Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1665-1676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BB91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Lesser Long-Nosed Bat From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
propose to remove the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List) due to recovery. This determination is based on a
thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that the threats to this subspecies have
been eliminated or reduced to the point that the subspecies has
recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act. This document also serves as the 12-month
finding on a petition to reclassify this subspecies from endangered to
threatened on the List. We are seeking information, data, and comments
from the public on the proposed rule to remove the lesser long-nosed
bat from the List.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 7, 2017. Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an
electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. We must
receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below by February 21,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Copies of documents: This proposed rule and supporting documents,
including the Species Status Assessment, are available on http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed
rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone
(602-242-0210); or by facsimile (602-242-2513). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

Public Comments

Any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on
the best

[[Page 1666]]

scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as
effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information
from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning
this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to
influence our decisions are those supported by data or peer-reviewed
studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of,
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific
as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate
any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. In
particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
(1) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of lesser long-nosed bats, including
the locations of any additional populations;
(2) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat use of the lesser long-nosed bat;
(3) New information concerning the taxonomic classification and
conservation status of the lesser long-nosed bat in general; and
(4) New information related to any of the risk factors or threats
to the lesser long-nosed bat identified in the Species Status
Assessment or the proposed action.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider
comments sent by email, fax, or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.
We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or
mailed comments that are not postmarked by the date specified in DATES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the Web site. Please note that comments posted to this Web
site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the
system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions
on http://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will
be available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138, which is the docket number for this
rulemaking.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES, above. We will schedule
at least one public hearing on this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the location(s) of any of hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days
before any hearing.

Background

Previous Federal Actions

On September 30, 1988, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (53 FR 38456) to list the Mexican long-nosed bat
(Leptonycteris nivalis) and Sanborn's long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris
sanborni (=L. yerbabuenae)) as endangered species. That rule became
effective on October 31, 1988, and did not include a critical habitat
designation for either bat. In 1993, we amended the List by revising
the entry for the Sanborn's long-nosed bat to ``Bat, lesser
(=Sanborn's) long-nosed'' with the scientific name ``Leptonycteris
curasoae yerbabuenae.'' We issued a recovery plan for the lesser long-
nosed bat on March 4, 1997. The recovery plan has not been revised. In
2001, we again amended the List by revising the entry for the lesser
long-nosed bat to remove the synonym of ``Sanborn's''; the listing
reads, ``Bat, lesser long-nosed'' and retains the scientific name
``Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae.'' Cole and Wilson (2006)
recommended that L. c. yerbabuenae be recognized as Leptonycteris
yerbabuenae. Additionally, Wilson and Reeder's (2005) ``Mammal Species
of the World (Third Edition), an accepted standard for mammalian
taxonomy, also indicates that L. yerbabuenae is a species distinct from
L. curasoae. Currently, the most accepted and currently used
classification for the lesser long-nosed bat is L. yerbabuenae,
however, the Service continues to classify the listed entity as
Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. We recommended, as part of the
status review, that the Service recognize and change the taxonomic
nomenclature for the lesser long-nosed bat to be consistent with the
most recent classification of this species, L. yerbabuenae. However,
throughout this proposed rule, we will refer to the lesser long-nosed
bat as a subspecies. On August 30, 2007, we completed a 5-year review,
in which the Service recommended reclassifying the species from
endangered to threatened status (i.e., ``downlisting'') under the Act
(USFWS 2007; available online at http://www.regulations.gov or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). The reclassification
recommendation was made because information generated since the listing
of the lesser long-nosed bat indicated that the subspecies is not in
imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (higher population numbers, increased number of known
roosts, reduced impacts from known threats, and improved protection
status) and thus, does not meet the definition of endangered. On July
16, 2012, the Service received a petition from The Pacific Legal
Foundation and others requesting that the Service downlist the lesser
long-nosed bat as recommended in the 5-year review (as well as delist
one species and downlist three other listed species). On September 9,
2013, the Service

[[Page 1667]]

published a 90-day petition finding stating that the petition contained
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
petitioned action for the lesser long-nosed bat may be warranted (78 FR
55046). On November 28, 2014, the Service received a ``60-day Notice of
Intent to Bring Citizen Suit,'' and on November 20, 2015, the New
Mexico Cattle Growers Association and others filed a complaint
challenging the Service's failure to complete in a timely manner the
12-month findings on five species, including the lesser long-nosed bat
(New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, et al. v. United States
Department of the Interior, et al., No. 1:15-cv-01065-PJK-LF (D.N.M)),
asking the Court to compel the Service to make 12-month findings on the
five species. On September 29, 2016, the parties settled the lawsuit
with the requirement that the Service submit a 12-month finding for the
lesser long-nosed bat to the Federal Register for publication on or
before December 30, 2016, among other obligations. This document
fulfills the portion of the settlement agreement that concerns the
lesser long-nosed bat.

