Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 17093-17110 [2018-08121]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17093-17110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08121]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are removing the 
lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 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.

DATES: The rule is effective May 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents: This final rule and supporting 
documents, including the Species Status Assessment (SSA) are available 
on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138. In 
addition, the supporting file for this final 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: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a species may be added to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants if it is 
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Adding a species to (``listing'') or removing a species from 
these Lists (``delisting'') can only be accomplished by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This rule makes final the removal of the 
lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
    The basis for our action. Under the ESA, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (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. We may delist a species if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither 
endangered or threatened. We have determined that the lesser-long nosed 
bat has recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Act.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments on both the SSA 
and the proposed delisting rule from independent specialists to ensure 
that this rule is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We also considered all comments and information received 
during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    In carrying out our responsibility to enforce the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), maintain the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. On September 30, 1988, we published a final 
rule in the Federal Register (53 FR 38456) to add the Mexican long-
nosed bat (Leptonycteris nivalis) and Sanborn's long-nosed bat 
(Leptonycteris sanborni (=L. yerbabuenae)) as endangered species to the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). That rule 
became effective on October 31, 1988. 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.
    In 2001, we revised the entry for the lesser long-nosed bat to 
remove the synonym of ``Sanborn's''; consequently, 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. On August 30, 2007, we completed a 
5-year review, in which we recommended reclassifying the species from 
endangered to threatened status (i.e., ``downlisting'') under the Act 
(Service 2007; available online at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). 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, because we are removing the 
lesser long-nosed bat from the List (i.e., ``delisting'' the species), 
this recommendation is moot. Please note that, throughout this rule, we 
continue to refer to the lesser long-nosed bat as a subspecies.
    The recommendation to downlist the species in the 5-year review was 
made because information generated since the listing of the lesser 
long-nosed bat indicated that the subspecies was 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, 
did not meet the definition of endangered. On July 16, 2012, we 
received a petition from The Pacific Legal Foundation and others 
requesting that, among other reclassification actions, the Service 
downlist the lesser long-nosed bat as recommended in the 5-year review. 
On September 9, 2013, the Service published a 90-day petition finding 
under the Act stating that the

[[Page 17094]]

petition contained substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating the petitioned action (i.e., downlisting) 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.'' On November 20, 2015, the New Mexico 
Cattle Growers Association and others filed a complaint challenging the 
Service's failure to complete 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)). Plaintiffs asked the Court to 
compel the Service to make 12-month findings on the five species. The 
parties settled the lawsuit with the requirement that the Service 
submit a 12-month finding for the lesser long-nosed bat to the Office 
of the Federal Register for publication on or before December 30, 2016, 
among other obligations not related to the lesser long-nosed bat. On 
January 6, 2017, the Service published in the Federal Register a 
proposed rule (82 FR 1665) and 12-month petition finding and request 
for comments to remove the lesser long-nosed bat from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We have not made any substantive changes in this final rule based 
on the comments that we received during the public comment period on 
the January 6, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 1665). Based on peer review, 
State, and public comments, we added text and information to clarify 
some language in the SSA and the proposed rule that has been 
incorporated into this final rule as discussed below in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations.

