Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1665

Required Determinations PART 17—ENDANGERED AND March 7, 2017. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Clarity of the Rule THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for We are required by Executive Orders ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 submitting an electronic comment is 12866 and 12988 and by the continues to read as follows: 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– We must receive requests for public 1998, to write all rules in plain 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. hearings, in writing, at the address language. This means that each rule we ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION publish must: entry for ‘‘Eriogonum gypsophilum’’ CONTACT section below by February 21, (1) Be logically organized; 2017. (2) Use the active voice to address from the List of Endangered and readers directly; Threatened Plants. ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may ■ (3) Use clear language rather than 3. Amend § 17.96(a) by removing the submit comments by one of the jargon; critical habitat entry for ‘‘Family following methods: (4) Be divided into short sections and Polygonaceae: Eriogonum gypsophilum (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal sentences; and (Gypsum Wild Buckwheat).’’ eRulemaking Portal: http:// (5) Use lists and tables wherever Dated: December 22, 2016. www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, possible. Daniel M. Ashe, enter FWS–R2–ES–2016–0138, which is If you feel that we have not met these Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. the docket number for this rulemaking. requirements, send us comments by one Then, click on the Search button. On the [FR Doc. 2016–31764 Filed 1–5–17; 8:45 am] of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To resulting page, in the Search panel on better help us revise the rule, your BILLING CODE 4333–15–P the left side of the screen, under the comments should be as specific as Document Type heading, click on the possible. For example, you should tell DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Proposed Rules link to locate this us the section or paragraph numbers document. You may submit a comment that are unclearly written, which Fish and Wildlife Service by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ sections or sentences are too long, the (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail sections where you feel lists or tables 50 CFR Part 17 or hand-delivery to: Public Comments would be useful, etc. Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2016– [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2016–0138; 0138, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Environmental Policy Act FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000] MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls We have determined that RIN 1018–BB91 Church, VA 22041–3803. environmental assessments and We request that you send comments environmental impact statements, as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife only by the methods described above. defined under the National and Plants; Removal of the Lesser We will post all comments on http:// Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 Long-Nosed Bat From the Federal List www.regulations.gov. This generally U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) authority, need not of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife means that we will post any personal be prepared in connection with AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information you provide us (see Public regulations pursuant to the Act, Section Interior. Comments, below, for more 4(a). We published a notice outlining ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month information). our reasons for this determination in the petition finding; request for comments. Copies of documents: This proposed Federal Register on October 25, 1983 rule and supporting documents, (48 FR 49244). SUMMARY: Under the authority of the including the Species Status References Cited Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Assessment, are available on http:// amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov. In addition, the A complete list of all references cited Wildlife Service (Service), propose to supporting file for this proposed rule in this final rule is available at http:// remove the lesser long-nosed bat will be available for public inspection, www.regulations.gov at Docket No. (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) by appointment, during normal business FWS–R2–ES–2016–0119, or upon from the Federal List of Endangered and hours, at the Arizona Ecological request from the New Mexico Ecological Threatened Wildlife (List) due to Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). recovery. This determination is based Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ Authors on a thorough review of the best 85021. available scientific and commercial The primary authors of this notice are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information, which indicates that the the staff members of the New Mexico Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. threats to this subspecies have been Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona eliminated or reduced to the point that Fish and Wildlife Service (see Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 the subspecies has recovered and no ADDRESSES). W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, longer meets the definition of Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone (602– List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 endangered or threatened under the Act. 242–0210); or by facsimile (602–242– This document also serves as the 12- Endangered and threatened species, 2513). If you use a telecommunications month finding on a petition to reclassify Exports, Imports, Reporting and device for the deaf (TDD), call the this subspecies from endangered to recordkeeping requirements, Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Transportation. threatened on the List. We are seeking information, data, and comments from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Regulation Promulgation the public on the proposed rule to Information Requested Accordingly, we propose to amend remove the lesser long-nosed bat from part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title the List. Public Comments 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, DATES: We will accept comments Any final action resulting from this as set forth below: received or postmarked on or before proposed rule will be based on the best

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1666 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

scientific and commercial data available mailed comments that are not effective on October 31, 1988, and did and be as accurate and as effective as postmarked by the date specified in not include a critical habitat designation possible. Therefore, we request DATES. If you submit information via for either bat. In 1993, we amended the comments or information from other http://www.regulations.gov, your entire List by revising the entry for the concerned governmental agencies, submission—including any personal Sanborn’s long-nosed bat to ‘‘Bat, lesser Native American Tribes, the scientific identifying information—will be posted (=Sanborn’s) long-nosed’’ with the community, industry, or other on the Web site. Please note that scientific name ‘‘Leptonycteris curasoae interested parties concerning this comments posted to this Web site are yerbabuenae.’’ We issued a recovery proposed rule. The comments that will not immediately viewable. When you plan for the lesser long-nosed bat on be most useful and likely to influence submit a comment, the system receives March 4, 1997. The recovery plan has our decisions are those supported by it immediately. However, the comment not been revised. In 2001, we again data or peer-reviewed studies and those will not be publicly viewable until we amended the List by revising the entry that include citations to, and analyses post it, which might not occur until for the lesser long-nosed bat to remove of, applicable laws and regulations. several days after submission. the synonym of ‘‘Sanborn’s’’; the listing Please make your comments as specific If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy reads, ‘‘Bat, lesser long-nosed’’ and as possible and explain the basis for comments that includes personal retains the scientific name them. In addition, please include identifying information, you may ‘‘Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae.’’ sufficient information with your request at the top of your document that Cole and Wilson (2006) recommended comments to allow us to authenticate we withhold this information from that L. c. yerbabuenae be recognized as any scientific or commercial data you public review. However, we cannot Leptonycteris yerbabuenae. reference or provide. In particular, we guarantee that we will be able to do so. Additionally, Wilson and Reeder’s seek comments concerning the To ensure that the electronic docket for (2005) ‘‘Mammal Species of the World following: this rulemaking is complete and all (Third Edition), an accepted standard (1) New information on the historical comments we receive are publicly for mammalian taxonomy, also indicates and current status, range, distribution, available, we will post all hardcopy that L. yerbabuenae is a species distinct and population size of lesser long-nosed submissions on http:// from L. curasoae. Currently, the most bats, including the locations of any www.regulations.gov. accepted and currently used additional populations; In addition, comments and materials classification for the lesser long-nosed (2) New information regarding the life we receive, as well as supporting history, ecology, and habitat use of the bat is L. yerbabuenae, however, the documentation we used in preparing Service continues to classify the listed lesser long-nosed bat; this proposed rule, will be available for (3) New information concerning the entity as Leptonycteris curasoae public inspection in two ways: yerbabuenae. We recommended, as part taxonomic classification and (1) You can view them on http:// conservation status of the lesser long- of the status review, that the Service www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, recognize and change the taxonomic nosed bat in general; and enter FWS–R2–ES–2016–0138, which is (4) New information related to any of nomenclature for the lesser long-nosed the docket number for this rulemaking. the risk factors or threats to the lesser bat to be consistent with the most recent (2) You can make an appointment, long-nosed bat identified in the Species classification of this species, L. during normal business hours, to view Status Assessment or the proposed yerbabuenae. However, throughout this the comments and materials in person at action. proposed rule, we will refer to the lesser Please note that submissions merely the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s long-nosed bat as a subspecies. On stating support for or opposition to the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office August 30, 2007, we completed a 5-year action under consideration without (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). review, in which the Service providing supporting information, Public Hearing recommended reclassifying the species although noted, will not be considered from endangered to threatened status Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides in making a determination, as section (i.e., ‘‘downlisting’’) under the Act for one or more public hearings on this 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et (USFWS 2007; available online at http:// proposed rule, if requested. We must seq.) directs that determinations as to www.regulations.gov or https:// receive requests for public hearings, in whether any species is an endangered or www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ writing, at the address shown in FOR threatened species must be made Lesser.htm). The reclassification FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific recommendation was made because date shown in DATES, above. We will and commercial data available.’’ information generated since the listing schedule at least one public hearing on Prior to issuing a final rule on this of the lesser long-nosed bat indicated this proposal, if any are requested, and proposed action, we will take into that the subspecies is not in imminent announce the location(s) of any of consideration all comments and any danger of extinction throughout all or a hearings, as well as how to obtain additional information we receive. Such significant portion of its range (higher reasonable accommodations, in the information may lead to a final rule that population numbers, increased number Federal Register at least 15 days before differs from this proposal. All comments of known roosts, reduced impacts from any hearing. and recommendations, including names known threats, and improved protection and addresses, will become part of the Background status) and thus, does not meet the administrative record. definition of endangered. On July 16, You may submit your comments and Previous Federal Actions 2012, the Service received a petition materials concerning this proposed rule On September 30, 1988, we published from The Pacific Legal Foundation and by one of the methods listed in a final rule in the Federal Register (53 others requesting that the Service ADDRESSES. We will not consider FR 38456) to list the Mexican long- downlist the lesser long-nosed bat as comments sent by email, fax, or to an nosed bat (Leptonycteris nivalis) and recommended in the 5-year review (as address not listed in ADDRESSES. We Sanborn’s long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris well as delist one species and downlist will not consider hand-delivered sanborni (=L. yerbabuenae)) as three other listed species). On comments that we do not receive, or endangered species. That rule became September 9, 2013, the Service

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1667

published a 90-day petition finding We solicited expert review of the draft Migratory Bats in Mexico was formed in stating that the petition contained SSA report from lesser long-nosed bat 1994 (Bats 1995, p. 1–6). substantial scientific or commercial experts, as well as experts in climate The Service completed a 5-year information indicating the petitioned change modeling and plant phenology review of the status of the lesser long- action for the lesser long-nosed bat may (the scientific study of periodic nosed bat in 2007. This review be warranted (78 FR 55046). On biological phenomena, such as recommended downlisting this bat from November 28, 2014, the Service flowering, in relation to climatic endangered to threatened status under received a ‘‘60-day Notice of Intent to conditions). Additionally, and in the Act (USFWS 2007; available at Bring Citizen Suit,’’ and on November compliance with our policy, ‘‘Notice of http://www.regulations.gov or https:// 20, 2015, the New Mexico Cattle Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ Growers Association and others filed a Review of Endangered Species Act Lesser.htm). In Mexico, the lesser long- complaint challenging the Service’s Activities,’’ which was published on nosed bat was recently removed from failure to complete in a timely manner July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited that nation’s equivalent of the the 12-month findings on five species, peer reviews on the draft SSA report endangered species list (SEMARNAT including the lesser long-nosed bat from four objective and independent 2010, entire; Medellin and Knoop 2013, (New Mexico Cattle Growers scientific experts in November 2016. entire). According to SEMARNAT Association, et al. v. United States The lesser long-nosed bat (2010), over the last twenty years, Department of the Interior, et al., No. (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) is Mexican researchers have carried out a 1:15–cv–01065–PJK–LF (D.N.M)), asking one of three nectar-feeding bats in the wide range of studies that have the Court to compel the Service to make United States; the others are the demonstrated that the lesser long-nosed 12-month findings on the five species. Mexican long-nosed bat (L. nivalis) and bat is no longer in the critical condition On September 29, 2016, the parties the Mexican long-tongued bat that led it to be listed as in danger of settled the lawsuit with the requirement (Choeronycteris mexicana). The lesser extinction in Mexico. Specifically, the that the Service submit a 12-month long-nosed bat is a migratory pollinator evaluation to delist in Mexico showed finding for the lesser long-nosed bat to and seed disperser that provides 1) the distribution of lesser long-nosed the Federal Register for publication on important ecosystem services in arid bats is extensive within Mexico, or before December 30, 2016, among forest, desert, and grassland systems covering more than 40 percent of the other obligations. This document fulfills throughout its range in the United States country; 2) the extent and condition of the portion of the settlement agreement and Mexico, contributing to healthy lesser long-nosed bat habitat is only that concerns the lesser long-nosed bat. soils, diverse vegetation communities, moderately limiting and this species has and sustainable economic benefits for demonstrated that it is adaptable to Species Information communities. The range of the lesser varying environmental conditions; 3) A thorough review of the taxonomy, long-nosed bat extends from the the species does not exhibit any life history, ecology, and overall southwestern United States southward particular characteristics that make it viability of the lesser long-nosed bat is through Mexico. especially vulnerable; and 4) the extent presented in the Species Status The Service has assigned a recovery of human impacts is average and Assessment (SSA) report for the lesser priority number of 8 to the lesser long- increased education, outreach, and long-nosed bat (USFWS 2016), which is nosed bat. This recovery priority research have reduced the occurrence of available online at http:// number means that the lesser long- human impacts and disturbance. www.regulations.gov or https:// nosed bat was considered to have a www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ moderate degree of threat and a high Subspecies Description and Needs Lesser.htm, or in person at the Arizona recovery potential. Because the lesser The lesser long-nosed bat is a Ecological Services Field Office (see long-nosed bat is a colonial roosting migratory bat characterized by a ADDRESSES, above). The SSA report species known to occur at a limited resident subpopulation that remains documents the results of the biological number of roosts across its range in year round in central and southern status review for the lesser long-nosed Mexico and the United States (Arizona Mexico to mate and give birth, and a bat and provides an account of the and New Mexico), impacts at roost migratory subpopulation that winters subspecies’ overall viability through locations could have a significant and mates in central and southern forecasting of the subspecies’ condition impact on the population, particularly if Mexico, but that migrates north in the in the future (USFWS 2016; entire). In the impacts occur at maternity roosts. spring to give birth in northern Mexico the SSA report, we summarize the However, because approximately 60 and the southwestern United States relevant biological data and a percent (eight out of fourteen) of the (Arizona). This migratory subpopulation description of past, present, and likely roost locations known at the time of then obtains the necessary resources (in future stressors to the subspecies, and listing were on ‘‘protected’’ lands in Arizona and New Mexico in the United conduct an analysis of the viability of both the United States and Mexico, the States) to be able to migrate south in the the subspecies. The SSA report provides degree of threat was determined to be fall back to central and southern the scientific basis that informs our moderate. The primary recovery actions Mexico. The lesser long-nosed bat is a regulatory determination regarding outlined in the recovery plan were to nectar, pollen, and fruit-eating bat that whether this subspecies should be listed monitor and protect known roost sites depends on a variety of flowering plants as an endangered or a threatened and foraging habitats. Because both of as food resources. These plants include species under the Act. This these actions could be potentially be columnar cacti, agaves, and a variety of determination involves the application accomplished through management at flowering deciduous trees. The lesser of standards within the Act, its all of the known roost sites known at long-nosed bat is a colonial roosting implementing regulations, and Service that time, the recovery potential for the species that roosts in groups ranging policies (see Delisting Proposal, below) lesser long-nosed bat was determined to from a few hundred to over 100,000. to the scientific information and be high. A U.S. recovery plan was Roost sites are primarily caves, mines, analysis in the SSA. The following completed for the lesser long-nosed bat and large crevices with appropriate discussion is a summary of the results in 1997 (USFWS 1997, entire) and the temperatures and humidity; reduced and conclusions from the SSA report. Program for the Conservation of access to predators; free of the disease-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1668 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