Species Information

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the lesser long-nosed bat is presented in the
Species Status Assessment (SSA) report for the lesser long-nosed bat
(USFWS 2016), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov
or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm, or in person at
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES, above).
The SSA report documents the results of the biological status review
for the lesser long-nosed bat and provides an account of the
subspecies' overall viability through forecasting of the subspecies'
condition in the future (USFWS 2016; entire). In the SSA report, we
summarize the relevant biological data and a description of past,
present, and likely future stressors to the subspecies, and conduct an
analysis of the viability of the subspecies. The SSA report provides
the scientific basis that informs our regulatory determination
regarding whether this subspecies should be listed as an endangered or
a threatened species under the Act. This determination involves the
application of standards within the Act, its implementing regulations,
and Service policies (see Delisting Proposal, below) to the scientific
information and analysis in the SSA. The following discussion is a
summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA report. We
solicited expert review of the draft SSA report from lesser long-nosed
bat experts, as well as experts in climate change modeling and plant
phenology (the scientific study of periodic biological phenomena, such
as flowering, in relation to climatic conditions). Additionally, and in
compliance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy
for Peer Review of Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited peer reviews on
the draft SSA report from four objective and independent scientific
experts in November 2016.
The lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) is
one of three nectar-feeding bats in the United States; the others are
the Mexican long-nosed bat (L. nivalis) and the Mexican long-tongued
bat (Choeronycteris mexicana). The lesser long-nosed bat is a migratory
pollinator and seed disperser that provides important ecosystem
services in arid forest, desert, and grassland systems throughout its
range in the United States and Mexico, contributing to healthy soils,
diverse vegetation communities, and sustainable economic benefits for
communities. The range of the lesser long-nosed bat extends from the
southwestern United States southward through Mexico.
The Service has assigned a recovery priority number of 8 to the
lesser long-nosed bat. This recovery priority number means that the
lesser long-nosed bat was considered to have a moderate degree of
threat and a high recovery potential. Because the lesser long-nosed bat
is a colonial roosting species known to occur at a limited number of
roosts across its range in Mexico and the United States (Arizona and
New Mexico), impacts at roost locations could have a significant impact
on the population, particularly if the impacts occur at maternity
roosts. However, because approximately 60 percent (eight out of
fourteen) of the roost locations known at the time of listing were on
``protected'' lands in both the United States and Mexico, the degree of
threat was determined to be moderate. The primary recovery actions
outlined in the recovery plan were to monitor and protect known roost
sites and foraging habitats. Because both of these actions could be
potentially be accomplished through management at all of the known
roost sites known at that time, the recovery potential for the lesser
long-nosed bat was determined to be high. A U.S. recovery plan was
completed for the lesser long-nosed bat in 1997 (USFWS 1997, entire)
and the Program for the Conservation of Migratory Bats in Mexico was
formed in 1994 (Bats 1995, p. 1-6).
The Service completed a 5-year review of the status of the lesser
long-nosed bat in 2007. This review recommended downlisting this bat
from endangered to threatened status under the Act (USFWS 2007;
available at http://www.regulations.gov or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). In Mexico, the lesser long-nosed bat
was recently removed from that nation's equivalent of the endangered
species list (SEMARNAT 2010, entire; Medellin and Knoop 2013, entire).
According to SEMARNAT (2010), over the last twenty years, Mexican
researchers have carried out a wide range of studies that have
demonstrated that the lesser long-nosed bat is no longer in the
critical condition that led it to be listed as in danger of extinction
in Mexico. Specifically, the evaluation to delist in Mexico showed 1)
the distribution of lesser long-nosed bats is extensive within Mexico,
covering more than 40 percent of the country; 2) the extent and
condition of lesser long-nosed bat habitat is only moderately limiting
and this species has demonstrated that it is adaptable to varying
environmental conditions; 3) the species does not exhibit any
particular characteristics that make it especially vulnerable; and 4)
the extent of human impacts is average and increased education,
outreach, and research have reduced the occurrence of human impacts and
disturbance.

Subspecies Description and Needs

The lesser long-nosed bat is a migratory bat characterized by a
resident subpopulation that remains year round in central and southern
Mexico to mate and give birth, and a migratory subpopulation that
winters and mates in central and southern Mexico, but that migrates
north in the spring to give birth in northern Mexico and the
southwestern United States (Arizona). This migratory subpopulation then
obtains the necessary resources (in Arizona and New Mexico in the
United States) to be able to migrate south in the fall back to central
and southern Mexico. The lesser long-nosed bat is a nectar, pollen, and
fruit-eating bat that depends on a variety of flowering plants as food
resources. These plants include columnar cacti, agaves, and a variety
of flowering deciduous trees. The lesser long-nosed bat is a colonial
roosting species that roosts in groups ranging from a few hundred to
over 100,000. Roost sites are primarily caves, mines, and large
crevices with appropriate temperatures and humidity; reduced access to
predators; free of the disease-

[[Page 1668]]

causing organisms (fungus that causes white-nose syndrome, etc.);
limited human disturbance; structural integrity maintained; in a
diversity of locations to provide for maternity, mating, migration, and
transition roost sites.
The primary life-history needs of this subspecies include
appropriate and adequately distributed roosting sites; adequate forage
resources for life-history events such as mating and birthing; and
adequate roosting and forage resources in an appropriate configuration
(a ``nectar trail'') to complete migration between central and southern
Mexico and northern Mexico and the United States.
For more information on this topic, see chapter 2 of the SSA Report
(USFWS 2016), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov
or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm, or in person at
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES, above).

Current Conditions

For the last 20 years following the completion of the lesser long-
nosed bat recovery plan, there has been a steadily increasing effort
related to the conservation of this subspecies. Better methods of
monitoring have been developed, including the use of infrared
videography and radio telemetry. These monitoring efforts have led to
an increase in the number of known roosts throughout its range, from
approximately 14 known at the time of listing to approximately 75
currently known roost sites, as well as more accurate assessments of
the numbers of lesser long-nosed bats using these roosts. The 1988
listing rule emphasized low populations numbers along with an apparent
declining population trend. At this time, we have documented increased
lesser long-nosed bat numbers and positive trends (stable or increasing
numbers of bats documented over the past 20 years) at most roosts.
There is no question that current population numbers of lesser long-
nosed bats exceed the levels known and recorded at the time of listing
in 1988. A number of publications have documented numbers of lesser
long-nosed bats throughout its range that far exceed the numbers used
in the listing analysis (Fleming et al. 2003; Sidner and Davis 1988).
For example, although numbers fluctuate from year to year, the numbers
of lesser long-nosed bats estimated from 2010-2015 in the three known
maternity roosts in the U.S. were an average of two and a half times
higher than numbers presented in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2016; p. 10).
Furthermore, protection measures have been implemented at over half the
roosts in both the United States and Mexico (approximately 40 roosts),
including gating, road closures, fencing, implementation of management
plans, public education, monitoring, and enforcement of access
limitations. Generally, roosts on Federal lands benefit from monitoring
by agency personnel and a law enforcement presence resulting in these
roosts being exposed to fewer potential impacts than they otherwise
would be. Efforts to physically protect roosts through the use of gates
or barriers have been implemented at six roost sites in Arizona. The
experimental fence at one roost (a mine site) worked initially, but was
subsequently vandalized resulting in roost abandonment. The fencing was
repaired and there have been no subsequent breeches and the bats have
recolonized the site (USFWS 2016; p. 11).
In addition, since the 1988 listing rule, increased public and
academic interest, along with additional funding, has resulted in
additional research leading to a better understanding of the life
history of the lesser long-nosed bat. At the time of listing, we
believed livestock grazing and fire were impacting the viability of
this subspecies. We now know that livestock grazing and fire have less
of an impact on the viability of this subspecies than previously
thought. Other threats have been reduced such as reducing the killing
of non-target bat species during vampire bat control activities in
Mexico (i.e., poisoning, dynamiting, burning, shooting, anticoagulants,
roost destruction, etc.) because of outreach and education and reducing
human disturbance at roosts through the use of fencing, monitoring, and
the use of gates. However, roost disturbance, particularly in the
border region between the United States and Mexico; habitat loss due to
various land uses; and, to an unknown extent, effects due to climate
change continue to be threats to this subspecies. Nonetheless, these
threats are being addressed or ongoing research is developing
management strategies such that we have determined that the effects of
these threats will not affect the future viability of the lesser long-
nosed bat.
The lesser long-nosed bat's conservation status in Mexico has been
determined to be secure enough that Mexico removed the subspecies from
its endangered species list in 2013 because of the factors described
above. The species has a greater distribution in Mexico than in the
United States, but most of the same reasoning for the subspecies'
removal from Mexico's endangered species list applies to our proposal
to remove the lesser long-nosed bat from the U.S. List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. Much of the range of this species in the
United States is on federally managed lands (>75 percent). Federal
agencies have guidelines and requirements in place to protect lesser
long-nosed bats and their habitats, particularly roost sites. As
described above, roosts on Federal lands benefit from monitoring by
agency personnel and a law enforcement presence resulting in these
roosts being exposed to fewer potential impacts than they otherwise
would be. Gating of roosts on Federal lands is being implemented and
evaluated. If the lesser long-nosed bat is delisted, protection of
their roost sites and forage resources will continue on Federal lands.
Agency land-use plans and general management plans contain objectives
to protect cave resources and restrict access to abandoned mines, both
of which can be enforced by law enforcement officers. In addition,
guidelines in these plans for grazing, recreation, off-road use, fire,
etc. will continue to prevent or minimize impacts to lesser long-nosed
bat forage resources. Examples of these agency plans include the Fort
Huachuca Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, the Coronado
National Forest Land Use and Resource Management Plan, and the Safford
District Resource Management Plan (DOD 2001, entire; USFS 2005, entire;
BLM 1991, entire). As described above, roosts on Federal lands benefit
from monitoring by agency personnel and a law enforcement presence
resulting in these roosts being exposed to fewer potential impacts than
they otherwise would be. Gating of roosts on Federal lands is being
implemented and evaluated and, while the best design for such gates is
still being developed, these gates do provide long-term protection of
the sites. Further, outreach and education, particularly with regard to
pollinator conservation, has increased and human attitudes regarding
bats are more positive now than in the past; and the lesser long-nosed
bat has demonstrated adaptability to potential adverse environmental
conditions, such as changes in plant flowering phenology (see
discussion under Factor E, below).
Because of the occurrence of both resident and migratory
subpopulations within the lesser long-nosed bat population, it is
important for all of the necessary habitat elements to be appropriately
distributed across the range of this species such that roost sites,
forage resources, and migration