Species Information

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of the lesser long-nosed bat is presented in the SSA 
report for the lesser long-nosed bat (Service 2017), which is available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 
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 (Service 2017; 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 to the scientific information and analysis in the 
SSA.
    The following discussion is a summary of the results and 
conclusions from the SSA report. The Service invited a group of experts 
to provide input as the draft SSA report was being developed. These 
experts included lesser long-nosed bat biologists, 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). Following development of the draft SSA, 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 and received responses from two peer 
reviewers.
    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.
    Following listing of the lesser long-nosed bat, recovery activities 
were based on the U.S. recovery plan (Service 1997, entire) and the 
Program for the Conservation of Migratory Bats in Mexico, which was 
formed in 1994 (Bats 1995, pp. 1-6). The primary recovery actions 
outlined in the recovery plan were to monitor and protect known roost 
sites and foraging habitats. 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 (8 out of 14) 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 from impacts to 
roost locations was determined in our SSA to be moderate. For example, 
as stated in the proposed rule, approximately 75 percent of this 
species in the United States is on federally managed lands where there 
are guidelines and management plans (Land and Resource Management 
Plans, Resource Management Plans, Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plans, etc.) that include actions and measures that 
contribute to the protection of lesser long-nosed bats and their 
habitat.
    The Service's 5-year review recommended downlisting from endangered 
to threatened status (Service 2007; available at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). The 5-year review, 
indicated that information generated since the listing of the bat 
indicated that it was not in imminent danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range and thus, would not meet the 
definition of endangered. In Mexico, the lesser long-nosed bat was 
removed from that nation's equivalent of the endangered species list in 
2013 (SEMARNAT 2010, entire; Medellin and Knoop 2013, entire). Between 
1990 and 2010, Mexican researchers carried out a wide range of studies 
that demonstrated that the lesser long-nosed bat was 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.

[[Page 17095]]

Subspecies Description and Needs

    The lesser long-nosed bat is a migratory bat characterized by a 
resident subpopulation that remains year round in 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 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 
disease-causing organisms (fungus that causes white-nose syndrome, 
etc.); limited human disturbance; structural integrity; 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 southern Mexico and 
northern Mexico and the United States.
    For more information on this topic, see chapter 2 of the SSA Report 
(Service 2017), which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov 
in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 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. In addition, better 
methods of monitoring have been developed, such as 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. Additionally, these monitoring efforts 
have led to more accurate assessments of the numbers of lesser long-
nosed bats using these roosts. The 1988 listing rule emphasized low 
population numbers along with an apparent declining population trend. 
At the time of listing, 1,000 lesser long-nosed bats were estimated 
rangewide. Since then, 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. The current estimate 
is now more than 200,000 bats rangewide. 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.
    A number of lesser long-nosed bat publications have population 
estimates that far exceed those known at the time of listing (Fleming 
et al. 2003; Sidner and Davis 1988). Although population estimates and 
roost count numbers fluctuate from year to year, the numbers of lesser 
long-nosed bats estimated from 2010 through 2015 in the three known 
maternity roosts in the United States were an average of two and a half 
times higher than those known in the late 1990s (Service 2017; 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 if the roost 
occurred on non-federal lands. 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 (Service 2017; p. 11).
    In the summer of 2017, a drastic (i.e., approximately 86 percent) 
decline was observed in the numbers of bats at one of the key maternity 
sites along the U.S.-Mexico border. Additionally, a late-summer 
transition roost in Arizona was documented as not being occupied for 
the second year in a row. We do not have a complete understanding of 
what caused the fatality event and roost abandonment in 2017. It is 
likely that a mortality event at the maternity roost site in 2016 
probably contributed to the decline in 2017 and the information we have 
indicates the observed fatalities were the result of a natural weather 
event. The decline could also be the result of migrating females using 
other roosts in the area or resource conditions in Mexico resulted in 
fewer bats migrating northward. We intend to work with our partners in 
Mexico and the United States to increase the monitoring effort at this 
roost. We also intend to gather information on resource conditions in 
both the United States and Mexico and consider roost counts at other 
maternity roosts in the region to gain a better understanding of the 
causes and implications of the events of 2016 and 2017. This maternity 
roost is included in our draft post-delisting monitoring plan, so we 
will continue to monitor and evaluate this roost for the next 15 years 
and implement adaptive management actions, if necessary. We evaluated 
lesser long-nosed bat resiliency, redundancy, and representation in the 
SSA over two time frames, 15 years and 50 years. Because the species' 
viability is evaluated by resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
under a 15-year time frame, we used the same timeframe in the 
development of thresholds for post-delisting monitoring. In addition, 
the 15-year is based on the history of past conservation 
implementation, such as identifying and monitoring roost sites; 
completing the processes for identifying, permitting, implementing, and 
monitoring roost protection measures; conducting education and outreach 
and seeing changes in public perceptions.
    Lesser long-nosed bat roosts have a history of numbers fluctuating 
from year to year. Any observed incidents of fatalities or changes in 
roost occupancy patterns should be considered in the context of time. 
There is not rigorous roost count data that can be used to 
statistically define the trend of the lesser long-nosed bat population 
throughout its range. We have count data from both the United States 
and Mexico that has occurred regularly over the past 20 years, 
including annual simultaneous counts at both maternity and late-summer 
transition roosts in the United States. Not all roosts are counted 
every year, but some are. Not all roosts are counted multiple times 
each year, but some are. Regardless, each known roost in the United 
States has some count data that has occurred over the past 20 years 
that has resulted in regular or