causing organisms (fungus that causes implemented at over half the roosts in endangered species list applies to our white-nose syndrome, etc.); limited both the United States and Mexico proposal to remove the lesser long- human disturbance; structural integrity (approximately 40 roosts), including nosed bat from the U.S. List of maintained; in a diversity of locations to gating, road closures, fencing, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. provide for maternity, mating, implementation of management plans, Much of the range of this species in the migration, and transition roost sites. public education, monitoring, and United States is on federally managed The primary life-history needs of this enforcement of access limitations. lands (≤75 percent). Federal agencies subspecies include appropriate and Generally, roosts on Federal lands have guidelines and requirements in adequately distributed roosting sites; benefit from monitoring by agency place to protect lesser long-nosed bats adequate forage resources for life-history personnel and a law enforcement and their habitats, particularly roost events such as mating and birthing; and presence resulting in these roosts being sites. As described above, roosts on adequate roosting and forage resources exposed to fewer potential impacts than Federal lands benefit from monitoring in an appropriate configuration (a they otherwise would be. Efforts to by agency personnel and a law ‘‘nectar trail’’) to complete migration physically protect roosts through the enforcement presence resulting in these between central and southern Mexico use of gates or barriers have been roosts being exposed to fewer potential and northern Mexico and the United implemented at six roost sites in impacts than they otherwise would be. States. Arizona. The experimental fence at one Gating of roosts on Federal lands is For more information on this topic, roost (a mine site) worked initially, but being implemented and evaluated. If the see chapter 2 of the SSA Report was subsequently vandalized resulting lesser long-nosed bat is delisted, (USFWS 2016), which is available in roost abandonment. The fencing was protection of their roost sites and forage online at http://www.regulations.gov or repaired and there have been no resources will continue on Federal https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ subsequent breeches and the bats have lands. Agency land-use plans and arizona/Lesser.htm, or in person at the recolonized the site (USFWS 2016; p. general management plans contain Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 11). objectives to protect cave resources and (see ADDRESSES, above). In addition, since the 1988 listing restrict access to abandoned mines, both Current Conditions rule, increased public and academic of which can be enforced by law interest, along with additional funding, enforcement officers. In addition, For the last 20 years following the has resulted in additional research completion of the lesser long-nosed bat guidelines in these plans for grazing, leading to a better understanding of the recreation, off-road use, fire, etc. will recovery plan, there has been a steadily life history of the lesser long-nosed bat. increasing effort related to the continue to prevent or minimize At the time of listing, we believed impacts to lesser long-nosed bat forage conservation of this subspecies. Better livestock grazing and fire were methods of monitoring have been resources. Examples of these agency impacting the viability of this plans include the Fort Huachuca developed, including the use of infrared subspecies. We now know that livestock videography and radio telemetry. These Integrated Natural Resources grazing and fire have less of an impact Management Plan, the Coronado monitoring efforts have led to an on the viability of this subspecies than increase in the number of known roosts National Forest Land Use and Resource previously thought. Other threats have Management Plan, and the Safford throughout its range, from been reduced such as reducing the approximately 14 known at the time of District Resource Management Plan killing of non-target bat species during (DOD 2001, entire; USFS 2005, entire; listing to approximately 75 currently vampire bat control activities in Mexico BLM 1991, entire). As described above, known roost sites, as well as more (i.e., poisoning, dynamiting, burning, roosts on Federal lands benefit from accurate assessments of the numbers of shooting, anticoagulants, roost monitoring by agency personnel and a lesser long-nosed bats using these destruction, etc.) because of outreach law enforcement presence resulting in roosts. The 1988 listing rule emphasized and education and reducing human these roosts being exposed to fewer low populations numbers along with an disturbance at roosts through the use of potential impacts than they otherwise apparent declining population trend. At fencing, monitoring, and the use of would be. Gating of roosts on Federal this time, we have documented gates. However, roost disturbance, lands is being implemented and increased lesser long-nosed bat numbers particularly in the border region evaluated and, while the best design for and positive trends (stable or increasing between the United States and Mexico; numbers of bats documented over the habitat loss due to various land uses; such gates is still being developed, these past 20 years) at most roosts. There is no and, to an unknown extent, effects due gates do provide long-term protection of question that current population to climate change continue to be threats the sites. Further, outreach and numbers of lesser long-nosed bats to this subspecies. Nonetheless, these education, particularly with regard to exceed the levels known and recorded threats are being addressed or ongoing pollinator conservation, has increased at the time of listing in 1988. A number research is developing management and human attitudes regarding bats are of publications have documented strategies such that we have determined more positive now than in the past; and numbers of lesser long-nosed bats that the effects of these threats will not the lesser long-nosed bat has throughout its range that far exceed the affect the future viability of the lesser demonstrated adaptability to potential numbers used in the listing analysis long-nosed bat. adverse environmental conditions, such (Fleming et al. 2003; Sidner and Davis The lesser long-nosed bat’s as changes in plant flowering phenology 1988). For example, although numbers conservation status in Mexico has been (see discussion under Factor E, below). fluctuate from year to year, the numbers determined to be secure enough that Because of the occurrence of both of lesser long-nosed bats estimated from Mexico removed the subspecies from its resident and migratory subpopulations 2010–2015 in the three known endangered species list in 2013 because within the lesser long-nosed bat maternity roosts in the U.S. were an of the factors described above. The population, it is important for all of the average of two and a half times higher species has a greater distribution in necessary habitat elements to be than numbers presented in the Recovery Mexico than in the United States, but appropriately distributed across the Plan (USFWS 2016; p. 10). Furthermore, most of the same reasoning for the range of this species such that roost protection measures have been subspecies’ removal from Mexico’s sites, forage resources, and migration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1669

pathways are in the appropriate been removed or reduced to such an (Medellı´n and Torres 2013, p. 11–13). locations during the appropriate season. extent that the species may no longer For more information, see chapter 2 of Currently, the distribution of the lesser need the protections of the Act. They the SSA Report (USFWS 2016). long-nosed bat extends from southern also identify suites of actions that are Recovery Criterion 2 (Roost Numbers Mexico into the southwestern United expected to facilitate achieving this goal Stable or Increasing) States. In Mexico, the distribution of the of recovery. While recovery plans are lesser long-nosed bat covers not regulatory, they provide guidance Nearly all of the lesser long-nosed bat approximately 40 percent of the country regarding what recovery may look like experts and researchers who provided when considering resident areas, and possible paths to achieve it. input to the 5-year review indicated that migration pathways, and seasonally- However, there are many paths to they observed that the number of lesser occupied roosts within the range of this accomplishing recovery of a species, long-nosed bats at most of the roost sites subspecies. Within both the United and recovery may be achieved without in both the United States and Mexico is States and Mexico, the current all recovery actions being implemented stable or increasing. As discussed in the distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat or criteria being fully met. Recovery of SSA report, current expert opinion has not decreased or changed a species is a dynamic process requiring supports this same conclusion (see substantially from that described in the adaptive management that may, or may chapter 2 of the SSA Report (USFWS literature. It is important to note, not, fully follow the guidance provided 2016). The lesser long-nosed bat’s however, that, as discussed in the SSA in a recovery plan. conservation status in Mexico has been report, any given area within the range The 1997 lesser long-nosed bat determined to be secure enough that of the lesser long-nosed bat may be used recovery plan objective is to downlist Mexico removed the subspecies from its in an ephemeral manner dictated by the the species to threatened (USFWS 1997, endangered species list in 2013 based availability of resources that can change entire). The recovery plan does not on the factors discussed above. on an annual and seasonal basis. Roost explain why delisting was not Recovery Criterion 3 (Protect Roost and switching occurs in response to considered as the objective for the Forage Plant Habitats) changing resources and areas that may recovery plan. The existing recovery be used during one year or season may plan does not explicitly tie the recovery More lesser long-nosed bat roost not be used in subsequent years until criteria to the five listing factors at locations are currently known, and are resources are again adequate to support section 4(a)(1) of the Act or contain being more consistently monitored, than occupancy of the area. This affects if explicit discussion of those five listing at the time of listing in 1988 (an and how maternity and mating roosts, factors. In addition, the reasons for increase from approximately 14 to migration pathways, and transition listing discussed in the recovery plan do approximately 75 currently known roosts are all used during any given year not actually correspond with the five roosts). In related efforts, a number of or season. However, while the listing factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) studies have been completed that distribution of the lesser long-nosed bat of the Act. The recovery plan lists four provide us with better information within its range may be fluid, the criteria that should be considered for related to the forage requirements of the overall distribution of this species has downlisting the subspecies, which are lesser long-nosed bat when compared to remained similar over time (USFWS summarized below. A detailed review of the time of listing and recovery plan 2016, Chapters 1 through 3). the recovery criteria for the lesser long- completion. Because