[[Page 1669]]

pathways are in the appropriate locations during the appropriate
season. Currently, the distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat
extends from southern Mexico into the southwestern United States. In
Mexico, the distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat covers
approximately 40 percent of the country when considering resident
areas, migration pathways, and seasonally-occupied roosts within the
range of this subspecies. Within both the United States and Mexico, the
current distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat has not decreased or
changed substantially from that described in the literature. It is
important to note, however, that, as discussed in the SSA report, any
given area within the range of the lesser long-nosed bat may be used in
an ephemeral manner dictated by the availability of resources that can
change on an annual and seasonal basis. Roost switching occurs in
response to changing resources and areas that may be used during one
year or season may not be used in subsequent years until resources are
again adequate to support occupancy of the area. This affects if and
how maternity and mating roosts, migration pathways, and transition
roosts are all used during any given year or season. However, while the
distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat within its range may be
fluid, the overall distribution of this species has remained similar
over time (USFWS 2016, Chapters 1 through 3).
For more information on this topic, see chapter 5 of the SSA Report
(USFWS 2016), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov
or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm, or in person at
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES, above).

Recovery Planning and Recovery Criteria

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans identify site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species
and objective, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the
species' status. Methods for monitoring recovery progress may also be
included in recovery plans.
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; instead they are
intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed
species and define criteria that are designed to indicate when the
threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent
that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act. They
also identify suites of actions that are expected to facilitate
achieving this goal of recovery. While recovery plans are not
regulatory, they provide guidance regarding what recovery may look like
and possible paths to achieve it. However, there are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved
without all recovery actions being implemented or criteria being fully
met. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive
management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in
a recovery plan.
The 1997 lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan objective is to
downlist the species to threatened (USFWS 1997, entire). The recovery
plan does not explain why delisting was not considered as the objective
for the recovery plan. The existing recovery plan does not explicitly
tie the recovery criteria to the five listing factors at section
4(a)(1) of the Act or contain explicit discussion of those five listing
factors. In addition, the reasons for listing discussed in the recovery
plan do not actually correspond with the five listing factors set forth
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The recovery plan lists four criteria
that should be considered for downlisting the subspecies, which are
summarized below. A detailed review of the recovery criteria for the
lesser long-nosed bat is presented in the 5-year Review for the Lesser
Long-Nosed Bat (USFWS 2007; available online at http://www.regulations.gov or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm).

Recovery Criterion 1 (Monitor Major Roosts for 5 Years)

Significant efforts have been made to implement a regular schedule
of monitoring at the known roost sites in Arizona. All thirteen of the
roost sites identified in the recovery plan have had some degree of
monitoring over the past 20 years. In the United States, all of the six
roosts identified in the recovery plan for monitoring (Copper Mountain,
Bluebird, Old Mammon, Patagonia Bat Cave, State of Texas, and Hilltop)
have been monitored since 2001. This recovery criterion has been
satisfied for roosts in Arizona. None of the New Mexico roosts were
identified for monitoring in the recovery plan, but these roosts have
been monitored sporadically since the completion of the recovery plan
(USFWS 2007; p. 6-9). The seven roost sites in Mexico have been
regularly monitored since the development of the recovery plan
(Medell[iacute]n and Torres 2013, p. 11-13). For more information, see
chapter 2 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016).

Recovery Criterion 2 (Roost Numbers Stable or Increasing)

Nearly all of the lesser long-nosed bat experts and researchers who
provided input to the 5-year review indicated that they observed that
the number of lesser long-nosed bats at most of the roost sites in both
the United States and Mexico is stable or increasing. As discussed in
the SSA report, current expert opinion supports this same conclusion
(see chapter 2 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016). The lesser long-nosed
bat's conservation status in Mexico has been determined to be secure
enough that Mexico removed the subspecies from its endangered species
list in 2013 based on the factors discussed above.

Recovery Criterion 3 (Protect Roost and Forage Plant Habitats)

More lesser long-nosed bat roost locations are currently known, and
are being more consistently monitored, than at the time of listing in
1988 (an increase from approximately 14 to approximately 75 currently
known roosts). In related efforts, a number of studies have been
completed that provide us with better information related to the forage
requirements of the lesser long-nosed bat when compared to the time of
listing and recovery plan completion. Because of improved information,
land management agencies are doing a better job of protecting lesser
long-nosed bat roost sites and foraging areas. For more information,
see chapter 2 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016).