[[Page 17096]]

periodic visits by bat biologists or land managers. These counts have 
shown increasing or stable numbers and roost sites that continue to 
provide for the life history needs of the lesser long-nose bat. When 
looking at the count data over time and applying our best professional 
judgment to this data, we have concluded that the overall lesser long-
nosed bat population trend is positive. Our conservation partners in 
Mexico reached the same conclusion when they delisted the lesser long-
nosed bat in 2013.
    The lesser long-nosed bat's conservation status in Mexico is 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; thus much of 
the same reasoning for the subspecies' removal from Mexico's endangered 
species list applies to our reasoning to remove the lesser long-nosed 
bat from the U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
    Because the lesser long-nosed bat has both resident and migratory 
subpopulations, all of the necessary habitat elements must be 
appropriately distributed across the range of this species such that 
roost sites, forage resources, and migration 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 generally decreased or changed substantially over the 
past 20 years from that described in the Recovery Plan. An exception to 
this is the recent documentation of the lesser long-nosed bat range 
expanding northward to the Gila River in New Mexico (HEG 2015, entire). 
However, 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 (Service 2017, chapters 1 through 3).
    For more information on this topic, see chapter 5 of the SSA Report 
(Service 2017), which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov 
in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 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 (Service 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. 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 
(Service 2007; available online at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0138 or at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm).
    During our development of the SSA report and 5-year review, we 
found that data relied upon to develop the 1988 listing rule and the 
recovery plan are out of date. 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 (Service 2007; p. 30; 
available online at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2016-0138 or at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Lesser.htm). 
As explained below, we assessed the species' viability in the SSA 
report (Service 2017) in making the determination of whether or not the 
lesser long-nosed bat has recovered as defined by the Act.

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 throughout the range of the 
species. Approximately six roosts were known in Arizona and New Mexico 
at the time of listing. Currently, we have documented approximately 50 
lesser long-nosed bat roosts in Arizona and New Mexico. All 13 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 
major 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. Additionally, we now consider 
almost all of the approximately 50 known roosts in the United States to 
be major roosts, meaning they host more than 1,000 bats. None of the 
New Mexico roosts were identified for monitoring in the recovery plan, 
but these roosts have been monitored

[[Page 17097]]

sporadically since the completion of the recovery plan (Service 2007; 
pp. 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, pp. 11-13). Therefore, this recovery criterion has been 
satisfied. For more information, see chapter 2 of the SSA Report 
(Service 2017).

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 and SSA 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 (see 
chapter 2 of the SSA Report (Service 2017). 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. With a documented increase 
from an estimated 1,000 lesser long-nosed bats rangewide at the time of 
listing to more than 200,000 currently documented, the total number of 
bats documented at this time is many times greater than those numbers 
upon which the listing of this species relied. Therefore, this 
criterion has been met.