of improved For more information on this topic, nosed bat is presented in the 5-year information, land management agencies see chapter 5 of the SSA Report Review for the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat are doing a better job of protecting lesser (USFWS 2016), which is available (USFWS 2007; available online at http:// long-nosed bat roost sites and foraging online at http://www.regulations.gov or www.regulations.gov or https:// areas. For more information, see chapter https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ 2 of the SSA Report (USFWS 2016). arizona/Lesser.htm, or in person at the Lesser.htm). Recovery Criterion 4 (Status of New and Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Recovery Criterion 1 (Monitor Major Known Threats) (see ADDRESSES, above). Roosts for 5 Years) Our current state of knowledge with Recovery Planning and Recovery Significant efforts have been made to regard to threats to this subspecies has Criteria implement a regular schedule of changed since the development of the Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to monitoring at the known roost sites in recovery plan. Threats to the lesser long- develop and implement recovery plans Arizona. All thirteen of the roost sites nosed bat from grazing on food plants, for the conservation and survival of identified in the recovery plan have had the tequila industry, and prescribed fire, endangered and threatened species some degree of monitoring over the past identified in the recovery plan, are unless we determine that such a plan 20 years. In the United States, all of the likely not as severe as once thought. will not promote the conservation of the six roosts identified in the recovery plan Effects from illegal border activity and species. Recovery plans identify site- for monitoring (Copper Mountain, the associated enforcement activities are specific management actions that will Bluebird, Old Mammon, Patagonia Bat a new and continuing threat to roost achieve recovery of the species and Cave, State of Texas, and Hilltop) have sites in the border region. Potential objective, measurable criteria that set a been monitored since 2001. This effects to forage species and their trigger for review of the species’ status. recovery criterion has been satisfied for phenology as a result of climate change Methods for monitoring recovery roosts in Arizona. None of the New have been identified, but are progress may also be included in Mexico roosts were identified for characterized by uncertainty and lack of recovery plans. monitoring in the recovery plan, but data specifically addressing those Recovery plans are not regulatory these roosts have been monitored issues. Nonetheless, lesser long-nosed documents; instead they are intended to sporadically since the completion of the bats have shown the ability to adapt to establish goals for long-term recovery plan (USFWS 2007; p. 6–9). adverse forage conditions and we find conservation of listed species and define The seven roost sites in Mexico have that the lesser long-nosed bat is criteria that are designed to indicate been regularly monitored since the characterized by flexible and adaptive when the threats facing a species have development of the recovery plan behaviors that will allow it to remain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1670 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

viable under changing climatic to evaluate the current and future trend of the population, in the conditions. Some progress has been viability of the lesser long-nosed bat. professional judgment of biologists and made toward protecting known lesser The effects of conservation measures others involved in these efforts, the total long-nosed bat roost sites; while the currently in place were also assessed in numbers of bats observed at roost sites ultimate level of effectiveness of gates as the SSA report as part of the current across the range of the lesser long-nosed a protection measure is still being condition of the subspecies, and those bat are considered stable or increasing at evaluated and improved, they do effects were projected in future nearly all roost sites being monitored. provide long-term protection of roost scenarios. The evaluation of the five With a documented increase from an sites. Gates are being currently being factors as described in the SSA report is estimated 500 lesser long-nosed bats in tested at a few additional lesser long- summarized below. the U.S. at the time of listing to over nosed bat roost sites. For more Factor A. The Present or Threatened 100,000 currently documented, the total information, see chapter 4 of the SSA Destruction, Modification, or number of bats currently being Report (USFWS 2016). Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range documented is many times greater than As discussed in the SSA report and 5- those numbers upon which the listing of year review, data relied upon to develop The primary threat to this subspecies this species relied, and while this may, the 1988 listing rule and the recovery continues to be roost site disturbance or in large part, reflect a better approach to plan were incomplete. Subsequent to loss. The colonial roosting behavior of survey and monitoring in subsequent the completion of the listing rule and this subspecies, where high percentages years, it gives us better information recovery plan, considerable additional of the population can congregate at a upon which to evaluate the status of the data regarding the life history and status limited number of roost sites, increases lesser long-nosed bat population. of the lesser long-nosed bat have been the likelihood of significant declines or Significant information regarding the gathered and, as discussed above, have extinction due to impacts at roost sites. relationship of lesser long-nosed bats to documented an increase in the number However, as discussed above, increased their forage resources has been gathered of known roost sites and the number of lesser long-nosed bat numbers and over the past decade. Because lesser lesser long-nosed bats occupying those positive trends at most roosts have long-nosed bats are highly specialized roosts. During the 2007 5-year review of reduced concerns expressed in the 1988 nectar-, pollen-, and fruit-eaters, they the status of this subspecies, it was listing rule with regard to low have potential to be extremely determined that the 1997 recovery plan population numbers and an apparent vulnerable to loss of or impacts to forage was outdated and did not reflect the declining population trend. Known best available information on the roosts have had protective measures species. However, lesser long-nosed bats biology of this subspecies and its needs implemented, previously unknown are also highly effective at locating food (USFWS 2007; p. 30; available online at roosts have been identified and agencies resources, and their nomadic nature http://www.regulations.gov or https:// and conservation partners are allows them to adapt to local www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ implementing protective measures, and conditions. For example, the resiliency Lesser.htm). Therefore, rather than use outreach and education has been of lesser long-nosed bats became evident the existing outdated recovery criteria, effective in increasing the in 2004, when a widespread failure of the Service assessed the species’ understanding of the general public, as saguaro and organ pipe bloom occurred. viability, as summarized in the SSA well as conservation partners, with The failure was first noted in Organ report (USFWS 2016), in making the regard to the need to prevent Pipe Cactus National Monument, and determination of whether or not the disturbance at lesser long-nosed bat such a failure had not been noted in the lesser long-nosed bat has recovered as roosts while the bats are present recorded history of the Monument defined by the Act. (USFWS 2016, p. 45–48). As discussed (Billings 2005). The failure extended in the SSA report, we have determined from Cabeza Prieta NWR on the west to Summary of Factors Affecting the that the current lesser long-nosed bat Tucson on the east, and south into Species population is currently viable and is central Sonora, Mexico. The large-scale Section 4 of the Act and its likely to remain so into the future based loss of this lesser long-nosed bat food implementing regulations (50 CFR part on the documentation of higher resource was somewhat offset by the 424) set forth the procedures for listing numbers of lesser long-nosed bats, fact that small numbers of both saguaro species, reclassifying species, or increased numbers of known and and organ pipe flowers continued to removing species from listed status. A protected roost sites, improved outreach bloom into August and September. Such species may be determined to be an and education, and a decrease in the a failure would have been expected to endangered or threatened species due to effects of known threats and plans to result in fewer lesser long-nosed bats one or more of the five factors described assess and address known threats in the using roosts in this area or reduced in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The future (USFWS 2016, entire). We have productivity at these roosts. However, present or threatened destruction, determined that roost sites have and this was not the case. Maternity roost modification, or curtailment of its will be protected to the extent that roost numbers remained as high as or higher habitat or range; (B) overutilization for disturbance is no longer a sufficient than previous years, with some 25,000 commercial, recreational, scientific, or threat to warrant listing under the Act. adult females counted during 2004 educational purposes; (C) disease or In general, while actual numbers of monitoring (Billings 2005). Ultimately, predation; (D) the inadequacy of bats observed at roost sites may not it appears lesser long-nosed bats were existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) support a statistically valid population able to subsist and raise young in other natural or manmade factors trend, the overall numbers of bats southwestern Arizona in this atypical affecting its continued existence. A observed at roost sites can be used as an year. Other observations over the past species may be reclassified or delisted index of population status. Although 20 years, including some years of on the same basis. Consideration of most data related to lesser long-nosed significantly reduced agave availability, these factors was included in the SSA bat roost counts and monitoring have have indicated that the lesser long- report in the discussion on ‘‘threats’’ or not been collected in a way that is nosed bat is more adaptable than ‘‘risk factors,’’ and threats were statistically rigorous enough to draw previously believed to changing forage projected into the future using scenarios statistically-valid conclusions about the resource availability. This adaptability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1671