Recovery Criterion 4 (Status of New and Known Threats)

Our current state of knowledge with regard to threats to this
subspecies has changed since the development of the recovery plan.
Threats to the lesser long-nosed bat from grazing on food plants, the
tequila industry, and prescribed fire, identified in the recovery plan,
are likely not as severe as once thought. Effects from illegal border
activity and the associated enforcement activities are a new and
continuing threat to roost sites in the border region. Potential
effects to forage species and their phenology as a result of climate
change have been identified, but are characterized by uncertainty and
lack of data specifically addressing those issues. Nonetheless, lesser
long-nosed bats have shown the ability to adapt to adverse forage
conditions and we find that the lesser long-nosed bat is characterized
by flexible and adaptive behaviors that will allow it to remain

[[Page 1670]]

viable under changing climatic conditions. Some progress has been made
toward protecting known lesser long-nosed bat roost sites; while the
ultimate level of effectiveness of gates as a protection measure is
still being evaluated and improved, they do provide long-term
protection of roost sites. Gates are being currently being tested at a
few additional lesser long-nosed bat roost sites. For more information,
see chapter 4 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016).
As discussed in the SSA report and 5-year review, data relied upon
to develop the 1988 listing rule and the recovery plan were incomplete.
Subsequent to the completion of the listing rule and recovery plan,
considerable additional data regarding the life history and status of
the lesser long-nosed bat have been gathered and, as discussed above,
have documented an increase in the number of known roost sites and the
number of lesser long-nosed bats occupying those roosts. During the
2007 5-year review of the status of this subspecies, it was determined
that the 1997 recovery plan was outdated and did not reflect the best
available information on the biology of this subspecies and its needs
(USFWS 2007; p. 30; available online at http://www.regulations.gov or
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). Therefore, rather
than use the existing outdated recovery criteria, the Service assessed
the species' viability, as summarized in the SSA report (USFWS 2016),
in making the determination of whether or not the lesser long-nosed bat
has recovered as defined by the Act.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be
reclassified or delisted on the same basis. Consideration of these
factors was included in the SSA report in the discussion on ``threats''
or ``risk factors,'' and threats were projected into the future using
scenarios to evaluate the current and future viability of the lesser
long-nosed bat. The effects of conservation measures currently in place
were also assessed in the SSA report as part of the current condition
of the subspecies, and those effects were projected in future
scenarios. The evaluation of the five factors as described in the SSA
report is summarized below.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The primary threat to this subspecies continues to be roost site
disturbance or loss. The colonial roosting behavior of this subspecies,
where high percentages of the population can congregate at a limited
number of roost sites, increases the likelihood of significant declines
or extinction due to impacts at roost sites. However, as discussed
above, increased lesser long-nosed bat numbers and positive trends at
most roosts have reduced concerns expressed in the 1988 listing rule
with regard to low population numbers and an apparent declining
population trend. Known roosts have had protective measures
implemented, previously unknown roosts have been identified and
agencies and conservation partners are implementing protective
measures, and outreach and education has been effective in increasing
the understanding of the general public, as well as conservation
partners, with regard to the need to prevent disturbance at lesser
long-nosed bat roosts while the bats are present (USFWS 2016, p. 45-
48). As discussed in the SSA report, we have determined that the
current lesser long-nosed bat population is currently viable and is
likely to remain so into the future based on the documentation of
higher numbers of lesser long-nosed bats, increased numbers of known
and protected roost sites, improved outreach and education, and a
decrease in the effects of known threats and plans to assess and
address known threats in the future (USFWS 2016, entire). We have
determined that roost sites have and will be protected to the extent
that roost disturbance is no longer a sufficient threat to warrant
listing under the Act.
In general, while actual numbers of bats observed at roost sites
may not support a statistically valid population trend, the overall
numbers of bats observed at roost sites can be used as an index of
population status. Although most data related to lesser long-nosed bat
roost counts and monitoring have not been collected in a way that is
statistically rigorous enough to draw statistically-valid conclusions
about the trend of the population, in the professional judgment of
biologists and others involved in these efforts, the total numbers of
bats observed at roost sites across the range of the lesser long-nosed
bat are considered stable or increasing at nearly all roost sites being
monitored. With a documented increase from an estimated 500 lesser
long-nosed bats in the U.S. at the time of listing to over 100,000
currently documented, the total number of bats currently being
documented is many times greater than those numbers upon which the
listing of this species relied, and while this may, in large part,
reflect a better approach to survey and monitoring in subsequent years,
it gives us better information upon which to evaluate the status of the
lesser long-nosed bat population.
Significant information regarding the relationship of lesser long-
nosed bats to their forage resources has been gathered over the past
decade. Because lesser long-nosed bats are highly specialized nectar-,
pollen-, and fruit-eaters, they have potential to be extremely
vulnerable to loss of or impacts to forage species. However, lesser
long-nosed bats are also highly effective at locating food resources,
and their nomadic nature allows them to adapt to local conditions. For
example, the resiliency of lesser long-nosed bats became evident in
2004, when a widespread failure of saguaro and organ pipe bloom
occurred. The failure was first noted in Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, and such a failure had not been noted in the recorded history
of the Monument (Billings 2005). The failure extended from Cabeza
Prieta NWR on the west to Tucson on the east, and south into central
Sonora, Mexico. The large-scale loss of this lesser long-nosed bat food
resource was somewhat offset by the fact that small numbers of both
saguaro and organ pipe flowers continued to bloom into August and
September. Such a failure would have been expected to result in fewer
lesser long-nosed bats using roosts in this area or reduced
productivity at these roosts. However, this was not the case. Maternity
roost numbers remained as high as or higher than previous years, with
some 25,000 adult females counted during 2004 monitoring (Billings
2005). Ultimately, it appears lesser long-nosed bats were able to
subsist and raise young in southwestern Arizona in this atypical year.
Other observations over the past 20 years, including some years of
significantly reduced agave availability, have indicated that the
lesser long-nosed bat is more adaptable than previously believed to
changing forage resource availability. This adaptability