Recovery Criterion 3 (Protect Roost and Forage Plant Habitats)

    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.
    More roost locations for lesser long-nosed bats 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). As we describe in more detail in Factor D 
below, we now know that the majority of these roost sites occur on 
public lands where they are protected and managed.
    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. We now know that lesser long-nosed bats are 
more adaptable to ephemeral forage resources and we know that effects 
from livestock grazing, prescribed burning, and harvesting by the 
tequila industry do not significantly affect lesser long-nosed bat 
forage resources.
    Some progress has been made toward protecting known lesser long-
nosed bat roost sites, but the ultimate level of effectiveness of gates 
as a protection measure is still being evaluated and improved. Gates 
provide long-term protection of roost sites, but are accepted and used 
by different bat species to different extents. Different gates designs 
are currently being tested at additional lesser long-nosed bat roost 
sites. For more information, see chapter 4 of the SSA Report (Service 
2017).
    In summary, we have considerably better data with regard to roost 
locations of lesser long-nosed bat compared to the information 
available at the time of listing and completion of the recovery plan. 
Because of improved information, land management agencies are doing a 
better job of protecting lesser long-nosed bat roost sites and foraging 
areas. Over the past five years, there has been considerable effort and 
success in understanding lesser long-nosed bat roost protection options 
and many roosts have had roost protection measures implemented (Service 
2017, p. 56). In addition, monitoring over the past 24 years indicates 
steady increases in the numbers of lesser long-nosed bats at these 
roosts due to roost site protections (Service 2017, p. 10). Therefore, 
we believed this recovery criterion has been met. For more information, 
see chapter 2 and Conservation Efforts in the SSA Report (Service 
2017).

Recovery Criterion 4 (Status of New and Known Threats)

    This criterion relates to adequately addressing threats known at 
the time the 1997 recovery plan was written, as well as any new threats 
that have been identified subsequent to the completion of the recovery 
plan. 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. However, the 
Service and appropriate land managers have an active program of 
coordination and technical assistance with Customs and Border 
Protection that are addressing border issues. 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 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 
currently being tested at a few additional lesser long-nosed bat roost 
sites. Roost protection also occurs in the form of regular monitoring, 
fencing, road closures, and ongoing management as outlined in the land 
management agencies' planning documents. This recovery criterion has 
been met. For more information, see chapter 4 of the SSA Report 
(Service 2017).

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 is 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

[[Page 17098]]

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.
    The Service reviews the best scientific and commercial information 
available when conducting a threats analysis. In considering what 
factors may constitute a threat, we must look beyond the mere exposure 
of individuals of a species to the factor to determine whether the 
exposure causes actual impacts to the entire species. The mere 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species is not 
sufficient to compel a finding that a currently listed species should 
be maintained on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. We require evidence that these factors are 
operative threats currently acting on the species to the point that the 
species meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

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

    The primary concern regarding future viability of this subspecies 
continues to be roost site disturbance or loss. This is primarily an 
issue related to human activities and destructive actions at these 
roost sites. In addition, 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 if impacts at roost sites are 
pervasive 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. Agencies and 
conservation partners are implementing protective measures at known 
roosts and newly discovered roosts Outreach and education efforts have 
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 
(Service 2017, pp. 45-48). As discussed further in Factor D below, 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 protection 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 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 1,000 lesser 
long-nosed bats rangewide at the time of listing to more than 200,000 
currently estimated, 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. This documented increase in roosts 
and of stable or increasing lesser long-nosed bat numbers indicates 
that threats to habitat have not reduced available habitat components 
to the point that it is significantly affecting the lesser long-nosed 
bat status. And, roost site protections will continue into the 
foreseeable future. Adequate roosts of all types (maternity, mating, 
transition, and migratory) currently exist and are likely to exist into 
the foreseeable future (Service 2017; pp. 8-14).
    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 National Wildlife Refuge 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 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 
in 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. This information indicates that livestock do not have a 
significant effect on lesser long-nosed bat food sources, over and 
above the impact of native grazers.
    Thomas and Goodson (1992) and Johnson (2001, p. 37) reported 14 
percent and 19 percent 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 percent (USFS 2015, pp. 82-83; USFS 2013, pp. 
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

[[Page 17099]]

