for every
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. The commenter also stated that the Service should have
included an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with the proposed
rule to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). The commenter further stated that the Service has not
accurately represented the significant impact that this critical
habitat rule will have on a substantial number of small entities.
Our Response: It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Therefore, it is appropriate that we did not prepare an environmental
impact statement for this designation of critical habitat. See also
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), below.
As required by the RFA, we evaluated the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself. Under section 7 of the Act, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to this specific regulatory requirement
imposed by critical habitat designation. Therefore, because no small
entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that
this critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. See Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), below, for more detail.
(31) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed critical habitat rule, two commenters noted that the
information necessary to evaluate the impacts of critical habitat
(e.g., Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines, shapefile for
critical habitat maps) were not available or difficult to
[[Page 16637]]
obtain during the comment period for the revised proposed rule, thus
making it difficult to fully review and provide comment on the revised
proposed rule.
Our Response: We agree that sharing the supporting documents for
proposed rules during the comment period is important for providing the
public the ability to fully review and comment on a proposed rule.
During the comment period for the November, 22, 2022, revised proposed
critical habitat rule, all supporting documents, with the exception of
shapefiles (which are not supported by the platform), were made
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>) 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
(33) Comment: In response to the November 22, 2022, revised
proposed critical habitat rule, we received two comments that raised
concerns that the peer review of the proposed rule was flawed,
specifically, that there were not enough reviewers, reviewers were
unqualified, and that a peer reviewer had an undisclosed conflict of
interest.
Our Response: The Service has long been committed to the use of
best available science in decision[hyphen]making and to the use of peer
review to improve such science. The Service solicited independent
scientific reviews of both the June 10, 2020, proposed and November 22,
2022, revised proposed rules in accordance with our joint policy on
peer review (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing
actions under the Act.
The policy and memo direct us to solicit an independent scientific
review from a minimum of three reviewers; accordingly, we sent the June
10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule to six reviewers and the
November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rule to five
reviewers. In response, we received two reviews of the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule and one review of the November 22, 2022, revised proposed
rule.
As directed in our August 22, 2016, memorandum, we selected
qualified reviewers with, ``expertise and/or experience relevant to the
scientific questions and determinations addressed in our actions.''
Peer reviewers were selected based on their ability to act as an
independent reviewer and on their expertise related to the Florida
bonneted bat and its habitat and threats. Peer reviewers were asked to
review the science applied to the June 10, 2020, proposed and November
22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat rules, and the peer reviews
they submitted did indeed focus on critique of the science rather than
policy. One peer reviewer who provided comments on the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule is a Service employee but does not work within Florida,
did not contribute otherwise to the development of this rule, and is a
subject matter expert (bats); thus, we think this person meets the
standards set forth by our peer review policy and clarified in our
August 22, 2016, memorandum. Additionally, we solicited peer review
from five other external experts.
Per our August 22, 2016, memorandum, peer reviewers were required
to complete a conflict of interest form, and we assessed potential
conflicts of interest by examining financial and business relationships
and consulting arrangements, using applicable standards issued by the
Office of Government Ethics. As noted in our August 22, 2016,
memorandum, ``Divulging a conflict of interest does not invalidate the
comments of the reviewer; however, it will allow for transparency to
the public regarding the reviewer's possible biases or associations.''
In instances where a reviewer has a substantial conflict of interest,
we will evaluate their comments in light of that conflict;
[[Page 16638]]
however, we did not determine that any of the three peer reviewers who
submitted comments on the two proposed rules have a substantial
conflict of interest.
(34) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Service should
notify private landowners if their land overlaps a proposed critical
habitat designation.
Our Response: We strive for good communication with the public,
including communicating our intent to designate critical habitat and
making available proposed critical habitat rules, which include the
specific locations where critical habitat is proposed. Section 4(b)(5)
of the Act requires us to, not less than 90 days before the effective
date of the regulation, publish a general notice and the complete text
of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register. For the June 10,
2020, proposed and November 22, 2022, revised proposed critical habitat
rules for the Florida bonneted bat, we notified the public via
publication in the Federal Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510), and
November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71466), respectively. On June 9, 2020, we
posted a press release notifying the public of the publication of the
June 10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule on our Regional website,
and on November 21, 2022, we also posted a press release notifying the
public of the publication of the November 22, 2022, revised proposed
critical habitat rule at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-11/florida-bonneted-bat">https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-11/florida-bonneted-bat</a>. For the June 10, 2020, proposed rule, newspaper
notices inviting general public comment were published in the Orlando
Sentinel, Ft. Myers News-Press, Sarasota Herald Tribune, and Miami
Herald newspapers. For the November 22, 2022, revised proposed rule, a
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was again published in
the Miami Herald newspaper. For the proposed and revised proposed
rules, we also disseminated notice of the publication on various social
media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, and sent notices to
several interested parties, including nongovernmental organizations and
interested industry and property-holding entities. Accordingly, we make
every attempt to ensure the public is well-informed of proposed
regulations that may affect it.
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species;
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources
[[Page 16639]]
may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; and habitats with appropriate
disturbance regimes (for more information, see the October 4, 2012,
proposed rule to list the Florida bonneted bat (77 FR 60750), and the
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see Supporting and Related
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>)). We summarize below the more important habitat
characteristics, particularly those that support the description of
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat. We also consider these habitat features relative
to the scale at which Florida bonneted bats use the features, allowing
us to more logically organize the physical or biological features to
delineate the critical habitat.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Due to the spatial variability of its prey, its large size, and its
wing morphology, the Florida bonneted bat has significant spatial needs
for foraging. Insect abundance, density, and community composition
frequently vary across space and over time based on season and
environmental conditions. As a result of this spatial variability,
Florida bonneted bats may need to travel far distances and feed over
large areas to satisfy dietary needs. For example, Florida bonneted
bats from Babcock-Webb WMA, on average, traveled 9.5 miles (mi) (15
kilometers (km)) from their roosts and flew 24 mi (39 km) total per
night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers. comm.). These bats also
traveled maximum distances of more than 24 mi (39 km) from their roosts
and more than 56 mi (90 km) total in one night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8;
Webb 2018, pers. comm.). Florida bonneted bats also require open areas
for foraging due to their large body size and the morphology of their
wings, which are designed for fast and efficient, but less
maneuverable, flight.
This large bat relies on swarms of larger insects for feeding;
thus, foraging habitat for the Florida bonneted bat consists of areas
that hatch and concentrate insects of this size, including vegetated
areas and waterways. These bats are also frequently detected in
agricultural areas and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire) and
are known to feed on insects associated with crops (Webb 2018, pp. 12,
61).