[[Page 1671]]

leads us to a determination that forage availability will not
significantly affect the viability of the lesser long-nosed bat
population.
Additionally, the effects of livestock grazing and prescribed fire
on long-nosed bat food sources are also not as significant as
originally thought. For example, Widmer (2002) found that livestock
were not responsible for all of the utilization of agave flower stalks
their study area. Wildlife such as javelina, white-tailed deer, and
small mammals also utilized agave flower stalks as a food resource. The
extent of livestock use of agave flower stalks appears to be related to
standing biomass and distance from water. Further, Bowers and
McLaughlin (2000) found that the proportion of agave flower stalks
broken by cattle did not differ significantly between grazed and
ungrazed areas. All of which indicate that livestock do not have a
significant effect on lesser long-nosed bat food sources, over and
above native grazers. Thomas and Goodson (1992) and Johnson (2001, p.
37) reported 14% and 19% mortality of agaves following burns. Some
agency monitoring has occurred post-fire for both wildfires and
prescribed burns. This monitoring indicates that agave mortality in
burned areas is generally less than 10% (USFS 2015, p. 82-83; USFS
2013, p. 10-11). Contributing to this relatively low mortality rate is
the fact that most fires burn in a mosaic, where portions of the area
do not burn. Impacts of fire on agave as a food source for lesser long-
nosed bats may not be a significant concern for the following reasons:
Fire-caused mortality of agaves appears to be low; alternative foraging
areas typically occur within the foraging distance from lesser long-
nosed bat roosts; and most agave concentrations occur on steep, rocky
slopes with low fuel loads (Warren 1996). In addition, Johnson (2001,
p. 35-36) reported that recruitment of new agaves occurred at higher
rates in burned plots than in unburned plots, indicating that there may
be an increased availability over time of agaves in areas that have
burned, if the return rate of fire is greater than seven years. The
effects of agave harvesting are limited to bootleggers, which is likely
occurring at the same levels as when the species was listed in 1988,
however, this is not considered significant. In addition, increased
outreach and education are being provided to tequila producers in an
effort to reduce the effects of agave harvesting on lesser long-nosed
bats.
While not currently a threat affecting the viability of the lesser
long-nosed bat population, the potential for migration corridors to be
truncated or interrupted is a concern. Significant gaps in the presence
of important roosts and forage species along migration routes would
affect the population dynamics of this subspecies. While the lesser
long-nosed bat continues to be faced with loss and modification of its
habitat throughout its range, the habitats used by this subspecies
occur over an extensive range that covers a wide diversity of
vegetation and ecological communities. These are habitat
characteristics that would not make this subspecies intrinsically
vulnerable with regard to habitat limitations. That is to say, the wide
variety of ecosystems that this subspecies uses, over a relatively
expansive range, results in available areas characterized by the
asynchronous flowering of forage resources making up the diet of the
lesser long-nosed bat and buffers this subspecies from potential loss
or reduction of habitats as a result of stochastic events, including
the effects of climate change, among others.
There is no question that current population numbers of lesser
long-nosed bats exceed the levels known and recorded at the time of
listing in 1988. A number of publications have documented numbers of
lesser long-nosed bats throughout its range that far exceed the numbers
used in the listing analysis with an estimated increase from fewer than
1,000 bats to approximately 200,000 bats (Fleming et al. 2003, pp. 64-
65; Sidner and Davis 1988, p. 494). Also, in general, the trend in
overall numbers of lesser long-nosed bats estimated at roost sites has
been stable or increasing in both the United States and Mexico
(Medell[iacute]n and Knoop 2013, p. 13; USFWS 2016). Increased roost
occupancy and the positive trend in numbers of lesser long-nosed bats
occupying these roosts appear to be supported by adequate forage
resources. The adaptability of the lesser long-nosed bat to changing
forage conditions seems to allow the lesser long-nosed bat to sustain a
positive population status under current environmental conditions.
While some threats are ongoing with regard to lesser long-nosed bat
habitat, in general, we find that threats to this species' habitat have
been reduced or are being addressed in such a way that lesser long-
nosed bat habitat is being enhanced and protected at a level that has
increased since the 1988 listing of this species. In particular, areas
that were vulnerable to threats have been protected or are now managed
such that those threats have been reduced. Outreach and education have
increased the understanding of what needs to be done to protect lesser
long-nosed bat habitat. Therefore, based on the analysis completed in
the SSA report (USFWS 2016; p. 54-61), we have determined that threats
to the habitat of this species are currently reduced and will continue
to be addressed in the foreseeable future, or are not as significant as
previously thought. We find that threats to the habitat of this species
have been eliminated, reduced, or mitigated to the extent that the
subspecies no longer is an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. Lesser long-nosed bat habitat conditions are currently, and are
predicted to remain at levels that have and will improve the viability
of the lesser long-nosed bat to the point that the species is no longer
endangered.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Lesser long-nosed bats are not known to be taken for commercial
purposes, and scientific collecting is not thought to be a problem
(USFWS 1988, p. 38459). Caves and mines continue to attract
recreational users interested in exploring these features but this
threat has probably not increased since the listing. For example, Pima
County, in southeastern Arizona, is implementing mine closures on lands
that they have acquired for conservation purposes. Other land
management agencies also carry out abandoned mine closures for public
recreational safety purposes. A positive aspect of these mine closure
processes is that most agencies and landowners now understand the value
of these features to bats and other wildlife and are implementing
measures to maintain those values while still addressing public health
and safety concerns. The 1988 listing rule stated that bats were often
killed by vandals (USFWS 1988, p. 38459). However, significant changes
in the public perception of bats are occurring. Educational efforts are
beginning to make a difference.
In both the U.S. and Mexico, public education, in the form of radio
and television spots, and educational materials have been implemented.
Agencies now receive calls for assistance in nonlethal solutions to bat
issues. Often, the general public does take the time to understand or
differentiate when it comes to emotional issues such as rabies or
vampire bats, but outreach and education are improving the
understanding and knowledge of facts when it comes to the reality of
the extent of these issues. There has been a focused effort in Mexico
to reduce the mortality of non-target species in relation to vampire
bat

[[Page 1672]]