(2001, pp. 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 7 years. 
The effects of agave harvesting are primarily 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, because it 
removes a relatively limited number of lesser long-nosed bat forage 
plants. 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. These producers primarily 
farm agaves (as opposed to harvesting wild-growing agaves) and are 
working with our Mexican partners to leave agaves for utilization by 
nectar-feeding bats.
    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 (Service 2017; pp. 15-
20).
    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, primarily from urbanization and 
catastrophic wildfires, 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 climate change, among others.
    Lesser long-nosed bats are affected directly by development that 
removes important foraging habitat, but also indirectly as growing 
numbers of people increase the potential for roost disturbance. Impacts 
from urbanization on lesser long-nosed bat habitat are of concern 
because they tend to be permanent, long-term impacts, as opposed to the 
often temporary, shorter-term impacts from fire, grazing, and agave 
harvesting. Lesser long-nosed bats are often able to react to temporary 
impacts by moving to alternative sites in the short-term. Various human 
activities, including recreation and caving, can result in impacts to 
lesser long-nosed bat roosts. As discussed earlier, various land use 
plan and laws regulate the access to sensitive sites such as bat 
roosts. The implementation of these plans is not dependent on the 
regulatory protections of the Act. Additionally, post-delisting 
monitoring will provide regular assessments of lesser long-nosed bat 
roosts and allow us to respond with appropriate management to an 
indication of disturbance or vandalism. Past and ongoing outreach and 
education has been effective in raising public awareness related to the 
conservation of bats. The general public better understands the needs 
and benefits of bats in the environment. Continued education and 
understanding will help reduce the occurrence of bat roost disturbance 
and vandalism. Such efforts have been very effective, particularly in 
Mexico.
    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 rangewide (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; Service 2017). 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.
    Beyond the regulatory requirements of the Act, our conservation 
partners have implemented a number of past and current conservation 
measures that to benefit the bat (Service 2017, p. 46). The Blue Bird 
Mine on Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge was fenced in 2004 to 
protect a known lesser long-nosed bat maternity roost. Bats reoccupied 
this abandoned roost following the installation of this protective 
fencing. After the fence was vandalized and subsequently abandoned by 
lesser long-nosed bats in 2005, the fence was repaired (McCasland 
2005), and there has been no subsequent abandonment of this roost.
    Telemetry projects have identified a number of new transition 
roosts. Roosts on non-Federal lands support efforts to promote the 
conservation of the lesser long-nosed bat. The Arizona-Sonora Desert 
Museum has conducted studies on seasonal movements between lesser long-
nosed bat roosts in Arizona, a migratory pollinator study, and roost 
monitoring in the United States and Mexico, and conducts educational 
activities related to bats (Krebbs 2005a).
    Investigations were initiated related to the distribution and use 
of hummingbird feeders by lesser long-nosed bat in the Tucson area 
(Wolf 2006). This program has been continued and expanded through a 
citizen scientist program being coordinated by the Service, Arizona 
Game and Fish Department (AGFD), the Town of Marana, the University of 
Arizona, and a system of volunteer citizen scientists now number over 
100. Information on arrival and departure dates, peak use periods, and 
population characteristics are being gathered to increase our 
understanding of lesser long-nosed bat life history.
    A mine site on the Tohono O'odham Nation that supports a lesser 
long-nosed bat maternity colony has been structurally stabilized to 
maintain roost integrity (Wolf and Dalton 2005). The exhaust fan was 
removed from the historical Colossal Cave maternity roost in an effort 
to get lesser long-nosed bat to recolonize this roost; however, so far, 
no lesser long-nosed bats have

[[Page 17100]]

recolonized this cave (AGFD 2005, entire). More recently, in 2015, a 
gate blocking the entrance to the bat roost at Colossal Cave has been 
replaced by a more bat-friendly gate.
    Educational programs occur at organized events such as Southwest 
Wings Birding Festival. Other programs are conducted as requested, but 
efforts are sporadic (AGFD 2005). In Mexico, bat biologists are working 
with elementary schools, providing ``bat-pollination'' and other games 
for school children who previously had known little about and had 
little concern for bats. This educational effort has been successful in 
passing along this information to siblings and teachers are sharing the 
program (Medell[iacute]n 2011; p. 9).
    The Service and other agencies and partner organizations are 
raising the awareness of pollinators in general, and bat pollinators 
specifically, through education and outreach efforts that include 
events across the United States and in Mexico.
    Therefore, based on the analysis completed in the SSA report 
(Service 2017; pp. 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.