leads us to a determination that forage corridors to be truncated or interrupted habitat. Therefore, based on the analysis availability will not significantly affect is a concern. Significant gaps in the completed in the SSA report (USFWS the viability of the lesser long-nosed bat presence of important roosts and forage 2016; p. 54–61), we have determined population. species along migration routes would that threats to the habitat of this species Additionally, the effects of livestock affect the population dynamics of this are currently reduced and will continue grazing and prescribed fire on long- subspecies. While the lesser long-nosed to be addressed in the foreseeable nosed bat food sources are also not as bat continues to be faced with loss and future, or are not as significant as significant as originally thought. For modification of its habitat throughout its previously thought. We find that threats example, Widmer (2002) found that range, the habitats used by this to the habitat of this species have been livestock were not responsible for all of subspecies occur over an extensive eliminated, reduced, or mitigated to the the utilization of agave flower stalks range that covers a wide diversity of extent that the subspecies no longer is their study area. Wildlife such as vegetation and ecological communities. an endangered or threatened species javelina, white-tailed deer, and small These are habitat characteristics that under the Act. Lesser long-nosed bat mammals also utilized agave flower would not make this subspecies habitat conditions are currently, and are stalks as a food resource. The extent of intrinsically vulnerable with regard to predicted to remain at levels that have livestock use of agave flower stalks habitat limitations. That is to say, the and will improve the viability of the appears to be related to standing wide variety of ecosystems that this lesser long-nosed bat to the point that biomass and distance from water. subspecies uses, over a relatively the species is no longer endangered. Further, Bowers and McLaughlin (2000) expansive range, results in available found that the proportion of agave areas characterized by the asynchronous Factor B. Overutilization for flower stalks broken by cattle did not flowering of forage resources making up Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or differ significantly between grazed and the diet of the lesser long-nosed bat and Educational Purposes ungrazed areas. All of which indicate buffers this subspecies from potential Lesser long-nosed bats are not known that livestock do not have a significant loss or reduction of habitats as a result to be taken for commercial purposes, effect on lesser long-nosed bat food of stochastic events, including the and scientific collecting is not thought sources, over and above native grazers. effects of climate change, among others. to be a problem (USFWS 1988, p. Thomas and Goodson (1992) and There is no question that current 38459). Caves and mines continue to Johnson (2001, p. 37) reported 14% and population numbers of lesser long- attract recreational users interested in 19% mortality of agaves following nosed bats exceed the levels known and exploring these features but this threat burns. Some agency monitoring has recorded at the time of listing in 1988. has probably not increased since the occurred post-fire for both wildfires and A number of publications have listing. For example, Pima County, in prescribed burns. This monitoring documented numbers of lesser long- southeastern Arizona, is implementing indicates that agave mortality in burned nosed bats throughout its range that far mine closures on lands that they have areas is generally less than 10% (USFS exceed the numbers used in the listing acquired for conservation purposes. 2015, p. 82–83; USFS 2013, p. 10–11). analysis with an estimated increase Other land management agencies also Contributing to this relatively low from fewer than 1,000 bats to carry out abandoned mine closures for mortality rate is the fact that most fires approximately 200,000 bats (Fleming et public recreational safety purposes. A burn in a mosaic, where portions of the al. 2003, pp. 64–65; Sidner and Davis positive aspect of these mine closure area do not burn. Impacts of fire on 1988, p. 494). Also, in general, the trend processes is that most agencies and agave as a food source for lesser long- in overall numbers of lesser long-nosed landowners now understand the value nosed bats may not be a significant bats estimated at roost sites has been of these features to bats and other concern for the following reasons: Fire- stable or increasing in both the United wildlife and are implementing measures caused mortality of agaves appears to be States and Mexico (Medellı´n and Knoop to maintain those values while still low; alternative foraging areas typically 2013, p. 13; USFWS 2016). Increased occur within the foraging distance from roost occupancy and the positive trend addressing public health and safety lesser long-nosed bat roosts; and most in numbers of lesser long-nosed bats concerns. The 1988 listing rule stated agave concentrations occur on steep, occupying these roosts appear to be that bats were often killed by vandals rocky slopes with low fuel loads supported by adequate forage resources. (USFWS 1988, p. 38459). However, (Warren 1996). In addition, Johnson The adaptability of the lesser long-nosed significant changes in the public (2001, p. 35–36) reported that bat to changing forage conditions seems perception of bats are occurring. recruitment of new agaves occurred at to allow the lesser long-nosed bat to Educational efforts are beginning to higher rates in burned plots than in sustain a positive population status make a difference. unburned plots, indicating that there under current environmental In both the U.S. and Mexico, public may be an increased availability over conditions. education, in the form of radio and time of agaves in areas that have burned, While some threats are ongoing with television spots, and educational if the return rate of fire is greater than regard to lesser long-nosed bat habitat, materials have been implemented. seven years. The effects of agave in general, we find that threats to this Agencies now receive calls for harvesting are limited to bootleggers, species’ habitat have been reduced or assistance in nonlethal solutions to bat which is likely occurring at the same are being addressed in such a way that issues. Often, the general public does levels as when the species was listed in lesser long-nosed bat habitat is being take the time to understand or 1988, however, this is not considered enhanced and protected at a level that differentiate when it comes to emotional significant. In addition, increased has increased since the 1988 listing of issues such as rabies or vampire bats, outreach and education are being this species. In particular, areas that but outreach and education are provided to tequila producers in an were vulnerable to threats have been improving the understanding and effort to reduce the effects of agave protected or are now managed such that knowledge of facts when it comes to the harvesting on lesser long-nosed bats. those threats have been reduced. reality of the extent of these issues. While not currently a threat affecting Outreach and education have increased There has been a focused effort in the viability of the lesser long-nosed bat the understanding of what needs to be Mexico to reduce the mortality of non- population, the potential for migration done to protect lesser long-nosed bat target species in relation to vampire bat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1672 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

control (see chapter 4 of the SSA Report hunting season on bats, meaning it is changes in Southwestern vegetation (USFWS 2016). always illegal to take them. Provisions communities as a result of the effects of In summary, we determine that the for special licenses to take bats and climate change (Garfin et al. 2014, p. viability of the lesser long-nosed bat is other restricted live wildlife are found 468; Munson et al. 2012, p. 9–12; Archer not being significantly affected by in Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Predick 2008, p. 24). In the most threats from scientific research or public Rule 12, Article 4 and are administered recent assessment of climate change recreational activities. by the Arizona Game and Fish impacts by the Intergovernmental Panel Factor C. Disease or Predation Department. However, this protection is on Climate Change (IPCC), the IPCC for individual animals only, and does indicated that there would be a decrease Disease does not currently appear to not apply to the loss or destruction of in the number of cold days and nights be a significant risk factor for the lesser habitat. As discussed in the SSA report and an increase in the number of warm long-nosed bat. Emerging disease issues, (USFWS 2016; p. 14), there is one days and warm nights which would such as those associated with white- Federal Act and one State Statute in the favor frost-intolerant lesser long-nosed nose syndrome, may become more United States that provide some bat forage species like saguaro and organ significant, however our current measure of protection at cave roosts. pipe cacti, but may also affect the scientific assessment indicates that The Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988 blooming phenology of those same white-nose syndrome will not affect this prohibits persons from activities that species (IPCC 2014, p. 53). They also non-hibernating species. Therefore, ‘‘destroy, disturb, deface, mar, alter, indicted that precipitation events would because lesser long-nosed bats do not remove, or harm any significant cave or likely become more intense and that we hibernate, we do not anticipate that alters free movement of any animal or are more likely to see climate-related white-nose syndrome will be a plant life into or out of any significant extremes such as heat waves, droughts, significant risk factor for lesser long- cave located on Federal lands, or enters floods, wildfires, etc. (IPCC 2014, p. 53). nosed bats (see chapter 4 of the SSA a significant cave with the intent of The U.S. Geological Survey produced Report (USFWS 2016). committing any act described . . .’’ a mapping tool that allows climate Predation does contribute to the Arizona Revised Statute 13–3702 makes change projections to be downscaled to mortality of lesser long-nosed bats at it a class 2 misdemeanor to ‘‘deface or local areas including states, counties, roost sites. Likely predators include damage petroglyphs, pictographs, caves, and watershed units. We used this snakes, raccoons, skunks, ringtails, or caverns.’’ Activities covered under National Climate Change Viewer (U.S. bobcats, coyotes, barn owls, great- ARS 13–3702 include ‘‘kill, harm, or Geological Survey 2016) to compare horned owls, and screech owls. disturb plant or animal life found in any past and projected future climate Specifically, barn owls have been cave or cavern, except for safety conditions for Pima, Santa Cruz, and observed preying on lesser long-nosed reasons.’’ Cochise counties, Arizona. The baseline bats at the maternity roost at Organ Pipe The above laws and regulations will for comparison was the observed mean Cactus National Monument for many continue to protect lesser long-nosed values from 1950 through 2005, and 30 years and snakes have been observed bats and their habitats after delisting. climate models were used to project preying on lesser long-nosed bats in We have determined that these existing future conditions for 2050 through 2074. Baja California Sur, Mexico. However, at regulations address the most important We selected the climate parameters of large aggregations, such as bat roosts, threats to the lesser long-nosed bat as April maximum temperature and predation is an insignificant impact on discussed in the SSA report (USFWS August and December mean the population. Therefore, we find that 2016; p. 54–61). precipitation to evaluate potential neither disease nor predation are effects on lesser long-nosed bat forage Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade currently or is likely in the future to resources. These particular parameters Factors Affecting Its Continued affect the viability of the lesser long- were selected from those available Existence nosed bat. because they represented those most Ecosystems within the southwestern likely to impact the survival and Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing United States are thought to be Regulatory Mechanisms flowering phenology of individual particularly susceptible to the effects of forage species. The current listing of the lesser long- climate change and variability (Strittholt Similar to the more general climate nosed bat in the United States and the et al. 2012, p. 104–152; Munson et al. change effects discussed above, the former listing of the bat in Mexico as an 2012, p. 1–2; Archer and Predick 2008). downscaled analysis also showed endangered species have provided this Documented trends and model warming spring temperatures which species with some level of protection. projections most often show changes in could result in an early blooming period Outside of this, there are no laws or two variables: Temperature and for lesser long-nosed bat forage species regulations protecting this species in precipitation. Recent warming in the (USGS 2016). Precipitation changes Mexico. In fact, the lack of regulation southwest is among the most rapid in were evaluated for changes to monsoon related to control of vampire bats in the nation, significantly more than the and winter precipitation. In line with Mexico is continuing to result in the global average in some areas (Garfin et the general climate projections, changes mortality of the lesser long-nosed bat al. 2014, p. 463; Strittholt et al. 2012, p. during the evaluated time periods were due to the lack of requirements to 104–152; Munson et al. 2012, p. 1–2; greater for winter precipitation than for properly identify the target species. Guido et al. 2009). Precipitation monsoon precipitation. Changes However, increased education and predictions have a larger degree of projected for monsoon precipitation outreach is improving this situation in uncertainty than predictions for were minimal, but projected to be Mexico. In the United States, State laws temperature, especially in the reduced by approximately one inch per and regulations provide some additional Southwest (Sheppard et al. 2002), but 100 days for winter precipitation (USGS level of protection. For example, indicate reduced winter precipitation 2016). Arizona State Law in ARS Title 17 with more intense precipitation events The best available information prohibits the taking of bats outside of a (Global Climate Change 2009, p. 129– indicates that ongoing climate change prescribed hunting season and, per 134; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). will probably have some effect on lesser Commission Order 14, there is no open Further, some models predict dramatic long-nosed bat forage resources. Such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1673

effects will occur as a result of changes varying magnitude and duration year timeframe and low for the 50-year in the phenology (periodic biological (resiliency). The viability of this species timeframe. For each future scenario, we phenomena, such as flowering, in is also dependent on the likelihood of describe how confident we are that that relation to climatic conditions) and new threats or risk factors or the particular scenario will occur. This distribution of lesser long-nosed bat’s continuation of existing threats now and confidence is based on the following forage resources. How this affects the in the future that act to reduce a species’ confidence categories: Highly likely viability of the lesser long-nosed bat redundancy, resiliency, and (greater than 90 percent sure of the population is not clear. There is much representation. scenario occurring); moderately likely uncertainty and a lack of information As described in the SSA report, we (70 to 90 percent sure); somewhat likely regarding the effects of climate change evaluated the viability of the lesser long- (50 to 70 percent sure); moderately and specific impacts to forage for this nosed bat population at two timeframes, unlikely (30 to 50 percent sure); subspecies. The biggest effect to the 15 years and 50 years. The 15-year unlikely (10 to 30 percent sure); and lesser long-nosed bat will occur if forage timeframe represents the time it highly unlikely (less than 10 percent availability gets out of sync along the generally takes to document the sure). The SSA report concluded that it ‘‘nectar trail’’ such that bats arrive at the effectiveness of various research, is unlikely that the worst-case scenario portion of the range they need to meet monitoring, and management will actually occur. The worst case life-history requirements (migration, approaches that have been or are scenario describes a drastic increase in mating, birthing) and there are implemented related to lesser long- negative public attitudes towards bats inadequate forage resources to support nosed bat conservation. Therefore, the and lesser long-nosed bat conservation, that activity. If the timing of forage 15-year timeframe is a reasonable period a greater influence from white-nose availability changes, but changes of time within which we can predict syndrome, and the worst possible effects consistently in a way that maintains the outcomes of these activities in relation from climate change. Based on our nectar trail, this subspecies is expected to the viability of the lesser long-nosed experience and the past and ongoing to adapt to those timing changes as bat population. The 50-year timeframe actions of the public and the stated above (see chapter 4 of the SSA is related primarily to the ability of commitment of management agencies in Report (USFWS 2016). For example, as various climate change models to their land-use planning documents to noted earlier, the resiliency of lesser reasonably and consistently predict or address lesser long-nosed bat long-nosed bats became evident in 2004, assess likely affects to lesser long-nosed conservation issues, both now and in when a widespread failure of saguaro bats and their forage resources. For each the future in both the United States and and organ pipe bloom occurred and of these timeframes, we evaluated three Mexico, such drastic impacts are lesser long-nosed bats were still, future scenarios, a best-case scenario, a unlikely to occur (10 to 30 percent sure ultimately, able to subsist and raise moderate-case scenario, and a worst- this scenario will occur). In fact, for the young in southwestern Arizona in this case scenario with respect to the extent conditions outlined in the worst-case atypical year. It is likely they did so by and degree to which threats will affect scenario, we find that certainty of the feeding more heavily on agaves (evident the future viability of the lesser long- worst-case scenario occurring is closer by agave pollen found on captured nosed bat population. We also to 10 percent than to 30 percent sure lesser long-nosed bats) than they determined how likely it would be that that this scenario would actually occur typically do (see additional discussion each of these three scenarios would based on the commitment to under Factor A above). Although we are actually occur. The SSA report details conservation of this species and the these scenarios and our analysis of the still not sure to what extent the adaptability of the lesser long-nosed bat. effects of these scenarios, over the two environmental conditions described in If the lesser long-nosed bat is delisted timeframes, on redundancy, resiliency, climate change predictions will affect and prior to the final rule, we will and representation of the lesser long- lesser long-nosed bat forage resource confirm with our public and agency nosed bat population. distribution and phenology, we have conservation partners that they will documented that lesser long-nosed bats During our decision-making process, we evaluated our level of comfort continue to coordinate and implement have the ability to change their foraging existing and future conservation actions patterns and food sources in response to making predictions at each of the two related to the lesser long-nosed bat. For a unique situation, providing evidence timeframes. Ultimately, while the SSA additional discussion related to the that this species is more resourceful and report evaluates both timeframes, there worst-case scenario, see the SSA report resilient than may have been previously was some discomfort expressed by (USFWS 2016; p. 51–53). Such ongoing thought. We find that the lesser long- decision makers for extending commitment to lesser long-nosed bat nosed bat is characterized by flexible predictions of the future viability of the conservation has already been seen and adaptive behaviors that will allow lesser long-nosed bat out to 50 years due subsequent to the delisting of this bat in it to remain viable under changing to the uncertainty of climate change Mexico and our experience has been climatic conditions. models and the difficulty of predicting what will happen in Mexico where the that it will also continue in the U.S. Species Future Conditions and Viability majority of this species’ habitat occurs, after delisting. We evaluated overall viability of the but where we have less information Although the worst-case scenario was lesser long-nosed bat in the SSA report with regard to the threats affecting the evaluated in the SSA report, because we (USFWS 2016) in the context of lesser long-nosed bats. In the SSA found that it was unlikely to actually resiliency, redundancy, and report, all three scenarios were occur, the focus of our consideration representation. Species viability, or the evaluated over both time frames was on the scenarios that had the ability to survive long term, is related to (USFWS 2016, p. 52–56). The greatest likelihood of occurring, the the species’ ability to withstand evaluation results of future viability in best- and moderate-case scenarios, catastrophic population and species- the SSA report were identical for both where redundancy, resiliency, and level events (redundancy); the ability to timeframes (high viability), except in representation remain high regardless of adapt to changing environmental the worst-case scenario where, unlike the timeframe or scenario considered. conditions (representation); and the the moderate- and best-case scenarios, Under the current condition for the ability to withstand disturbances of the viability was moderate for the 15- lesser long-nosed bat, as well as in both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1674 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