control (see chapter 4 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016).
In summary, we determine that the viability of the lesser long-
nosed bat is not being significantly affected by threats from
scientific research or public recreational activities.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease does not currently appear to be a significant risk factor
for the lesser long-nosed bat. Emerging disease issues, such as those
associated with white-nose syndrome, may become more significant,
however our current scientific assessment indicates that white-nose
syndrome will not affect this non-hibernating species. Therefore,
because lesser long-nosed bats do not hibernate, we do not anticipate
that white-nose syndrome will be a significant risk factor for lesser
long-nosed bats (see chapter 4 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016).
Predation does contribute to the mortality of lesser long-nosed
bats at roost sites. Likely predators include snakes, raccoons, skunks,
ringtails, bobcats, coyotes, barn owls, great-horned owls, and screech
owls. Specifically, barn owls have been observed preying on lesser
long-nosed bats at the maternity roost at Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument for many years and snakes have been observed preying on lesser
long-nosed bats in Baja California Sur, Mexico. However, at large
aggregations, such as bat roosts, predation is an insignificant impact
on the population. Therefore, we find that neither disease nor
predation are currently or is likely in the future to affect the
viability of the lesser long-nosed bat.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The current listing of the lesser long-nosed bat in the United
States and the former listing of the bat in Mexico as an endangered
species have provided this species with some level of protection.
Outside of this, there are no laws or regulations protecting this
species in Mexico. In fact, the lack of regulation related to control
of vampire bats in Mexico is continuing to result in the mortality of
the lesser long-nosed bat due to the lack of requirements to properly
identify the target species. However, increased education and outreach
is improving this situation in Mexico. In the United States, State laws
and regulations provide some additional level of protection. For
example, Arizona State Law in ARS Title 17 prohibits the taking of bats
outside of a prescribed hunting season and, per Commission Order 14,
there is no open hunting season on bats, meaning it is always illegal
to take them. Provisions for special licenses to take bats and other
restricted live wildlife are found in Arizona Game and Fish Commission
Rule 12, Article 4 and are administered by the Arizona Game and Fish
Department. However, this protection is for individual animals only,
and does not apply to the loss or destruction of habitat. As discussed
in the SSA report (USFWS 2016; p. 14), there is one Federal Act and one
State Statute in the United States that provide some measure of
protection at cave roosts. The Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988
prohibits persons from activities that ``destroy, disturb, deface, mar,
alter, remove, or harm any significant cave or alters free movement of
any animal or plant life into or out of any significant cave located on
Federal lands, or enters a significant cave with the intent of
committing any act described . . .'' Arizona Revised Statute 13-3702
makes it a class 2 misdemeanor to ``deface or damage petroglyphs,
pictographs, caves, or caverns.'' Activities covered under ARS 13-3702
include ``kill, harm, or disturb plant or animal life found in any cave
or cavern, except for safety reasons.''
The above laws and regulations will continue to protect lesser
long-nosed bats and their habitats after delisting. We have determined
that these existing regulations address the most important threats to
the lesser long-nosed bat as discussed in the SSA report (USFWS 2016;
p. 54-61).

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Ecosystems within the southwestern United States are thought to be
particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change and
variability (Strittholt et al. 2012, p. 104-152; Munson et al. 2012, p.
1-2; Archer and Predick 2008). Documented trends and model projections
most often show changes in two variables: Temperature and
precipitation. Recent warming in the southwest is among the most rapid
in the nation, significantly more than the global average in some areas
(Garfin et al. 2014, p. 463; Strittholt et al. 2012, p. 104-152; Munson
et al. 2012, p. 1-2; Guido et al. 2009). Precipitation predictions have
a larger degree of uncertainty than predictions for temperature,
especially in the Southwest (Sheppard et al. 2002), but indicate
reduced winter precipitation with more intense precipitation events
(Global Climate Change 2009, p. 129-134; Archer and Predick 2008, p.
24). Further, some models predict dramatic changes in Southwestern
vegetation communities as a result of the effects of climate change
(Garfin et al. 2014, p. 468; Munson et al. 2012, p. 9-12; Archer and
Predick 2008, p. 24). In the most recent assessment of climate change
impacts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
IPCC indicated that there would be a decrease in the number of cold
days and nights and an increase in the number of warm days and warm
nights which would favor frost-intolerant lesser long-nosed bat forage
species like saguaro and organ pipe cacti, but may also affect the
blooming phenology of those same species (IPCC 2014, p. 53). They also
indicted that precipitation events would likely become more intense and
that we are more likely to see climate-related extremes such as heat
waves, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc. (IPCC 2014, p. 53).
The U.S. Geological Survey produced a mapping tool that allows
climate change projections to be downscaled to local areas including
states, counties, and watershed units. We used this National Climate
Change Viewer (U.S. Geological Survey 2016) to compare past and
projected future climate conditions for Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise
counties, Arizona. The baseline for comparison was the observed mean
values from 1950 through 2005, and 30 climate models were used to
project future conditions for 2050 through 2074. We selected the
climate parameters of April maximum temperature and August and December
mean precipitation to evaluate potential effects on lesser long-nosed
bat forage resources. These particular parameters were selected from
those available because they represented those most likely to impact
the survival and flowering phenology of individual forage species.
Similar to the more general climate change effects discussed above,
the downscaled analysis also showed warming spring temperatures which
could result in an early blooming period for lesser long-nosed bat
forage species (USGS 2016). Precipitation changes were evaluated for
changes to monsoon and winter precipitation. In line with the general
climate projections, changes during the evaluated time periods were
greater for winter precipitation than for monsoon precipitation.
Changes projected for monsoon precipitation were minimal, but projected
to be reduced by approximately one inch per 100 days for winter
precipitation (USGS 2016).
The best available information indicates that ongoing climate
change will probably have some effect on lesser long-nosed bat forage
resources. Such

[[Page 1673]]

effects will occur as a result of changes in the phenology (periodic
biological phenomena, such as flowering, in relation to climatic
conditions) and distribution of lesser long-nosed bat's forage
resources. How this affects the viability of the lesser long-nosed bat
population is not clear. There is much uncertainty and a lack of
information regarding the effects of climate change and specific
impacts to forage for this subspecies. The biggest effect to the lesser
long-nosed bat will occur if forage availability gets out of sync along
the ``nectar trail'' such that bats arrive at the portion of the range
they need to meet life-history requirements (migration, mating,
birthing) and there are inadequate forage resources to support that
activity. If the timing of forage availability changes, but changes
consistently in a way that maintains the nectar trail, this subspecies
is expected to adapt to those timing changes as stated above (see
chapter 4 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016). For example, as noted
earlier, the resiliency of lesser long-nosed bats became evident in
2004, when a widespread failure of saguaro and organ pipe bloom
occurred and lesser long-nosed bats were still, ultimately, able to
subsist and raise young in southwestern Arizona in this atypical year.
It is likely they did so by feeding more heavily on agaves (evident by
agave pollen found on captured lesser long-nosed bats) than they
typically do (see additional discussion under Factor A above). Although
we are still not sure to what extent the environmental conditions
described in climate change predictions will affect lesser long-nosed
bat forage resource distribution and phenology, we have documented that
lesser long-nosed bats have the ability to change their foraging
patterns and food sources in response to a unique situation, providing
evidence that this species is more resourceful and resilient than may
have been previously thought. We find that the lesser long-nosed bat is
characterized by flexible and adaptive behaviors that will allow it to
remain viable under changing climatic conditions.

Species Future Conditions and Viability

We evaluated overall viability of the lesser long-nosed bat in the
SSA report (USFWS 2016) in the context of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. Species viability, or the ability to survive long term,
is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic population
and species-level events (redundancy); the ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (representation); and the ability to withstand
disturbances of varying magnitude and duration (resiliency). The
viability of this species is also dependent on the likelihood of new
threats or risk factors or the continuation of existing threats now and
in the future that act to reduce a species' redundancy, resiliency, and
representation.
As described in the SSA report, we evaluated the viability of the
lesser long-nosed bat population at two timeframes, 15 years and 50
years. The 15-year timeframe represents the time it generally takes to
document the effectiveness of various research, monitoring, and
management approaches that have been or are implemented related to
lesser long-nosed bat conservation. Therefore, the 15-year timeframe is
a reasonable period of time within which we can predict outcomes of
these activities in relation to the viability of the lesser long-nosed
bat population. The 50-year timeframe is related primarily to the
ability of various climate change models to reasonably and consistently
predict or assess likely affects to lesser long-nosed bats and their
forage resources. For each of these timeframes, we evaluated three
future scenarios, a best-case scenario, a moderate-case scenario, and a
worst-case scenario with respect to the extent and degree to which
threats will affect the future viability of the lesser long-nosed bat
population. We also determined how likely it would be that each of
these three scenarios would actually occur. The SSA report details
these scenarios and our analysis of the effects of these scenarios,
over the two timeframes, on redundancy, resiliency, and representation
of the lesser long-nosed bat population.
During our decision-making process, we evaluated our level of
comfort making predictions at each of the two timeframes. Ultimately,
while the SSA report evaluates both timeframes, there was some
discomfort expressed by decision makers for extending predictions of
the future viability of the lesser long-nosed bat out to 50 years due
to the uncertainty of climate change models and the difficulty of
predicting what will happen in Mexico where the majority of this
species' habitat occurs, but where we have less information with regard
to the threats affecting the lesser long-nosed bats. In the SSA report,
all three scenarios were evaluated over both time frames (USFWS 2016,
p. 52-56). The evaluation results of future viability in the SSA report
were identical for both timeframes (high viability), except in the
worst-case scenario where, unlike the moderate- and best-case
scenarios, the viability was moderate for the 15-year timeframe and low
for the 50-year timeframe. For each future scenario, we describe how
confident we are that that particular scenario will occur. This
confidence is based on the following confidence categories: Highly
likely (greater than 90 percent sure of the scenario occurring);
moderately likely (70 to 90 percent sure); somewhat likely (50 to 70
percent sure); moderately unlikely (30 to 50 percent sure); unlikely
(10 to 30 percent sure); and highly unlikely (less than 10 percent
sure). The SSA report concluded that it is unlikely that the worst-case
scenario will actually occur. The worst case scenario describes a
drastic increase in negative public attitudes towards bats and lesser
long-nosed bat conservation, a greater influence from white-nose
syndrome, and the worst possible effects from climate change. Based on
our experience and the past and ongoing actions of the public and the
commitment of management agencies in their land-use planning documents
to address lesser long-nosed bat conservation issues, both now and in
the future in both the United States and Mexico, such drastic impacts
are unlikely to occur (10 to 30 percent sure this scenario will occur).
In fact, for the conditions outlined in the worst-case scenario, we
find that certainty of the worst-case scenario occurring is closer to
10 percent than to 30 percent sure that this scenario would actually
occur based on the commitment to conservation of this species and the
adaptability of the lesser long-nosed bat. If the lesser long-nosed bat
is delisted and prior to the final rule, we will confirm with our
public and agency conservation partners that they will continue to
coordinate and implement existing and future conservation actions
related to the lesser long-nosed bat. For additional discussion related
to the worst-case scenario, see the SSA report (USFWS 2016; p. 51-53).
Such ongoing commitment to lesser long-nosed bat conservation has
already been seen subsequent to the delisting of this bat in Mexico and
our experience has been that it will also continue in the U.S. after
delisting.
Although the worst-case scenario was evaluated in the SSA report,
because we found that it was unlikely to actually occur, the focus of
our consideration was on the scenarios that had the greatest likelihood
of occurring, the best- and moderate-case scenarios, where redundancy,
resiliency, and representation remain high regardless of the timeframe
or scenario considered. Under the current condition for the lesser
long-nosed bat, as well as in both

[[Page 1674]]

the best-case (somewhat likely to occur) and moderate-case (moderately
likely to occur) future scenarios, redundancy, resiliency, and
representation of the lesser long-nosed bat population remain high and
the viability of the subspecies is maintained (USFWS 2016, p. 64-66).

Delisting Proposal

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR part
424, set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species
or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we
then evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened
because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying
or delisting a species. For species that are already listed as
endangered or threatened, the analysis of threats must include an
evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species, and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal or reduction of the Act's protections. We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and
commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered or
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2)
the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened;
and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species
was classified were in error. We conclude that the lesser-long nosed
bat has recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
Although most data related to lesser long-nosed bat roost counts
and monitoring have not been collected in a way that is rigorous enough
to draw statistically calculable conclusions about the trend of the
population, the total numbers of bats observed at roost sites across
the range of the lesser long-nosed bat are considered stable or
increasing at nearly all roost sites being monitored based on the
professional judgment of biologists and others involved in these
efforts. The total number of bats currently documented is many times
greater than the total number of bats documented at the time of listing
in 1988. At the time of listing, there were estimated to be less than
500 lesser long-nosed bats in the United States; current estimates are
greater than 100,000. Rangewide, at the time of listing, it was
estimated that there were less than 1,000 lesser long-nosed bats.
Current rangewide estimates are approximately 200,000 lesser long-nosed
bats. While this may, in large part, reflect a better approach to
survey and monitoring in subsequent years, it gives us better
information upon which to evaluate the status of the lesser long-nosed
bat population. This better information is related to the species'
population and the number of roosts, and its distribution. Better
information and increased efforts related to habitat protection
(identification of roost sites and forage resources in planning
efforts, implementation of protective measures for roosts and forage
resources, increased awareness of habitat needs, etc.) have occurred
and are planned to be implemented in the future, regardless of the
listing status of this subspecies. This increased level of information
and conservation, combined with the current state of its threats allow
us to conclude that the subspecies is not in danger of extinction and
is not expected to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Our
thorough evaluation of the available data for occupancy, distribution,
and threat factors, as well as the opinions of experts familiar with
this subspecies, indicates a currently viable population status with a
stable to increasing trend.
Predicting the future viability of the lesser long-nosed bat is
somewhat more difficult than for species that occur in discrete, mostly
consistent habitats (ponds, springs, specific soil types, etc.). The
lesser long-nosed bat population is fluid and constantly adapts to
changing environmental conditions over a large, bi-national range.
Lesser long-nosed bat roost sites are discrete and consistent, but the
lesser long-nosed bat may use these roost sites in a changing and
adaptable manner to take advantage of ephemeral and constantly changing
forage resources with both seasonal and annual differences of
occurrence. Therefore, observations of occupancy and numbers of bats
using these roosts may not be a complete or accurate representation of
the status of the subspecies across its range. However, the information
regarding the status of the lesser long-nosed bat population is much
more accurate and complete than it was as the time of the 1988 listing
rule.
The future viability of this subspecies is dependent on a number of
factors. First, an adequate number of roosts in the appropriate
locations is needed. As detailed in the SSA report, adequate roosts of
all types (maternity, mating, transition, and migratory) currently
exist and are likely to exist into the foreseeable future (USFWS 2016;
p. 8-14). Second, sufficient available forage resources are located in
appropriate areas, including in proximity to maternity roosts and along
the ``nectar trail'' used during migration. The discussion above and
the SSA report detail our analysis and determination that forage
resources are adequate and that the lesser long-nosed bat is likely to
adapt to any changes in forage availability in the future (USFWS 2016;
p. 15-20). In addition, the SSA report analyses the contribution of
current and future management of threats to the subspecies' long-term
viability. The future viability of the lesser long-nosed bat will also
depend on continued positive human attitudes towards the conservation
of bats, implementation of conservation actions protecting roost sites
and forage and migration resources, and implementation of needed
research and monitoring will inform adaptive management that will
contribute to the future viability of the lesser long-nosed bat
population. The SSA report discusses the improved status of these
issues across the range of the lesser long-nosed bat in much more
detail (USFWS 2016; p. 43-46). The results of the SSA also indicate
that the status of the lesser long-nosed bat has further improved in
the years since the 2007 5-Year Review (FWS 2007).
Based on the analysis in the SSA report for the lesser long-nosed
bat (USFWS 2016 and summarized above, the lesser long-nosed bat does
not currently meet the Act's definition of endangered because it is not
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Additionally, the
lesser long-nosed bat is not a threatened species because it is not
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined
that the lesser long-nosed bat is not endangered or threatened
throughout all of its range, we next consider whether there are any
significant portions of its range in which the lesser long-nosed bat is
in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We published a final
policy interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
(SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The

[[Page 1675]]

final policy states that: (1) If a species is found to be endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire
species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the
Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever
found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if
the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a
species is considered to be the general geographical area within which
that species can be found at the time the Service makes any particular
status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, and the
population in that significant portion is a valid distinct population
segment (DPS), we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is
similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making.
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to
determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the
species as an endangered species or threatened species, and no SPR
analysis will be required. If the species is neither in danger of
extinction, nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, as we
have found here, we next determine whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range. If it is, we will continue to list the species as an
endangered species or threatened species, respectively; if it is not,
we conclude that listing the species is no longer warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of
the range that have no reasonable potential to be significant or in
analyzing portions of the range in which there is no reasonable
potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To identify
only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine
whether substantial information indicates that: (1) The portions may be
``significant''; and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire
species), those portions would not warrant further consideration.
We identified portions of the lesser long-nosed bat's range that
may be significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the
range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Within the current range of the lesser long-nosed
bat, some distinctions can be made between Mexico and the United States
(international border, vegetation communities, etc.). While these
geographic distinctions may be significant, our analysis indicates that
the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or to become so
in the foreseeable future in any geographic region within the range of
the lesser long-nosed bat given that factors such as roost sites,
forage resources, and migration pathways are well distributed across
the entire range and that the status of the species is stable or
increasing in both the United States and Mexico, with conservation
actions being implemented to address ongoing threats. Therefore, we
have not identified any portion of the range that warrants further
consideration to determine whether they are a significant portion of
its range.
We also evaluated representation across the lesser long-nosed bat's
range to determine if certain areas were in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so, due to isolation from the larger range. Ramirez
(2011) investigated population structure of the lesser long-nosed bat
through DNA sampling and analysis and reported that combined results
indicated sampled individuals belong to single population including
both the United States and Mexico. Consequently, individuals found in
the northern migratory range (United States) and in Mexico should be
managed as a single population.
Our analysis indicates that there is no significant geographic
portion of the range that is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, no portion warrants further
consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range.

Conclusion

We have determined that none of the existing or potential threats
cause the lesser long-nosed bat to be in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is the
subspecies likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We may delist a
species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific
and commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the
species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; or (3)
the original scientific data used at the time the species was
classified were in error. On the basis of our evaluation, we conclude
that, due to recovery, the lesser long-nosed bat is not an endangered
or threatened species. We therefore propose to remove the lesser long-
nosed bat from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
at 50 CFR 17.11(h).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

This proposed rule, if made final, would revise our regulations at
50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the lesser long-nosed bat from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this subspecies. Federal
agencies would no longer be required to consult with the Service under
section 7 of the Act in the

[[Page 1676]]

event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the
lesser long-nosed bat. Because no critical habitat was ever designated
for the lesser long-nosed bat, this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
State laws related to the lesser long-nosed bat would remain in place
and be enforced and would continue to provide protection for this
subspecies. State and Federal laws related to protection of habitat for
the lesser long-nosed bat, such as those addressing effects to caves
and abandoned mines, as well as protected plant species such as
columnar cacti and agaves, would remain in place and afford lesser
long-nosed bat habitat some level of protection.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior,
through the Service and in cooperation with the States, to implement a
system to monitor for not less than 5 years for all species that have
been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to
develop a program that detects the failure of any delisted species to
sustain populations without the protective measures provided by the
Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as
appropriate to develop and implement an effective post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) plan for the lesser long-nosed bat. The PDM plan will
build upon current monitoring techniques and research, as well as
emerging technology and techniques. Monitoring will assess the species
numbers, distribution, and threats status, as well as ongoing
management and conservation efforts that have improved the status of
this subspecies since listing. The PDM plan will identify, to the
extent practicable and in accordance with our current understanding of
the subspecies' life history measurable thresholds and responses for
detecting and reacting to significant changes in the lesser long-nosed
bat's populations, distribution, and persistence. If declines are
detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in
combination with other PDM participants, will investigate causes of
these declines, including considerations of habitat changes,
substantial human persecution, stochastic events, or any other
significant evidence. The result of the investigation will be to
determine if the lesser long-nosed bat warrants expanded monitoring,
additional research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of
Federal protection under the Act. The draft PDM plan will be made
available for public comment in a future publication in the Federal
Register and will be finalized concurrent with finalization of this
rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section
4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, we have and will
solicit information from Native American Tribes during the comment
period to determine potential effects on them or their resources that
may result from the proposed delisting of the lesser long-nosed bat,
and we will fully consider their comments on the proposed rule
submitted during the public comment period.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on http://www.regulations.gov, or upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Bat, lesser long-
nosed'' under MAMMALS from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.

Dated: December 16, 2016.
Marty J. Kodis.
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service .
[FR Doc. 2016-31408 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P