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 known to be a problem 
(Service 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 (Service 1988, p. 38459). However, significant 
changes in the public perception of bats are occurring. Educational 
efforts are making a difference, as evidenced by decreased vandalism at 
roost sites, measures being including in land use planning, reduced 
non-target fatalities during rabies control, and public interest and 
ownership in bat conservation efforts such as the hummingbird feeder 
monitoring project.
    In both the United States 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 may be concerned 
about rabies or vampire bats, but outreach and education are improving 
the understanding and knowledge of bats concerning these issues. 
Vampire bat control is implemented in portions of the lesser long-nosed 
bat range in Mexico. This control is necessary because of potential 
impacts to humans and livestock, including the transmission of rabies. 
Such control can result in the indiscriminate killing of non-target 
bats, including lesser long-nosed bats (Johnson et al. 2014; p. 1920-
1922). Because of the colonial roosting nature of lesser long-nosed 
bats, any roost lost or disturbed because of rabies control activities 
can affect the lesser long-nosed bat population. Mexico has focused 
efforts to reduce the mortality of non-target species in relation to 
vampire bat control (see chapter 4 of the SSA Report (Service 2017).
    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 (Service 2017).
    Predation contributes 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 (Billings 2005; p. 11) and snakes have been 
observed preying on lesser long-nosed bats in Baja California Sur, 
Mexico (Frick 2017, pers. comm.). However, it is our professional 
judgement that 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 laws generally protecting wildlife and their habitats, no 
specific laws or regulations protect this species in Mexico. As noted 
in Factor B above, rabies control activities have resulted in the 
mortality of the lesser long-nosed bats due to the lack of requirements 
to properly identify the target species. However, increased education 
and outreach is improving this situation in Mexico, and incidents of 
nontarget fatalities during rabies control have been reduced. In the 
United States, State laws and regulations provide some additional level 
of protection. For example, Arizona State Law in Arizona Revised 
Statute (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 AGFD. However, this protection is for 
individual animals only, and does not apply to the loss or destruction 
of habitat. However, the loss and destruction of habitat has been and 
will be managed and adequate areas of suitable habitat remain 
undeveloped such that this lack of protection of habitat under State 
law does not result in a threat to the lesser long-nosed bat 
population.
    More than 75 percent of the range of this species in the United 
States is on federally managed lands and these 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 if the roosts occurred elsewhere. Gating 
of

[[Page 17101]]

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 because 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. The Coronado National Forest's 2017 Land and Resource 
Management Plan (LRMP) includes standards and guidelines to retain and 
enhance areas with paniculate agaves in order to benefit the lesser 
long-nosed bat. The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan has identified an objective to install 
additional measures to protect the lesser long-nosed bat maternity 
roost on the refuge. The Bureau of Land Management has forage plant 
protections within the range of the lesser long-nosed bat, including 
avoidance measures to protect agave and saguaros. Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge protect 
hundreds of square miles of areas containing foraging plants for the 
bat within its refuge boundaries. We are currently working with the 
Department of Defense facilities at Fort Huachuca and Barry M. 
Goldwater Range to include actions in their Integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plans to continue with lesser long-nosed bat 
conservation activities. On Fort Huachuca, for example, they are 
implementing an Agave Management Plan that states that they will 
maintain a self-sustaining populations of Agave palmeri on Fort 
Huachuca to conserve the forage base of the lesser long-nosed bat and 
other species using agave.
    As described above, roosts on Federal lands benefit from monitoring 
by agency personnel, or access is granted for monitoring by other 
entities, 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).
    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 statute (ARS 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.

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

    Ecosystems within the southwestern United States are thought to be 
particularly susceptible to climate change and variability (Strittholt