the best-case (somewhat likely to occur) there were estimated to be less than 500 detailed in the SSA report, adequate and moderate-case (moderately likely to lesser long-nosed bats in the United roosts of all types (maternity, mating, occur) future scenarios, redundancy, States; current estimates are greater than transition, and migratory) currently resiliency, and representation of the 100,000. Rangewide, at the time of exist and are likely to exist into the lesser long-nosed bat population remain listing, it was estimated that there were foreseeable future (USFWS 2016; p. 8– high and the viability of the subspecies less than 1,000 lesser long-nosed bats. 14). Second, sufficient available forage is maintained (USFWS 2016, p. 64–66). Current rangewide estimates are resources are located in appropriate approximately 200,000 lesser long- areas, including in proximity to Delisting Proposal nosed bats. While this may, in large maternity roosts and along the ‘‘nectar Section 4 of the Act and its part, reflect a better approach to survey trail’’ used during migration. The implementing regulations, 50 CFR part and monitoring in subsequent years, it discussion above and the SSA report 424, set forth the procedures for listing, gives us better information upon which detail our analysis and determination reclassifying, or removing species from to evaluate the status of the lesser long- that forage resources are adequate and the Federal Lists of Endangered and nosed bat population. This better that the lesser long-nosed bat is likely to Threatened Wildlife and Plants. information is related to the species’ adapt to any changes in forage ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as population and the number of roosts, availability in the future (USFWS 2016; including any species or subspecies of and its distribution. Better information p. 15–20). In addition, the SSA report fish or wildlife or plants, and any and increased efforts related to habitat analyses the contribution of current and distinct vertebrate population segment protection (identification of roost sites future management of threats to the of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when and forage resources in planning efforts, subspecies’ long-term viability. The mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the implementation of protective measures future viability of the lesser long-nosed ‘‘species’’ is determined, we then for roosts and forage resources, bat will also depend on continued evaluate whether that species may be increased awareness of habitat needs, positive human attitudes towards the endangered or threatened because of etc.) have occurred and are planned to conservation of bats, implementation of one or more of the five factors described be implemented in the future, regardless conservation actions protecting roost in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must of the listing status of this subspecies. sites and forage and migration consider these same five factors in This increased level of information and resources, and implementation of reclassifying or delisting a species. For conservation, combined with the needed research and monitoring will species that are already listed as current state of its threats allow us to inform adaptive management that will endangered or threatened, the analysis conclude that the subspecies is not in contribute to the future viability of the of threats must include an evaluation of danger of extinction and is not expected lesser long-nosed bat population. The both the threats currently facing the to become endangered in the foreseeable SSA report discusses the improved species, and the threats that are future. Our thorough evaluation of the status of these issues across the range of reasonably likely to affect the species in available data for occupancy, the lesser long-nosed bat in much more the foreseeable future following the distribution, and threat factors, as well detail (USFWS 2016; p. 43–46). The delisting or downlisting and the as the opinions of experts familiar with results of the SSA also indicate that the removal or reduction of the Act’s this subspecies, indicates a currently status of the lesser long-nosed bat has protections. We may delist a species viable population status with a stable to further improved in the years since the according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best increasing trend. 2007 5-Year Review (FWS 2007). available scientific and commercial data Predicting the future viability of the Based on the analysis in the SSA indicate that the species is neither lesser long-nosed bat is somewhat more report for the lesser long-nosed bat endangered or threatened for the difficult than for species that occur in (USFWS 2016 and summarized above, following reasons: (1) The species is discrete, mostly consistent habitats the lesser long-nosed bat does not extinct; (2) the species has recovered (ponds, springs, specific soil types, etc.). currently meet the Act’s definition of and is no longer endangered or The lesser long-nosed bat population is endangered because it is not in danger threatened; and/or (3) the original fluid and constantly adapts to changing of extinction throughout all of its range. scientific data used at the time the environmental conditions over a large, Additionally, the lesser long-nosed bat species was classified were in error. We bi-national range. Lesser long-nosed bat is not a threatened species because it is conclude that the lesser-long nosed bat roost sites are discrete and consistent, not likely to become endangered in the has recovered and no longer meets the but the lesser long-nosed bat may use foreseeable future throughout all of its definition of endangered or threatened these roost sites in a changing and range. under the Act. adaptable manner to take advantage of Significant Portion of the Range Although most data related to lesser ephemeral and constantly changing Analysis long-nosed bat roost counts and forage resources with both seasonal and monitoring have not been collected in a annual differences of occurrence. Under the Act and our implementing way that is rigorous enough to draw Therefore, observations of occupancy regulations, a species may warrant statistically calculable conclusions and numbers of bats using these roosts listing if it is in danger of extinction or about the trend of the population, the may not be a complete or accurate likely to become so throughout all or a total numbers of bats observed at roost representation of the status of the significant portion of its range. Having sites across the range of the lesser long- subspecies across its range. However, determined that the lesser long-nosed nosed bat are considered stable or the information regarding the status of bat is not endangered or threatened increasing at nearly all roost sites being the lesser long-nosed bat population is throughout all of its range, we next monitored based on the professional much more accurate and complete than consider whether there are any judgment of biologists and others it was as the time of the 1988 listing significant portions of its range in which involved in these efforts. The total rule. the lesser long-nosed bat is in danger of number of bats currently documented is The future viability of this subspecies extinction or likely to become so. We many times greater than the total is dependent on a number of factors. published a final policy interpreting the number of bats documented at the time First, an adequate number of roosts in phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ of listing in 1988. At the time of listing, the appropriate locations is needed. As (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1675

final policy states that: (1) If a species substantial information indicates that: whether they are a significant portion of is found to be endangered or threatened (1) The portions may be ‘‘significant’’; its range. throughout a significant portion of its and (2) the species may be in danger of We also evaluated representation range, the entire species is listed as extinction there or likely to become so across the lesser long-nosed bat’s range endangered or threatened, respectively, within the foreseeable future. to determine if certain areas were in and the Act’s protections apply to all Depending on the biology of the species, danger of extinction, or likely to become individuals of the species wherever its range, and the threats it faces, it so, due to isolation from the larger found; (2) a portion of the range of a might be more efficient for us to address range. Ramirez (2011) investigated species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is the significance question first or the population structure of the lesser long- not currently endangered or threatened status question first. Thus, if we nosed bat through DNA sampling and throughout all of its range, but the determine that a portion of the range is analysis and reported that combined portion’s contribution to the viability of not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to results indicated sampled individuals the species is so important that, without determine whether the species is belong to single population including both the United States and Mexico. the members in that portion, the species endangered or threatened there; if we Consequently, individuals found in the would be in danger of extinction, or determine that the species is not northern migratory range (United States) likely to become so in the foreseeable endangered or threatened in a portion of future, throughout all of its range; (3) and in Mexico should be managed as a its range, we do not need to determine the range of a species is considered to single population. if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In be the general geographical area within Our analysis indicates that there is no practice, a key part of the determination which that species can be found at the significant geographic portion of the time the Service makes any particular that a species is in danger of extinction range that is in danger of extinction or status determination; and (4) if a in a significant portion of its range is likely to become so in the foreseeable vertebrate species is endangered or whether the threats are geographically future. Therefore, based on the best threatened throughout a significant concentrated in some way. If the threats scientific and commercial data portion of its range, and the population to the species are affecting it uniformly available, no portion warrants further in that significant portion is a valid throughout its range, no portion is likely consideration to determine whether the distinct population segment (DPS), we to have a greater risk of extinction, and species may be endangered or will list