Ecologically diverse areas of suitable habitat representing the
geographic extent of the species' range are also important for
population growth and persistence. The major ecological communities
(Myers and Ewel 1990, entire; Service 1999, entire; FNAI 2010, entire)
that provide Florida bonneted bat roosting habitat in central and
southern Florida include: pine rocklands (south Florida rockland,
rockland pine forest, rockland hammock); cypress communities (cypress
swamps, strand swamps, domes, sloughs, ponds); hydric pine flatwoods
(wet flatwoods); mesic pine flatwoods; and high pine. A variety of
other habitats, including agricultural areas, may be used as well
(Bailey et al. 2017a, entire), and freshwater forested
[[Page 16640]]
wetlands, including areas with longer hydroperiods and deeper water,
may be more important to the species than previously thought (FWC and
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) 2023, pp. 15-24). Diverse,
open foraging habitats (e.g., prairies, riverine habitat) are also
important. Adequate roosting and foraging habitats are essential to the
species, as they provide the diversity necessary to allow for
population resiliency following minor disturbances (e.g., loss of roost
tree, cold snap) as well as more significant stochastic events (e.g.,
hurricane, drought, forest disease, climate change).
Structural connectivity (suitable habitat in the form of linear
corridors or patches creating ``stepping stones'') facilitates the
recolonization of extirpated populations; facilitates the establishment
of new populations; and allows for natural behaviors needed for
foraging, exploratory movements, and dispersal. Four genetically
differentiated populations of the Florida bonneted bat have been
identified (Charlotte, Polk/Osceola, Lee/Collier, and Miami-Dade
Counties) (Austin et al. 2022, entire; also see the Florida Bonneted
Bat Conservation Strategy under Supporting and Related Material in
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). While
dispersal of Florida bonneted bats appears to be geographically
restricted between populations, the geographic extent of the four
genetically differentiated areas is not yet known, and maintaining
structural connectivity to allow for ongoing and future functional
connectivity (i.e., actual movement of animals and/or exchange of
genes) between known populations remains important to the species for
resiliency as well as population stability and growth (Austin et al.
2022, pp. 507-508). Structural connectivity in the form of vegetated
corridors with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging, vegetated
river corridors and other areas with freshwater available year-round,
and habitat patches such as pine rockland fragments and tree islands
are needed to provide and maintain connections between regions where
known Florida bonneted bat populations occur. Maintaining viable
populations in each of the known genetically differentiated areas and
protecting connectivity is necessary for the demographic and genetic
health of the species. Therefore, it is important that this species has
areas of ecologically diverse and connected habitat, including
sufficient amounts of open foraging habitat.
Cover or Shelter
The Florida bonneted bat primarily roosts in tree cavities, either
as individuals or small or large colonies (Ober et al. 2017, p. 378;
Braun de Torrez et al. 2020a, p. 6; 2020b, entire). Roosts provide
protection from sunlight, adverse weather, and predators; sites for
mating, rearing of young, social interaction and information sharing,
resting, and digestion of food; and microclimate stability (Kunz 1982,
entire; Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130-135; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4;
Dechmann et al. 2010, pp. 1-7; Bohn 2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bat roosts are difficult to locate; only 36
natural roosts have been identified (not all currently occupied), the
first in 2013 (Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez et al.
2016, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez
2021, pers. comm.; Borkholder 2022, pers. comm.; Braun de Torrez 2022,
pers. comm.). Known natural roosts have been documented in the
following tree species: slash pine, longleaf pine, bald cypress, and
royal palm (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). A significant
proportion of known roosts are in snags of these tree species (Braun de
Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). One non-volant (flightless) pup was found
at the base of a live oak hours after a tree cavity was bisected
(Ridgley 2020, pers. comm.); it is not known if this tree species is
commonly used as a roost site or may be used particularly where
suitable trees are sparse.
Relative to surrounding trees, Florida bonneted bat roost trees
tend to have greater overall height (average of 58 feet (ft) (17.7
meters (m)) with a range of 34 to 93 ft (10.4 to 28.2 m)), diameter
(average of 15 inch (in) (38 centimeter (cm)) diameter at breast height
(dbh) with a range of 7.4 to 27 in (19 to 69.5 cm) dbh), and canopy
height relative to the surrounding trees (average of 19.8 ft (6 m) with
a range of -2.6 to 49 ft (-0.8 to 15 m)) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b,
entire; Hoyt 2023a, b, pers. comm.). The species also appears to
require sufficient unobstructed space for emergence, with cavities high
above the ground (average of 49 ft (14.9 m) with a range of 27.5 to 77
ft (8.4 to 23.5 m)) and roost trees set apart from the nearest tree (by
an average of 12 ft (3.8 m) with a range of 2 to 39 ft (0.6 to 11.9 m))
(Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire; Hoyt 2023a, pers. comm.), often
in open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities may require a
minimum of approximately 27.5 ft (8.4 m) of ground clearance (i.e.,
cavity height above the ground) (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire;
Hoyt 2023a, pers. comm.); however, there are two instances of Florida
bonneted bats using bat houses with approximately 13 ft (4 m) of ground
clearance in Miami-Dade County (Ridgley 2021, unpublished data).
Collectively, this indicates that this species prefers large trees with
adequate space around the cavity for emergence. Florida bonneted bats
typically roost in cavities made by other species (notably woodpeckers)
or by natural damage caused by fire, storms, or decay.
The Florida bonneted bat is suspected to have high roost-site
fidelity. Some roosts are used for several years by Florida bonneted
bat colonies, possibly decades (Myers 2013, pers. comm.; Scofield
2013a-b, pers. comm.; 2014a-b, pers. comm.; Bohn 2014, pers. comm.;
Gore et al. 2015, p. 183; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Hosein
2016, pers. comm.; Webb 2017, pers. comm.; B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.;
Aldredge 2019, pers. comm.). Conversely, natural roosts may frequently
succumb to natural causes (i.e., hurricanes, wildfire), resulting in
total loss or too much damage to allow for future roosting. At least 37
percent of the known natural roosts discovered since 2013 are now
uninhabitable (due to decay, hurricanes, and other factors) (Braun de
Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). Suitable roost sites are a critical
resource, are an ongoing need of the species, and may be limiting
population growth and distribution in certain situations. The loss of a
roost site may represent a greater impact to this species relative to
some other bat species (Ober 2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bats also roost in artificial structures (e.g.,
homes with barrel-tile roofs, chimneys, barns, hangars, utility poles)
and bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 8; Morse 2008, entire; Trokey
2012a-b, pers. comm.; Gore et al. 2015, entire; see Use of Artificial
Structures (Bat Houses) in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October
2, 2013, p. 61010)). While artificial roosts can provide valuable
alternative, long-term, and hurricane-resilient roosting habitat for
the species where roosting habitat is limited (Braun de Torrez 2022,
pers. comm.), these are imperfect surrogates for natural roosting
habitat and are not on their own a habitat feature essential for the
species' survival. Therefore, natural roosts (i.e., live or dead trees
and tree snags, especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, and
royal palm, taller than 34 ft (10.4 m) and greater than 7.4 in (19 cm)
dbh and having unobstructed space for emergence) are important habitat
characteristics for this species.
[[Page 16641]]
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Sites supporting the Florida bonneted bats' breeding activities
appear to be required year-round (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober
et al. 2017, p. 382; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also Life History
in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61005-
61006) and Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements, below). Reproductively active adults have
been observed during August, December, and April capture sessions, and
non-volant pups (young not yet capable of flying) have been documented
in roosts in every month other than February and March (Scofield 2014b,
pers. comm.; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Ridgley 2015, pers.
comm.; Ober et al. 2017, pp. 381, 383;384; Gore 2017, pers. comm.; J.
Myers 2018, pers. comm.; 2020, pers. comm.). Based upon these data,
flightless young bonneted bats and females with high energetic demands
due to pregnancy and lactation may be vulnerable to disturbance for at
least 10 months of the year. Most roosting bats are sensitive to human
disturbance (Kunz 1982, p. 32), and maternity colonies may be
especially intolerant of disturbance (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13; see
also Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts from Humans in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)).
Florida bonneted bat colonies conform to a harem structure (one
dominant male, several reproductively active females and their young)
with males exhibiting resource defense polygyny (dominant males defend
the roost from other males) (Ober et al. 2017, p. 382; Braun de Torrez
et al. 2020a, pp. 10-12). This type of social organization, together
with evidence of high roost-site fidelity, underscores the importance
of roosts to this species for population maintenance, population
growth, and natural behaviors. Disturbance of a roost at any time can
alter social dynamics and impact reproductive success (Ober et al.
2017, p. 382). Accordingly, areas where roosting and other natural
behaviors can occur undisturbed are important in considering the
conservation of the species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The Florida bonneted bat's precise foraging habits and long-term
requirements are unknown (Belwood 1992, p. 219). However, because the
species is active year-round and aseasonally polyestrous (i.e., having
more than one period of estrous in a year, not restricted to one
season) (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9;
Ober et al. 2016, entire), the Florida bonneted bat likely needs
constant and/or multiple sources of prey to support its high
metabolism. Energy demands of the Florida bonneted bat probably
fluctuate seasonally (e.g., assumed higher demands during cold weather
as the species does not have periods of torpor (a state of decreased
physiological activity in an animal, including decreased body
temperature, heart rate, and metabolism)) and during sensitive times
(e.g., maternity, nursery, supporting offspring). The maternity season
is a time of particular sensitivity, with increased energy demands and
risks as females leave young in roosts while making multiple foraging
excursions to support lactation (Kurta et al. 1989a, entire; Kurta et
al. 1990, entire; Kunz et al. 1995, entire; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp.
8-9; Ober et al. 2016, entire). Exploitation of insects in patches that
yield high-energy returns for pregnancy and lactation is important
(Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). Reduced insect populations in urban areas
may make it difficult for females to successfully raise offspring to
maturity (Kurta et al. 1990, entire; Kurta and Teramino 1992, p. 260).
Most insectivorous bats eat large quantities of insects (Ross 1967,
entire; Black 1974, entire; Kunz 1974, entire; Kunz et al. 1995,
entire; Kurta and Whitaker 1998, entire; Lee and McCracken 2002, pp.
306-313; 2005, entire; Leelapaibul et al. 2005, entire; Kunz et al.
2011, entire). Insectivorous bat activity and diversity are strongly
correlated with arthropod abundance (Racey and Swift 1985, pp. 210-211,
214; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003,
pp. 987-992), suggesting that bats seek out areas of concentrated prey
sources (Kunz et al. 2011, p. 5). Foraging behavior is tied in part to
insect abundance, availability, and density (Anthony and Kunz 1977,
entire; Racey and Swift 1985, p. 212; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp.
987-992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire). Exploitation of insects
in patches that yield high-energy returns appears to be important for
meeting the energy needs associated with prolonged flights as well as
pregnancy and lactation (Kunz et al. 1995, p. 412). In general, bats
foraging from continuous flight must encounter prey at relatively high
rates and successfully attack many individual items (Fenton 1990, p.
416). Since Florida bonneted bats are thought to employ this feeding
strategy, areas with higher insect abundance, more (multiple) prey
sources, and diverse natural habitats that produce prey diversity are
essential for suitable foraging habitat.
Like other molossids (e.g., Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida
brasiliensis)), the species may be a generalist predator, capable of
opportunistically exploiting available resources (McCracken et al.
2012, entire). Limited information from guano analyses indicates
Florida bonneted bats feed on flying insects of the following orders:
Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (true bugs),
Lepidoptera (moths), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (Belwood 1981, p.
412; 1992, p. 220; Marks 2013, entire; Marks and Marks 2015, pp. 2-3).
Like other large molossids, the Florida bonneted bat's physiological
characteristics (e.g., large size, broad jaws, big teeth, large ears)
and lower frequency echolocation make it well equipped for finding and
taking relatively larger insects and harder prey items (Freeman 1979,
entire; 1981, pp. 166-173; Obrist et al. 1993, entire; Aguirre et al.
2003, p. 207; Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 855-857; Mora and Torres
2008, p. 12).
It is not clear if insect availability is limiting or sufficient;
however, if the Florida bonneted bat is similar in its needs to other
insectivorous bats, then reduced prey abundance or density could
negatively affect the species, affecting survival, growth, and
reproduction. We find that foraging habitat sufficient to support
insect populations and the seasonal nutritional needs of the bat are
essential to its conservation. Protecting natural habitats conducive to
insect diversity (Marks 2013, p. 2) is also essential to the Florida
bonneted bat's survival.
Sources of drinking water are important for most insectivorous bat
species (Kurta et al. 1989b, entire; 1990, pp. 59, 63; Adams and Hayes
2008, pp. 1, 6). Water sources and wetlands also provide important
sources and concentrations of prey (Belwood and Fenton 1976, entire;
Swift and Racey 1983, entire; Barclay 1991, pp. 174-176; Brigham et al.
1992, entire; Sullivan et al. 1993, entire; Racey et al. 1998, pp. 200-
201; Russo and Jones 2003, pp. 197, 201; Nam et al. 2012, p. 1095;
Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, p. 1289; Fukui et al. 2006, entire).
Water sources (for drinking, prey, and structure) are important
habitat components for the Florida bonneted bat. This species forages
over ponds, streams, and wetlands and drink when flying over open water
(Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4; 2008c, p. 3). For
[[Page 16642]]
example, in Big Cypress National Preserve the vast majority of Florida
bonneted bat calls were recorded in 2014 at one remote pond surrounded
by wetland forest (Arwood 2014a-c, pers. comm.). At Picayune Strand
State Forest (PSSF), all sites where the species has been detected were
located near canals (Smith 2013, pers. comm.). At Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge, the highest detection of Florida bonneted bat
calls occurred in areas with the largest amount of open water (Maehr
2013, pp. 7-11; 2013a-c, pers. comm.). In the Miami area (Richmond pine
rocklands (Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, and the Martinez
Preserve)), the species has been detected in a variety of habitat
types, but peak activity occurred in areas of artificial freshwater
lakes adjacent to intact pine rocklands (Ridgley 2013a-d, pers. comm.).
We find that open water and wetlands provide drinking water, open
foraging areas, and concentrations of prey that are essential to the
conservation of the species. During dry seasons, bats become more
dependent on remaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging
purposes, making these precious resources essential (Marks and Marks
2008c, p. 4; 2008d, p. 3). Because the Florida bonneted bat, like other
Eumops, appears to be confined to foraging in open spaces due to its
wing morphology (Norberg and Rayner 1987, pp. 399-400; Voigt and
Holderied 2012, entire), larger water bodies and more open wetlands in
general may be structurally better foraging habitat than smaller, more
confined areas.
The Florida bonneted bat's physiological or behavioral responses to
abiotic factors, such as artificial lighting, have not been
specifically studied; however, some information about other bat
species' responses to artificial lighting is available for closely
related bats and bat species with edge and open space foraging
behaviors, similar to those of the Florida bonneted bat. Although edge
and open space foraging bat species are considered to generally be more
tolerant of artificial lighting than those species foraging in forests,
tolerance to artificial light appears to vary among bat species with
similar foraging strategies and flight techniques (Rowse et al. 2016,
pp. 200-202). Responses to artificial light can vary depending on the
development intensity, land use type, and vegetation community where
artificial light occurs (Rowse et al. 2016, pp. 200-202; Voigt et al.
2020, pp. 190, 197-199). However, even open space foraging species that
are considered to be light-tolerant can be impacted by artificial
light, as evidenced by delays in night-time foraging activity and
reduced abundance at foraging sites (Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 6-8).
Additionally, urban habitats with artificial lights can act as
ecological traps with lower habitat quality for reproduction and
potential for lower survival in bat species that are more frequent or
abundant in urban habitats (Russo and Ancillotto 2015, pp. 209-210).
Artificial light aversion has been documented in other species
closely related to Florida bonneted bat (i.e., within Molossidae and/or
Eumops) (Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 147-148; Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568-
571). Despite increases in research of Florida bonneted bat ecology
since the species' listing in 2013, there has been no evidence that
Florida bonneted bats exploit artificial light sources, and the highest
Florida bonneted bat activity within an urban matrix has been
associated with large, dark, open areas with tree cover (Bat
Conservation International 2022, p. 18; Ridgley 2023, unpublished data;
Ridgley and Gamba-Rios 2023, unpublished data). Artificial lighting has
been demonstrated to also have broadscale negative effects on insects
and insect populations (e.g., reduced abundance; altered larval
development, reproduction, and other behaviors) (van Grunsven et al.
2020, entire; Boyes et al. 2021, entire; Pennisi 2021, entire),
potentially reducing the availability of prey (Mariton et al. 2022, pp.
2, 7) and the quality of foraging habitat for Florida bonneted bats. In
addition to effects on foraging habitat, artificial lighting can impact
roosting habitat quality because light at emergence is thought to
disrupt emergence cues and increase predation risk (or perceived
predation risk) at emergence for other open-space-foraging and
insectivorous bats (Rydell et al. 1996, pp. 249, 251; Mariton et al.
2022, p. 8). Therefore, areas where roosting, foraging, and other
natural behaviors, such as commuting, can occur with limited or no
impacts from artificial light are important in considering the
conservation of the species.
Similarly, temperature requirements and tolerances for the Florida
bonneted bat are not fully understood. The species is active year-round
and considered semi-tropical (Ober et al. 2016, entire). Florida
bonneted bats have been detected in Polk and Osceola Counties (Bailey
et al. 2017a, p. 1589), but future surveys in additional counties are
needed to help determine the limit of the northern extent of the range.
There are low probabilities of occurrence of bonneted bats in areas
where historical mean minimum temperatures dropped below 15 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (59 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), which suggests that
the species may be limited to southern Florida due to temperature
(Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). At this time, the most northern known
roost sites are located at Avon Park Air Force Range and its vicinity
(Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; Webb
2018, pers. comm.). Mean monthly temperatures at this location range
from 15 to 28 [deg]C (60-83 [deg]F), with an average low of 8.3 [deg]C
(47 [deg]F) (January) and an average high of 33.9 [deg]C (93 [deg]F)
(July). Prolonged cold temperatures resulted in bonneted bat
mortalities at one known colony site in North Fort Myers, Florida,
during a severe cold snap in 2010 (Trokey 2010a-b, pers. comm.; 2012a,
pers. comm.; see also the discussion of Factor E factors in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)). Limited
data at survey sites in south Florida indicated reduced bat activity
under conditions of lower ambient temperatures (Arwood 2014d, pers.
comm.). In general, molossids that inhabit the warmer temperate and
subtropical zones incur much higher energetic costs for
thermoregulation during cold weather events than those inhabiting
northern regions (Arlettaz et al. 2000, pp. 1004-1014; see also the
discussion of Factor E factors in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)). As a result, we recognize the
species' requirement of subtropical climate conditions for its long-
term persistence.
This species is suspected to seasonally vary its use of the
northern and southern extent of its known range. This may relate to
temperature sensitivity (as described above), different nutritional
needs during peak reproductive seasons, or changes in prey
availability. Florida bonneted bat detection is positively influenced
by Julian date and minimum temperature of the survey night; thus,
future monitoring efforts should be focused on warm nights later in the
spring to maximize detection probabilities (Bailey et al. 2017a, pp.
1589, 1591). Florida bonneted bats were also ``more common in areas
with higher historical mean annual rainfall but seemed to prefer areas
with lower rainfall during the spring'' (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591).
The authors concluded that higher detection probabilities observed were
likely a result of increased insect abundance due to increased
temperatures, humidity, and precipitation influencing the bats'
activity (Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). Therefore, we find that
seasonal
[[Page 16643]]
differences and these other climatological conditions, in addition to
temperature, likely influence the species' distribution, habitat
requirements, and foraging opportunities, thereby affecting its
conservation. Differences in these environmental conditions may occur
seasonally or on finer temporal scales.
Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance Regimes
The Florida bonneted bat not only requires healthy and ecologically
diverse habitat, it also needs areas with an appropriate disturbance
regime. The Florida bonneted bat's entire range is within the fire-
dependent and fire-adapted landscape of central and south Florida (Noss
2018, entire). The species uses fire-dependent vegetation communities
for roosting (Belwood 1992, pp. 219-220; Angell and Thompson 2015,
entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240) and foraging (Bailey et
al. 2017a, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a-c, entire). Florida
bonneted bats appear to be attracted to recently burned areas (Braun de
Torrez et al. 2018a, entire); it appears that Florida bonneted bats are
fire-adapted and benefit from prescribed burn programs that closely
mimic historical fire regimes. Fires during the historical fire season
(i.e., early wet season, April through June) at a moderate frequency
(more than 3 to 5 years) appear to optimize habitat for bats in both
pine flatwoods and prairies (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018b, pp. 6-9).
Fire may result in an increase of suitable roosts (i.e., create more
snags and cavities), more open flight space, and increased prey
availability (Boyles and Aubrey 2006, pp. 111-113; Armitage and Ober
2012, pp. 107-109; O'Keefe and Loeb 2017, p. 271; Braun de Torrez et
al. 2018a, p. 1120; 2018b, pp. 8-9).
Fire also has the potential to harm bats through disturbance or
destruction of roost trees (Morrison and Raphael 1993, p. 328;
Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 2196-2200). Despite the risks that Florida
bonneted bats may abandon roosts, or roosts and pups may be lost during
fires, it is critical for fires to occur on the landscape to maintain
suitable habitat; precautions can be taken to reduce risks
appropriately (see Inadvertent Impacts from Land Management Practices,
below). Therefore, based on the information in this discussion, we
identify areas of diverse habitat types and ecological communities
maintained via appropriate disturbance regimes as essential physical or
biological features for this species.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Florida bonneted bat from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below and further in
the Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see Supporting and
Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>) and the proposed and final listing rules (77 FR
60750, October 4, 2012; 78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013). We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat:
(1) Habitats with sufficient darkness that provide for roosting and
rearing of offspring. Such habitat provides structural features for
rest, digestion of food, social interaction, mating, rearing of young,
protection from sunlight and adverse weather conditions, and cover to
reduce predation risks for adults and young, and is generally
characterized by:
(a) Live or dead trees and tree snags, especially longleaf pine,
slash pine, bald cypress, and royal palm, that are sufficiently large
(in diameter) and tall and that have cavities of a sufficient size for
roosts; and
(b) Live or dead trees and tree snags with sufficient cavity
height, spacing from adjacent trees, and relative canopy height to
provide unobstructed space for Florida bonneted bats to emerge from
roost trees; this may include open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
(2) Habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging,
which may vary widely across the Florida bonneted bat's range, in
accordance with ecological conditions, seasons, and disturbance regimes
that influence vegetation structure and prey species' distributions.
Foraging habitat may be separate and relatively far from roosting
habitat. Essential foraging habitat consists of sufficiently dark open
areas in or near areas of high insect production or congregation,
commonly including, but not limited to:
(a) Freshwater edges and freshwater herbaceous wetlands (permanent
or seasonal);
(b) Prairies;
(c) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
(d) Wetland and upland forests.
(3) A dynamic disturbance regime (e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest
management) that maintains and regenerates forested habitat, including
plant communities, open habitat structure, and temporary gaps, which is
conducive to promoting a continual supply of roosting sites, prey
items, and suitable foraging conditions.
(4) A sufficient quantity and diversity of habitats to enable the
species to be resilient to short-term impacts associated with
disturbance over time (e.g., drought, forest disease). This quantity
and diversity are essential to provide suitable conditions despite
temporary alterations to habitat quality. The ecological communities
the Florida bonneted bat inhabits differ in hydrology, fire frequency/
intensity, climate, prey species, roosting sites, and threats, and
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Pine rocklands;
(b) Cypress communities (cypress swamps, strand swamps, domes,
sloughs, ponds);
(c) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet flatwoods);
(d) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
(e) High pine.
(5) Habitats that provide structural connectivity where needed to
allow for dispersal, gene flow, and natural and adaptive movements,
including those that may be necessitated by climate change. These
connections may include linear corridors such as vegetated, riverine,
or open-water habitat with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging,
or patches (i.e., stepping stones) such as tree islands or other
isolated natural areas within a matrix of otherwise low-quality
habitat.
(6) A subtropical climate that provides tolerable conditions for
the species such that normal behavior, successful reproduction, and
rearing of offspring are possible.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. Recovery of the Florida bonneted bat will require special
management considerations or protection of the essential physical or
biological features including passive (e.g., allowing natural processes
to occur without intervention) and active (e.g., taking actions to
restore and maintain habitat conditions or address threats) management.
The features essential to the conservation of this species that may
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the
threats that are related to inadvertent impacts from land management
practices are discussed below.
[[Page 16644]]
Habitat Loss
Habitat loss, degradation, and modification from human population
growth and associated development (including infrastructure and energy
development) and agriculture have impacted the Florida bonneted bat and
are expected to further curtail its limited range (see the Factor A
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp.
61026-61030); Bailey et al. 2017a, entire). Based on the expected rates
of human population growth and urbanization in southern Florida, nearly
all agricultural and private natural lands are predicted to be
converted to developed land by 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 15, 18).
Of this, approximately 2.6 percent of designated critical habitat
(30,716 ac (12,430 ha)) is predicted to be converted to developed land
by 2070 (Carr and Zwick 2016, entire). The species occurs, in part, on
publicly owned lands that are managed for conservation, ameliorating
some of these threats (see Conservation Lands Within Florida Bonneted
Bat Final Critical Habitat Designation under Supporting and Related
Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). However, any unknown extant populations of the
bat or suitable habitat on private lands or non-conservation public
lands are vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation. Retaining a
habitat network of large and diverse natural areas for conservation
purposes in a spatial configuration throughout the Florida bonneted
bat's range and actively managing those lands will likely be essential
to conservation. In addition, conservation efforts on private lands can
help reduce the threats of habitat loss, increasing the potential for
long-term survival.
Natural roosting habitat appears to be limiting, and competition
for tree cavities is high (see Competition for Tree Cavities under the
Factor E discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, p. 61034)). To help conserve the Florida bonneted bat, efforts
should be made to retain tall trees, cavity trees, trees with hollows
or other decay, and snags wherever possible to protect habitat, reduce
competition for suitable roosts, and bolster or expand populations
within the species' known range (Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 187;
Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, pp. 235, 240; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). The
use of artificial structures for the Florida bonneted bat may also be
beneficial in some locations, especially where roosting structures are
lacking or deficient (see Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) in
the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61010)).
Substantial losses in suitable foraging habitats are expected to
occur in the coming decades as natural and agricultural areas are
converted to other uses and as areas become urbanized (Carr and Zwick
2016, entire; Bailey et al. 2017a, p. 1591). Conservation of natural
and semi-natural habitats and restoration with native plants is
imperative to help maintain sufficient prey base. Natural habitats
conducive to insect diversity should be protected and any pesticides
should be used with caution (for more information, see the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) under Life History (pp.
61005-61006), and Pesticides and Contaminants in the Factor E
discussion (pp. 61035-61036).
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
The effects resulting from climate change, including sea level
rise, saltwater intrusion, and coastal squeeze, are expected to become
severe in the future and result in additional habitat losses, including
the loss of roost sites and foraging habitat (see the Factor A
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp.
61026-61030)). Within the species' range, low-lying areas along the
coast are most vulnerable to inundation, and additional areas are
likely to experience changes in plant species composition (decline in
forested habitat such as cabbage palm forests, pine rockland, and
coastal hardwood hammocks). Occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat
located near the coast in south Florida (e.g., Collier, Lee, Miami-
Dade, Monroe, Charlotte, Desoto, and Sarasota Counties) will be
vulnerable to inundation and/or saltwater intrusion as sea levels rise.
Based on source data used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise map viewer, an estimated 8.7
percent (100,840 ac (40,809 ha)) of the designated occupied habitat
area is projected to be inundated by 6 feet of salt water around 2070
(sea level rise plus tidal flooding; Sweet et al. 2017, entire; Sweet
et al. 2018, entire; Sweet et al. 2019, entire; Sweet et al. 2022,
entire). In addition, data from Florida's statewide digital elevation
model (University of Florida (UF) GeoPlan Center 2017, entire) indicate
that an additional 14.3 percent (166,257 ac (67,282 ha)) of designated
occupied habitat outside of the areas mapped by NOAA are at or below 6
feet in elevation and may also be affected by sea level rise (this does
not include area in Unit 1 due to the unlikelihood of sea level rise
impacts). Although we are unable to accurately estimate the extent of
other climate change-related effects, we expect additional occupied
habitat will be impacted by saltwater intrusion, drier conditions, and
increased variability in precipitation, likely resulting in changes to
vegetation composition and prey availability, decreased forest
regeneration, and potential increases in wildfire frequency, severity,
and scale (for more information, see the final listing rule (78 FR
61004; October 2, 2013) under the discussion of Factor A in Land Use
Changes and Human Population Growth (pp. 61026-61027) and Climate
Change and Sea Level Rise (pp. 61028-61029)). The trend toward higher
temperatures and lower rainfall (or shifts in rainfall patterns) could
result in the degradation of wetlands and other important open water
habitats, or complete loss of affected foraging areas if drought-like
conditions persist. Actual impacts may be greater or less than
anticipated based upon high variability of factors involved (e.g., sea
level rise, human population growth) and assumptions made.
As a result of these impacts and other causes of habitat loss and
degradation, the essential physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat may no longer be available in some areas, and the
amount of suitable occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat is likely to
shrink dramatically in the future. Habitat loss from sea level rise and
saltwater intrusion will be greatest in areas closer to the coast and
is likely to result in the loss of some bonneted bat populations, such
as those in eastern Miami-Dade County, reducing the species' ability to
withstand catastrophic events (i.e., redundancy). We anticipate
additional populations near the coast will be reduced in size, such as
those in Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and remaining areas in Miami-
Dade Counties, resulting in decreased overall health and fitness (i.e.,
resiliency) of those populations. Further, most of the remaining bat
populations face similar threats and pressures (e.g., development
pressure, effects of climate change, coastal squeeze, droughts,
hurricanes) that are expected to reduce their resiliency. This limits
the species' ability to recover from population declines when many
populations are similarly affected. However, we lack certainty as to
the severity of impacts the effects of sea level rise may have on the
Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat.
Directly addressing sea level rise is beyond the control of
landowners or managers. However, while landowners or land managers may
not be able prevent these events, they may be able
[[Page 16645]]
to respond with management or protection. Management actions or
activities that could ameliorate the effects of sea level rise on the
Florida bonneted bat (i.e., loss and degradation of habitats that
provide for roosting or foraging, especially those areas closer to the
coast) include providing protection of inland or higher elevation
suitable habitats (e.g., in the northern portion of the bat's range)
that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected by sea level rise,
or habitat restoration or enhancement of these areas.
Environmental Stochasticity
Hurricanes, storm surges, and other catastrophic and stochastic
events are of significant concern (for more information, see final
listing rule (78 FR 61004; October 2, 2013) under the discussion of
Factor E in Environmental Stochasticity (pp. 61037-61039) and Aspects
of the Species' Life History and Climate Change Implications (p.
61039)). In 2017 alone, at least four known roost trees were impacted
by Hurricane Irma. While landowners or land managers cannot prevent
these events, they may be able to respond with protection or management
that can help reduce some effects or facilitate recovery from these
events. Retention of large trees and snags wherever possible in
multiple locations can help provide valuable roosting habitat
throughout the species' range (Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, pp. 235,
240; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7). Management actions or activities that
could enhance forest recovery following storms may include hand or
mechanical removal of damaged vegetation or prescribed fire, if or when
conditions are suitable. If large trees, cavity trees, trees with
hollows or other decay, or snags need to be removed due to safety
issues, visual or other inspection should occur to ensure that active
roosts are not removed in this process.
Artificial structures could potentially help provide roosting
opportunities in areas impacted by stochastic events or where suitable
natural roosts are lacking or deficient. More research on the role of
bat houses in bonneted bat conservation is needed, especially given the
bat's social structure (FWC 2013, pp. 11-12; Ober et al. 2016, p. 7).
If used, bat houses should be appropriately designed, placed,
maintained, and monitored; such structures may also need to be
reinforced and duplicated to prevent loss. If an occupied area is
severely impacted, causing major losses of suitable natural roosts, the
use of artificial structures could be explored as one possible option
to help regain lost roosting capacity.
Pesticides and Contaminants
More study is needed to fully assess the risk that pesticides
(particularly insecticides) and contaminants pose to the Florida
bonneted bat (see Pesticides and Contaminants under the Factor E
discussion in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp.
61035-61036)). Although data are lacking, the species may be exposed to
a variety of compounds through multiple routes of exposure. Areas with
intensive pesticide activity may not support an adequate food base.
Foraging habitat can be enhanced, in part, by limiting the use of
pesticides, including agrochemicals (chemicals used in agriculture)
(Russo and Jones 2003, pp. 206-207; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003, pp.
991-992; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004, entire). While exposure to some
contaminants (e.g., mercury) may be beyond the realm of what
individuals or agencies can rectify, risks from pesticides can be
partially reduced at the local level. For example, landowners and land
managers can help reduce some risks of exposure and improve foraging
conditions for the Florida bonneted bat by avoiding or limiting use of
insecticides (e.g., mosquito control, agricultural), wherever possible,
and especially in areas known to be occupied by the Florida bonneted
bat. An increased occurrence of bonneted bats was found in agricultural
areas and was attributed to a combination of insect abundance in these
areas and the species' ability to forage in open spaces (Bailey et al.
2017a, pp. 1589, 1591). It is reasonable to assume that prey base
(i.e., availability, abundance, and diversity of insects) would be more
plentiful with reduction of insecticides, where possible. If pesticides
cannot be avoided, ways to reduce impacts should be explored.
Protecting natural and semi-natural habitats that support insect
diversity can also improve foraging conditions and contribute to
conservation.
Ecological Light Pollution
The Florida bonneted bat's behavioral response to ecological light
pollution has not specifically been examined (see Ecological Light
Pollution under the Factor E discussion in the final listing rule (78
FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61036)); however, there is evidence of
closely related and other open space foraging bat species avoiding
artificial lighting and of the Florida bonneted bat preferring darker
landscapes within an urban matrix (Jung and Kalko 2010, pp. 147-148;
Bat Conservation International 2022, p. 18; Mena et al. 2022, pp. 568-
571). Artificial lighting can impact roosting habitat quality as light
at emergence can disrupt emergence cues and may increase predation risk
(or perceived predation risk) for other open space foraging and
insectivorous bats (Rydell et al. 1996, pp. 249, 251; Mariton et al.
2022, p. 8). Similarly, lighting can restrict habitat connectivity and
fragment foraging areas (Voigt et al. 2020, pp. 197-199).
Artificial lighting can also affect the abundance and availability
of insects (van Grunsven et al. 2020, entire; Boyes et al. 2021,
entire; Pennisi 2021, entire; Mariton et al. 2022, pp. 2, 7), thereby
reducing the quality of foraging habitat for Florida bonneted bats.
Thus, at this time, we consider ecological light pollution a potential
threat to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat. Management actions
or activities that could ameliorate ecological light pollution include
avoiding and minimizing the use of artificial lighting, retaining
natural light conditions, and promoting the use of environmentally
friendly lighting practices to minimize impacts to wildlife (e.g.,
Voigt et al. 2018, entire).
Inadvertent Impacts From Land Management Practices
Forest management can help maintain and improve the Florida
bonneted bat's roosting and foraging habitat (see Use of Forests and
Other Natural Areas in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, pp. 61007-61010)), and a lack of forest management, including a
lack of prescribed fire or invasive plant control, can be detrimental
to the species. For example, prescribed burns may benefit Florida
bonneted bats by improving habitat structure, enhancing the prey base,
and creating openings; restoration of fire to fire-dependent forests
may improve foraging habitat for this species and create snags (Carter
et al. 2000, p. 139; Boyles and Aubrey 2006, pp. 111-113; Lacki et al.
2009, entire; Armitage and Ober 2012, pp. 107-109; FWC 2013, pp. 9-11;
Ober and McCleery 2014, pp. 1-3; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a-b,
entire).
Fire is a vital component in maintaining suitable Florida bonneted
bat habitat (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018b, entire), and while many
prescribed fire and other land management practices mimic natural
processes and benefit native species on broad spatial and temporal
scales, these activities can result in inadvertent negative impacts in
the near term. For example, extensive removal of trees with cavities or
hollows during activities associated with forest management, fuel
reduction, vista management, off-road vehicle trail
[[Page 16646]]
maintenance, prescribed fire, or habitat restoration may inadvertently
remove roost sites or reduce the availability of roost sites (see Land
Management Practices in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, p. 61027)).
The features essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted
bat may require special management considerations or protection to
reduce threats and conserve these features. Actions that could
ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to:
(1) Retaining and actively managing a habitat network of large and
diverse conservation lands throughout the Florida bonneted bat's range;
(2) Protecting, restoring, or enhancing inland or higher elevation
habitats that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected by sea
level rise;
(3) Protecting habitats that support high insect diversity and
abundance, and avoiding the excessive use of pesticides wherever
possible;
(4) Retaining potential roost trees and snags (see Cover or
Shelter, above); and
(5) Developing and implementing specific guidelines (see the
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines under Supporting and
Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>) 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>).
Information used in the habitat analysis and/or the delineation of
critical habitat units consists of the following:
(1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information
System (GIS) database from 2003 through 2021, and provided by FWC, UF,
and other various sources, including survey reports, databases, and
publications;
(2) Vegetation cover types from the Cooperative Land Cover map
(CLC; version 3.4) developed by FWC and Florida Natural Areas
Inventory;
(3) Canopy height from the global forest canopy height map (2019)
developed by Global Land Analysis and Discovery;
(4) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) potential habitat
(2016) developed by FWC, based on evidence indicating Florida bonneted
bats use woodpecker cavities for roosting;
(5) Artificial sky luminance from the New World Atlas of Artificial
Sky Brightness developed by the Light Pollution Science and Technology
Institute (Falchi et al. 2016, entire);
(6) Fire frequency data provided by the Monitoring Trends in Burn
Severity program;
[[Page 16647]]
(7) Urban development data (2010 baseline) from the Florida 2070
project developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, the UF GeoPlan Center, and 1000 Friends of Florida;
(8) Maps of unpublished telemetry data collected and provided by UF
and FWC; and
(9) ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (2018-2020) to cross-check
CLC data and ensure the presence of physical or biological features.
To help identify potential factors affecting Florida bonneted bat
use, we conducted a spatial analysis to quantify relationships of
habitat-related and other environmental variables with species
occurrence (see Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis under Supporting
and Related Material in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
We considered the model output and the conservation strategy to
determine the specific areas occupied by the species on which are found
the physical or biological features that are essential to the Florida
bonneted bat. Those specific areas (critical habitat units) were
identified and delineated using the following steps:
(1) We identified areas having high conservation value (as
described above) for the Florida bonneted bat based on model output
because those areas are likely to contain the combination of
characteristics that we have determined are essential physical or
biological features for the Florida bonneted bat.
(2) We refined these areas to eliminate any unsuitable or less
suitable areas that are unlikely to contain features essential to the
conservation of the species based on the Florida bonneted bat's biology
(e.g., temperature requirements) and aerial imagery.
(3) We considered telemetry maps and certain critical habitat
criteria that were not incorporated into the models (e.g.,
connectivity). Where telemetry maps indicated high use (e.g., HCV
foraging habitat), or where additional area was needed to ensure
sufficient connectivity, we delineated additional habitat using CLC
data and aerial imagery and based on model output and covariate
relationships identified in our habitat analysis.
(4) We evaluated the resulting units to determine whether occupied
habitat is adequate to ensure conservation of the species. We
specifically evaluated occupied units to ensure they fulfill all
critical habitat criteria and meet the goals and objectives in our
conservation strategy for identifying the areas that contain the
features that are essential to the Florida bonneted bat. Based on our
determination that occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation
of the species, no unoccupied habitat is included in this critical
habitat designation.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings,
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or
biological features necessary for the Florida bonneted bat. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by
text and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal
action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat areas that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species. We considered areas occupied at the time of listing if they
have documented presence of Florida bonneted bats from October 2013
through 2021. Due to the species' life span and high site fidelity, it
is reasonable to conclude that these areas found to be occupied in 2013
to 2021 would have been inhabited by Florida bonneted bats when the
species was listed in 2013. Each critical habitat unit contains all the
identified physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more-detailed
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 and at
the Florida bonneted bat species web page at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus">https://www.fws.gov/species/florida-bonneted-bat-eumops-floridanus</a>.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating nine units as critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we
designate as critical habitat are: (1) Kissimmee Unit, (2) Peace River
Unit, (3) Babcock Unit, (4) Fisheating Creek Unit, (5) Corkscrew Unit,
(6) Big Cypress Unit, (7) Everglades Tree Islands Unit, (8) Long Pine
Key Unit, and (9) Miami Rocklands Unit. All nine units are occupied by
the species. Table 1, below, shows the units and the approximate area
of each unit/subunit within each land ownership category.
[[Page 16648]]
Table 1--Final Critical Habitat Units and Subunits for the Florida Bonneted Bat, Including Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) by Land Ownership Category
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, and land ownership was determined using the most recent parcel data provided
by each county. All units are occupied]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership: ac (ha)
Critical habitat unit/subunit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total area: ac
Federal State County Local Private/other Unidentified (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kissimmee............................ 99 137,283 834 0 35,455 2,065 175,735
(40) (55,556) (338) (14,348) (836) (71,118)
1A.................................. 90 136,846 629 0 29,701 2,065 169,331
(36) (55,380) (255) (12,020) (836) (68,526)
1B.................................. 9 437 205 0 5,753 <1 6,404
(4) (177) (83) (2,328) (2,592)
2. Peace River.......................... 32 6,369 710 165 18,874 1,897 28,046
(13) (2,577) (287) (67) (7,638) (768) (11,350)
2A.................................. 0 0 0 0 2,603 0 2,603
(1,053) (1,053)
2B.................................. 0 0 0 0 5,478 200 5,678
(2,217) (81) (2,298)
2C.................................. 0 0 0 0 2,029 2 2,031
(821) (1) (822)
2D.................................. 32 6,369 710 165 8,765 1,694 17,734
(13) (2,577) (287) (67) (3,547) (686) (7,177)
3. Babcock.............................. 0 108,748 1,843 19 23,739 328 134,677
(44,009) (746) (8) (9,607) (133) (54,502)
3A.................................. 0 80,238 782 19 7,193 328 88,559
(32,471) (316) (8) (2,911) (133) (35,839)
3B.................................. 0 28,510 1,062 0 16,546 0 46,118
(11,538) (430) (6,696) (18,663)
4. Fisheating Creek..................... 0 7,689 <1 0 5,300 6 12,995
(3,112) (2,145) (2) (5,259)
5. Corkscrew............................ 0 26,313 5,188 0 17,324 41 48,865
(10,648) (2,100) (7,011) (16) (19,775)
6. Big Cypress.......................... 533,227 152,559 8,421 229 16,011 3,638 714,085
(215,789) (61,738) (3,408) (93) (6,480) (1,472) (288,980)
7. Everglades Tree Islands.............. 16,596 1 4 0 2 1 16,604
(6,716) (1) (2) (1) (1) (6,719)
8. Long Pine Key........................ 25,147 2 (1) 0 0 187 0 25,337
(10,177) (76) (10,253)
9. Miami Rocklands...................... 603 785 2,458 8 (3) 381 46 4,281
(244) (318) (995) (154) (19) (1,732)
9A.................................. 0 0 52 0 0 1 53
(21) (<1) (21)
9B.................................. 0 0 104 0 0 1 104
(42) (<1) (42)
9C.................................. 0 0 5 0 0 0 5
(2) (2)
9D.................................. 0 0 0 0 28 <1 28
(11) (12)
9E.................................. 0 21 230 <1 13 2 267
(9) (93) (5) (1) (108)
9F.................................. 140 0 <1 0 <1 0 140
(57) (57)
9G.................................. 0 8 0 0 19 <1 28
(3) (8) (11)
9H.................................. 0 235 0 0 0 3 238
(95) (1) (96)
9I.................................. 0 0 22 0 0 0 22
(9) (9)
9J.................................. 0 60 <1 8 28 3 99
(24) (3) (11) (1) (40)
9K.................................. 0 26 11 0 0 0 37
(10) (4) (15)
9L.................................. 0 77 <1 0 <1 0 77
(31) (31)
9M.................................. 0 0 123 0 0 0 123
(50) (50)
9N.................................. 0 28 0 0 <1 0 28
(11) (11)
9O.................................. 462 0 1,215 0 22 1 1,700
(187) (492) (9) (<1) (688)
9P.................................. 0 48 0 0 13 <1 61
(19) (5) (25)
9Q.................................. 0 <1 7 0 7 0 14
(3) (3) (6)
9R.................................. 0 36 22 0 14 8 80
(15) (9) (6) (3) (32)
9S.................................. 0 34 63 0 35 2 135
(14) (26) (14) (1) (55)
9T.................................. 0 10 0 0 25 <1 36
(4) (10) (14)
9U.................................. 0 18 4 0 1 <1 23
(7) (2) (<1) (9)
[[Page 16649]]
9V.................................. 0 0 0 0 30 1 31
(12) (1) (13)
9W.................................. 0 9 103 0 <1 <1 112
(4) (42) (45)
9X.................................. 0 0 10 0 20 <1 30
(4) (8) (12)
9Y.................................. 0 0 18 0 11 4 32
(7) (4) (1) (13)
9Z.................................. 0 0 28 0 <1 3 31
(11) (1) (13)
9AA................................. 0 22 24 0
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on March 7, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.