the DPS rather than the entire thus would not warrant further threatened in a significant portion of its taxonomic species or subspecies. consideration. Moreover, if any range. concentration of threats apply only to The procedure for analyzing whether Conclusion any portion is an SPR is similar, portions of the range that clearly do not regardless of the type of status meet the biologically based definition of We have determined that none of the determination we are making. The first ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that existing or potential threats cause the step in our analysis of the status of a portion clearly would not be expected to lesser long-nosed bat to be in danger of species is to determine its status increase the vulnerability to extinction extinction throughout all or a significant throughout all of its range. If we of the entire species), those portions portion of its range, nor is the determine that the species is in danger would not warrant further subspecies likely to become endangered of extinction, or likely to become consideration. within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. endangered in the foreseeable future, We identified portions of the lesser We may delist a species according to 50 throughout all of its range, we list the long-nosed bat’s range that may be CFR 424.11(d) if the best available species as an endangered species or significant, and examined whether any scientific and commercial data indicate threatened species, and no SPR analysis threats are geographically concentrated will be required. If the species is neither that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the in some way that would indicate that species has recovered and is no longer in danger of extinction, nor likely to those portions of the range may be in become so throughout all of its range, as endangered or threatened; or (3) the danger of extinction, or likely to become we have found here, we next determine original scientific data used at the time so in the foreseeable future. Within the whether the species is in danger of the species was classified were in error. current range of the lesser long-nosed extinction or likely to become so On the basis of our evaluation, we bat, some distinctions can be made throughout a significant portion of its conclude that, due to recovery, the range. If it is, we will continue to list the between Mexico and the United States lesser long-nosed bat is not an species as an endangered species or (international border, vegetation endangered or threatened species. We threatened species, respectively; if it is communities, etc.). While these therefore propose to remove the lesser not, we conclude that listing the species geographic distinctions may be long-nosed bat from the Federal List of is no longer warranted. significant, our analysis indicates that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at When we conduct an SPR analysis, the species is unlikely to be in danger 50 CFR 17.11(h). we first identify any portions of the of extinction or to become so in the species’ range that warrant further foreseeable future in any geographic Effects of This Proposed Rule consideration. The range of a species region within the range of the lesser This proposed rule, if made final, can theoretically be divided into long-nosed bat given that factors such as would revise our regulations at 50 CFR portions in an infinite number of ways. roost sites, forage resources, and 17.11(h) by removing the lesser long- However, there is no purpose in migration pathways are well distributed nosed bat from the Federal List of analyzing portions of the range that across the entire range and that the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. have no reasonable potential to be status of the species is stable or The prohibitions and conservation significant or in analyzing portions of increasing in both the United States and measures provided by the Act, the range in which there is no Mexico, with conservation actions being particularly through sections 7 and 9, reasonable potential for the species to be implemented to address ongoing threats. would no longer apply to this endangered or threatened. To identify Therefore, we have not identified any subspecies. Federal agencies would no only those portions that warrant further portion of the range that warrants longer be required to consult with the consideration, we determine whether further consideration to determine Service under section 7 of the Act in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 1676 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules

event that activities they authorize, significant evidence. The result of the Therefore, we have and will solicit fund, or carry out may affect the lesser investigation will be to determine if the information from Native American long-nosed bat. Because no critical lesser long-nosed bat warrants expanded Tribes during the comment period to habitat was ever designated for the monitoring, additional research, determine potential effects on them or lesser long-nosed bat, this rule would additional habitat protection, or their resources that may result from the not affect 50 CFR 17.95. State laws resumption of Federal protection under proposed delisting of the lesser long- related to the lesser long-nosed bat the Act. The draft PDM plan will be nosed bat, and we will fully consider would remain in place and be enforced made available for public comment in a their comments on the proposed rule and would continue to provide future publication in the Federal submitted during the public comment protection for this subspecies. State and Register and will be finalized period. Federal laws related to protection of concurrent with finalization of this rule. habitat for the lesser long-nosed bat, References Cited such as those addressing effects to caves Required Determinations and abandoned mines, as well as Clarity of the Rule A complete list of all references cited protected plant species such as in this rule is available on http:// We are required by Executive Orders columnar cacti and agaves, would www.regulations.gov, or upon request remain in place and afford lesser long- 12866 and 12988 and by the from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Presidential Memorandum of June 1, nosed bat habitat some level of Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 1998, to write all rules in plain protection. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). language. This means that each rule we Post-Delisting Monitoring publish must: Authors Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the (1) Be logically organized; Secretary of Interior, through the (2) Use the active voice to address The primary authors of this document Service and in cooperation with the readers directly; are the staff members of the Arizona States, to implement a system to (3) Use clear language rather than Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. monitor for not less than 5 years for all jargon; Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR species that have been recovered and (4) Be divided into short sections and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). sentences; and delisted. The purpose of this List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 requirement is to develop a program (5) Use lists and tables wherever that detects the failure of any delisted possible. Endangered and threatened species, species to sustain populations without If you feel we have not met these Exports, Imports, Reporting and the protective measures provided by the requirements, send us comments by one recordkeeping requirements, Act. If, at any time during the of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To Transportation. monitoring period, data indicate that better help us revise the rule, your protective status under the Act should comments should be as specific as Proposed Regulation Promulgation be reinstated, we can initiate listing possible. For example, you should tell procedures, including, if appropriate, us the numbers of the sections or Accordingly, we propose to amend emergency listing. paragraphs that are unclearly written, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title We will coordinate with other Federal which sections or sentences are too 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, agencies, State resource agencies, long, the sections where you feel lists or as set forth below: interested scientific organizations, and tables would be useful, etc. others as appropriate to develop and PART 17—ENDANGERED AND implement an effective post-delisting National Environmental Policy Act THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS monitoring (PDM) plan for the lesser We have determined that long-nosed bat. The PDM plan will environmental assessments and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 build upon current monitoring environmental impact statements, as continues to read as follows: techniques and research, as well as defined under the authority of the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– emerging technology and techniques. National Environmental Policy Act of 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. Monitoring will assess the species 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not numbers, distribution, and threats be prepared in connection with § 17.11 [Amended] status, as well as ongoing management regulations adopted pursuant to section ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the and conservation efforts that have 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice entry for ‘‘Bat, lesser long-nosed’’ under improved the status of this subspecies outlining our reasons for this since listing. The PDM plan will determination in the Federal Register MAMMALS from the List of Endangered identify, to the extent practicable and in on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). and Threatened Wildlife. accordance with our current Dated: December 16, 2016. Government-to-Government understanding of the subspecies’ life Marty J. Kodis. history measurable thresholds and Relationship With Tribes Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service responses for detecting and reacting to In accordance with the President’s . significant changes in the lesser long- memorandum of April 29, 1994, nosed bat’s populations, distribution, ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations [FR Doc. 2016–31408 Filed 1–5–17; 8:45 am] and persistence. If declines are detected with Native American Tribal BILLING CODE 4333–15–P equaling or exceeding these thresholds, Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive the Service, in combination with other Order 13175, and the Department of PDM participants, will investigate Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we causes of these declines, including readily acknowledge our responsibility considerations of habitat changes, to communicate meaningfully with substantial human persecution, recognized Federal Tribes on a stochastic events, or any other government-to-government basis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS