[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14641-14650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018--AE83


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Reclassification From Endangered to Threatened Status for the Mariana 
Fruit Bat From Guam, and Proposed Threatened Status for the Mariana 
Fruit Bat From the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes 
reclassification from endangered to threatened status pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the Mariana fruit 
bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus) from Guam, and threatened status 
pursuant to the Act for the Mariana fruit bat from the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This subspecies is restricted to 
the Mariana archipelago, comprised of the Territory of Guam and the 
CNMI. The Mariana fruit bat is listed as endangered on Guam, and the 
populations on the southern islands of the CNMI (Aguijan, Tinian, and 
Saipan) are candidates for listing. Recent evidence suggests that 
inter-island movement between Guam and other islands throughout the 
archipelago is not a rare event; hence, the Mariana fruit bats on Guam 
are no longer believed to represent a population distinct from those in 
the CNMI. Similarly, the populations of Aguijan, Tinian, and Saipan are 
not believed to be distinct from one another or from populations on 
other islands in the archipelago. Therefore, for the purposes of this 
proposed rule, all Mariana fruit bats in the Mariana Island archipelago 
are considered to represent one population. Mariana fruit bats are 
known from all of the islands of the Mariana archipelago, and 
throughout this range they are threatened by illegal hunting, 
degradation and loss of habitat from feral animals and through the 
development of forested areas, the potential for extinction of 
subpopulations from naturally occurring events such as typhoons, and 
predation by the brown tree snake. This proposal, if made final, would 
implement the protection provisions provided by the Act.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 26, 
1998. Public hearing requests must be received by May 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to Brooks Harper, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 
50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. Comments and materials received will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Rosa, Assistant Field 
Supervisor-Endangered Species, Pacific Islands Office, at the above 
address (telephone 808/541-3441, FAX 808/541-3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mariana Islands archipelago consists of the 15-island 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Territory 
of Guam. Both are within the jurisdiction of the United States. This 
archipelago extends 466 miles (750 kilometers (km)) from 13 deg.14'N, 
144 deg.45'W and 20 deg.3'N, 144 deg.54'W and is approximately 932 
miles (1,500 km) east of the Philippine Islands. The ten northern 
islands are volcanic, while the five southern islands are uplifted 
coral limestone plateaus with volcanic outcrops. Mariana fruit bats 
have historically inhabited all of these islands. The largest southern 
islands (Guam, Rota, Tinian, and Saipan) are occupied by approximately 
160,000 people.

[[Page 14642]]

    The northern islands (north of Saipan) are either unoccupied or 
support just a few families. The climate is tropical, with daily mean 
temperatures of 75 to 90 deg. Fahrenheit (24 to 32 deg. Celsius), high 
humidity, and average annual rainfall of 78 to 103 inches (in) (200 to 
260 centimeters (cm)). Typhoons may strike the Mariana Islands during 
any month of the year, but are most frequent between July and October.
    The Mariana fruit bat is a medium-sized fruit bat in the family 
Pteropididae weighing 330 to 577 grams (0.66 to 1.15 pounds) and has a 
forearm length ranging from 13.4 to 15.6 cm (5.3 to 6.1 in); males are 
slightly larger than females. The underside (abdomen) is colored black 
to brown, with gray hair interspersed, creating a grizzled appearance. 
The shoulders (mantel) and sides of the neck are usually bright golden 
brown, but may be paler in some individuals. The head varies from brown 
to dark brown. The well-formed and rounded ears and the large eyes give 
a canine-like appearance; members of the pteropodid bat family are 
often referred to as flying foxes.
    The taxonomic status of fruit bats in Micronesia and the western 
Pacific is not clearly understood, nor is there a consensus regarding 
the taxonomic classification of island or island group populations. 
Andersen (1912), one of the first to examine Pacific Pteropidids, 
recognized several species in the genus Pteropus, including mariannus, 
pelewensis, yapensis, ualanus, loochooensis, vanikorensis, tonganus, 
and geddiei. Subsequently, Kuroda (1938) combined several of these, and 
recognized seven subspecies under Pteropus mariannus including 
mariannus, pelewensis, yapensis, ulanus, ulthiensis, paganensis and 
loochooensis, but Corbet and Hill (1980) recognized mariannus, 
pelewensis, yapensis, ulanus, and loochooensis as distinct species. In 
contrast, Honacki et al. (1982) included those five species under 
Pteropus mariannus. Nowak and Paradiso (1983) elevated yapensis, 
pelewensis, and ualanus to species. Corbet and Hill (1986, 1991) 
reversed their previous classification (Corbet and Hill 1980), 
following instead Honacki et al. (1982), and also placed those bats 
under Pteropus mariannus. Nowak (1991) elevated several populations to 
species level, listing pelewensis, yapensis, ualanus, mariannus, 
vanikorensis, and tonganus as distinct species. Pierson and Rainey 
(1992) largely followed Kuroda (1938), recognizing seven subspecies 
under Pteropus mariannus. Similarly, Koopman (1993) includes those bats 
under Pteropus mariannus, electing not to elevate them to the specific 
level. Flannery (1995) was oddly inconsistent, considering mariannus, 
loochooensis, paganensis, and ulthiensis as subspecies, but elevating 
pelewensis, ualanus, and yapensis to full species. Finally Nowak (1994) 
again presented his earlier treatment found in Nowak (1991), elevating 
five island or island group populations to the species level.
    In general, the taxonomic revisions proposed since Andersen (1912) 
have not been based on any rigorous examination of specimens of the 
taxa in question and, often, these changes are presented without 
comment or justification. Ultimately, the taxonomic revisions presented 
above represent the professional opinions of the authors, and serve to 
illustrate the considerable uncertainty regarding the taxonomic status 
of many of the western Pacific bat species.
    Following the taxonomic treatments of Koopman (1993) and Pierson 
and Rainey (1992), Pteropus mariannus (Desmarest 1822) is a widely 
dispersed species occurring north of the equator in portions of 
Micronesia north to the Japanese Ryukyu Islands, and is represented by 
seven subspecies. Two of these are restricted to the Mariana Islands--
the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), and the Pagan 
fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus paganensis). These two subspecies, 
together with two other bat species, the little Mariana fruit bat 
(Pteropus tokudae), federally listed as endangered on Guam on August 
27, 1984 (49 FR 33881), but now thought to be extinct, and the sheath-
tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata), a candidate for Federal listing 
on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), in the CNMI, are the only non-
marine mammals native to the Mariana Islands.
    The taxonomic status of the Pagan fruit bat is not fully resolved. 
Yamashina (1932) collected three males and one female from the islands 
of Pagan and Alamagan in 1931, and stated that ``This species, as 
compared to the Pteropus mariannus mariannus that inhabit Guam, is 
distinctly darker in coloration, having brownish wings.'' He made no 
further comparisons, and thus this subspecific distinction is based on 
an equivocal interpretation of the coloration of four specimens. He 
also considered a ``species'' of bat ``which falls in between this new 
species (paganensis) and that which inhabits Guam'' to occur on Saipan 
and Rota. However, it is currently accepted that the bats on Rota, 
Tinian, Aguijan (= Aguiguan), Saipan, and Guam are referable to 
Pteropus mariannus mariannus. The subspecific status of bats found on 
the islands between Saipan and Alamagan (Farallon de Mendinilla, 
Anatahan, Sariguan, and Guguan), and north of Pagan (Agrihan, Asuncion, 
Maug, and Uracus) is not known, and bat populations on these islands 
have not been assigned to subspecies.
    The slight morphological differences used to distinguish Pteropus 
mariannus paganensis from Pteropus mariannus mariannus is attributable 
to natural variation that occurs not only between islands, but within 
individual island populations (T. Lemke, Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1986; D. Worthington, USFWS Honolulu, 
pers. obs.). Thus, the Pagan fruit bat is probably not distinct from 
the Mariana fruit bat (Pierson and Rainey 1992; G. Wiles, Guam Division 
of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, pers. comm. 1997; Worthington and 
Taisacan 1996), particularly in light of the strong evidence that 
suggests that movement between islands is not a rare event (Wiles and 
Glass 1990). Until this taxonomic question is resolved, and given the 
high degree of similarity between these subspecies, it makes little 
biological sense to consider Pteropus mariannus paganensis as distinct 
from Pteropus mariannus mariannus. Similarly, the unassigned bats found 
north of Saipan are most appropriately referable to Pteropus mariannus 
mariannus.
    The status of the Mariana fruit bat prior to the 20th century is 
unknown. In 1920, the sight of fruit bats was considered to be ``not * 
* * uncommon'' on Guam (Crampton 1921). By 1931, Coultas (1931) stated 
that bats were uncommon on Guam, possibly due to the introduction of 
firearms. Woodside (1958) estimated the Guam population to number 
3,000. This number had dropped to between 200 and 750 animals by 1995, 
in part due to the introduction of the brown tree snake (Boiga 
irregularis) (Wiles 1996, Wiles et al. 1995). G. Wiles (pers. comm. 
1997) observed between 300 and 350 bats on Guam during March 1997. Bat 
subpopulations on Aguijan, Saipan, and Tinian were not surveyed prior 
to the 1970's. Subsequent observations suggest that these 
subpopulations have been small, with only 25 to 125 bats observed on 
each island (Lemke 1984, Wiles 1996, Worthington and Taisacan 1996). In 
1995, between 100 and 125 bats were believed present on Aguijan (Wiles 
1996). A colony of approximately 35 bats was seen on Saipan in 1995, 
the largest colony seen there in a decade (Worthington and Taisacan 
1996). Recent observations on Tinian indicate that although fruit bats 
are occasionally

[[Page 14643]]

seen, their residence status is uncertain (Marshall et al. 1995). On 
Rota, bat numbers have declined from an estimated 2,400 animals before 
Typhoon Roy in 1988 to just under 1,000 in 1996 (Worthington and 
Taisacan 1996). The Rota population is apparently stable, but poaching 
continues to be a serious problem (Worthington and Taisacan 1996). The 
bats from Rota are believed to move among the southern islands, and 
this population is considered to be critical to the long-term stability 
of fruit bats in the Mariana Islands (Wiles and Glass 1990).
    The relatively isolated northern islands have not been surveyed as 
frequently as the southern islands. In 1983, a minimum of 7,450 bats 
were documented during an expedition to the islands north of Saipan 
(Anonymous 1984, Wiles et al. 1989). Rice and Taisacan (1993) reported 
that between 1988 and 1992, bats were seen commonly on all northern 
islands except Farallon de Medinilla, Maug, and Uracus, although bats 
are known to occur on these islands. Observations during these years 
were incidental and Rice and Taisacan (1993) suggested no changes be 
made to the 1983 estimates. A survey of Anatahan in 1995 found 
approximately 2,000 animals (Marshall et al. 1995), and T. Sutterfield 
(U.S. Navy, Hawaii, in litt. 1997) observed two fruit bats roosting in 
low shrubs on Farallon de Mendinilla in December 1996.
    The Mariana fruit bat is highly colonial, forming colonies of a few 
to over 800 animals (Pierson and Rainey 1992, Wiles 1987a, Worthington 
and Taisacan 1995). The bats group themselves into harems (one male and 
two to 15 females) or bachelor groups (predominately males), or reside 
as single males on the edge of the colony (Wiles 1987a). On Guam, the 
sex ratio in a single colony was observed to vary from 37.5 to 72.7 
males per 100 females (Wiles 1982).
    Reproduction is believed to occur throughout the year in Pteropus 
mariannus yapensis on Yap (Falanruw 1988) and in Pteropus mariannus 
mariannus on Guam (Wiles 1987a). Mating and the presence of nursing 
young have been observed year-round on Guam (Perez 1972, Wiles 1983) 
with no apparent peak in births (Wiles 1987a). Glass and Taisacan 
(1988) suggested a similar pattern on Rota, but also indicated that a 
peak birthing season may occur during May and June, as has been 
observed in other pteropodid bats (Pierson and Rainey 1992). Female 
bats of this family generally have one young per year (Pierson and 
Rainey 1992), and observations on Guam between July 1982 and May 1985 
found 262 female bats each with a single young (USFWS 1990). This 
reproductive rate, very low for a mammal of this size, results in a 
slow recovery rate when populations are reduced in numbers (Pierson and 
Rainey 1992). Length of gestation and age of sexual maturity is unknown 
for the Mariana fruit bat, but other related bats have a gestation 
period of approximately 4.6 to 6.3 months (Pierson and Rainey 1992). 
Female Mariana fruit bats on Guam may be able to breed as soon as 6 to 
18 months of age (USFWS 1990), but sexual maturity in pteropodid bats 
usually does not occur until the bats are 18 to 24 months old (Pierson 
and Rainey 1992).
    Native forest is the primary habitat required by the Mariana fruit 
bat, although some introduced plant species can provide roosting and 
feeding resources. Fruit bats are important in tropical forests because 
they naturally disperse plant seeds and thereby help maintain forest 
diversity and contribute to plant recovery after typhoons and other 
catastrophic events (Cox et al. 1992). Mariana fruit bats forage and 
roost primarily in native forest, and occasionally in coconut groves 
and strand vegetation (Wiles 1987b, Worthington and Taisacan 1996). 
Wiles (1987b) described six bat roost sites on Guam, all within native 
limestone forest. Major roost trees included Ficus sp. and Neisosperma 
oppositifolia. On Rota, fruit bats used primary and secondary limestone 
forest for roosting and foraging (Glass and Taisacan 1988). At least 
nine tree species were used for roosting including Elaeocarpus 
sphaericus, Macaranga thompsonii, Guamia speciosa, Hernandia sp., 
Artocarpus mariannensis, Ficus prolixia, Barringtonia asiatica, Randia 
cochinchinensis, and introduced Theobroma cacao (Glass and Taisacan 
1988). A small bat colony also was observed roosting in Casuarina 
equisetifolia on Aguijan Island (Worthington and Taisacan 1996). At 
least 22 plant species are used as food sources by the Mariana fruit 
bat. Food items include the fruits of 17 species of plants, especially 
native Artocarpus mariannensis, Artocarpus altilis, Cycas circinalis, 
Ficus spp., Pandanus tectorius, Terminalia catappa, and introduced 
Carica papaya; the flowers of seven plants, including native Ceiba 
pentandna, Erythrina variegata, and introduced Cocos nucifera; and leaf 
stems and twig tips of Artocarpus spp. (USFWS 1990, Wiles 1987a).
    Most of the known fruit bat roost sites in the Mariana Islands are 
located on public lands. On Guam, the remaining roost and nearly all 
fruit bat foraging habitat is found on U.S. military and Government of 
Guam lands. There is no U.S. Government-owned land in the CNMI; all 
public lands are administered by the CNMI government. Saipan has little 
public land that is not leased and developed, but a few areas still 
support native forest that are occasionally used by fruit bats. Tinian 
has large tracts of public land that contain small stands of native 
forest suitable for bats, and a large portion of public land on the 
northern end of the island is under lease to the U.S. Department of the 
Navy (Navy) for military activities. All of the land on Aguijan is 
publicly owned. Approximately 60 percent of the land on Rota is 
publicly owned, although much of this has been leased to private 
individuals. The primary roosting areas on Rota are on public lands; 
however, some private lands still retain native limestone forest that 
can support bats. The northern islands are mostly public lands, with 
some land developed as small homestead lots. Farallon de Mendinilla is 
currently leased to the Navy as a bombardment range.
    The movement of bats among the islands is an aspect of their 
biology that is critical to conservation. The August 27, 1984, Federal 
listing (49 FR 33881) of fruit bats resident on Guam was based on the 
assumption that these bats formed a separate population segment 
distinct from the bats found in the CNMI. Recently, biologists in the 
Mariana Islands have gathered evidence indicating that movement of bats 
among the Mariana Islands links these colonies as a single population. 
Wiles and Glass (1990) indicated that bats fly between the islands of 
Guam and Rota, and the ephemeral nature of bat colonies on the islands 
of Tinian and Aguijan, which are close to one another and to Saipan, 
makes it likely that inter-island travel also occurs between these 
islands (Worthington and Taisacan 1996). Information on the movement of 
bats in the northern islands is limited, but inter-island transit among 
these islands and to the southern islands probably occurs annually 
(Wiles et al. 1989, Worthington and Taisacan 1996, G. Wiles, pers. 
comm. 1997). For the purposes of conservation, individual island 
subpopulations of fruit bats in the Mariana Islands should be 
considered as one contiguous population (Lemke 1986, USFWS 1990, Wiles 
and Glass 1990, Worthington and Taisacan 1996).

Previous Federal Action

    A status review of the Mariana fruit bat was initiated on May 18, 
1979 (44 FR 29128). On August 27, 1984, the

[[Page 14644]]

Service listed the Guam population of Mariana fruit bats as endangered 
(49 FR 33881). On March 4, 1986, the Service received a petition dated 
February 24, 1986, from Dr. Thomas O. Lemke, that requested 
determination of endangered status for all remaining subpopulations of 
the Mariana fruit bat.
    The Service published a 90-day finding on the petition on January 
21, 1987 (52 FR 2239), announcing that substantial information to list 
the Mariana fruit bat as endangered had been presented in the petition 
and that the requested action may be warranted. On July 7, 1988, the 
Service published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (53 FR 
25511) announcing that the petitioned action request for a 
determination of endangered status with respect to Mariana fruit bat 
populations resident on the islands of Aguijan, Tinian, and Saipan was 
warranted but precluded by other pending listing proposals of higher 
priority. The Service also determined in this finding that listing was 
not warranted for fruit bats resident on Rota, Asuncion, Guguan, and 
the other northern islands, because these colonies were adequately 
protected by existing hunting restrictions or by the inaccessibility of 
the locations of the colonies by hunters (53 FR 25513). However, new 
information compiled since the publication of the finding on July 7, 
1988, indicates that listing is now warranted for the Mariana fruit 
bats resident in the CNMI, and that reclassification from endangered to 
threatened is warranted for the fruit bats on Guam. The new information 
concerning threats, populations, distribution and movement, and 
taxonomy has been incorporated into this proposed rule. This proposed 
rule constitutes the final 12-month finding on the petition to list the 
Mariana fruit bat.
    Fruit bats found on Aguijan, Tinian, and Saipan are currently 
identified as candidates for listing in the notice of review for animal 
and plant taxa published in the Federal Register on September 19, 1997 
(62 FR 49401).
    On October 22, 1987, Pteropus mariannus was included in Appendix II 
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES). Continuing declines in bat populations 
resulted in the reclassification of Pteropus mariannus to Appendix I of 
CITES on January 18, 1990 (54 FR 51432).
    The processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's 
fiscal year (FY) 1997 listing priority guidance published in the 
Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). In a Federal 
Register notice published on October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55628), the 
guidance was extended beyond FY 1997 until such time as new guidance is 
published. The FY 1997 guidance clarifies the order in which the 
Service will process rulemakings following two related events--(1) the 
lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed 
on April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6), and (2) the restoration of 
significant funding for listing through enactment of the omnibus budget 
reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe funding 
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between 
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest 
priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest 
priority to resolving the listing status of outstanding proposed 
listings (Tier 2). A lower priority is assigned to resolving the 
conservation status of candidate species and processing administrative 
findings on petitions to add species to the lists or reclassify species 
from threatened to endangered (Tier 3). The lowest priority is given to 
processing critical habitat determinations, delistings, and other 
reclassifications (Tier 4). The guidance also states that ``effective 
April 1, 1997, the Service will concurrently undertake all of the 
activities included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3'' (61 FR 64480).
    Processing of this proposed rule is a Tier 3 activity. The proposed 
rule effects a downlisting of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam, which 
action, taken by itself, would be a Tier 4 activity. However, based on 
the new information discussed above, the Service believes it is 
biologically inappropriate to consider fruit bats on each island as 
distinct populations, and the Service believes that the fruit bats in 
the Mariana Islands should be managed as one population. In addition, 
the Service can effect the downlisting of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam 
with little or no additional time and expense in conjunction with 
proposing the entire range of the species for listing as threatened, 
while a separate action to downlist the species with respect to Guam at 
some future date would require the expenditure of additional resources. 
Therefore, in the interests of (1) efficiency in allocating its scarce 
resources and (2) biological and management consistency, the Service 
will include the downlisting of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam as a part 
of this Tier 3 activity. This treatment is consistent with the purpose 
of the current listing priority guidance. See 61 FR 64479 (discussing 
inclusion of withdrawals of proposed rules in Tier 2). Furthermore, the 
downlisting will not reduce the protection afforded under the Act to 
Mariana fruit bats on Guam.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A 
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due 
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These 
factors and their application to the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus 
mariannus mariannus) (=Mariana flying fox) in the Mariana Islands are 
listed below.

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

    Prior to 1500 B.C., the Mariana Islands were mostly forested 
(Fosberg 1960). Following that date, human occupation by the indigenous 
Chamorro and subsequent administration under Spain, Germany, Japan, and 
the United States have resulted in a continual degradation of fruit bat 
habitat on all of the southern Mariana Islands and some of the northern 
islands.
    During the Japanese occupation, extensive removal of native forests 
for the development of sugar cane was greatly accelerated on the 
southern islands. These fields covered almost all of Tinian and much of 
Aguijan, Saipan, and Rota (Fosberg 1960). During and after World War 
II, military activities resulted in dramatic reductions in fruit bat 
habitat on Guam, Tinian, and Saipan. During this period, open 
agricultural fields and other areas prone to erosion were seeded with 
tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala) (Fosberg 1960). Tangantangan grows 
as low to moderate stature, single-species stands with no substantial 
understory. Native forest cannot take root and grow where this alien 
tree has become established (Craig 1993), preventing regeneration of 
fruit bat habitat.
    On Guam, human land development and feral animals have altered most 
of the native vegetation of the island. Probably no more than 30 
percent of Guam's land area is covered by native limestone and ravine 
forest, with federally owned lands in northern Guam representing the 
largest contiguous areas. Other Federal, Government of Guam, and some 
private lands also possess forested areas that represent adequate 
habitat for bats (G. Wiles, pers. comm. 1997). Due to the

[[Page 14645]]

anthropogenic impacts discussed previously, most of Saipan's native 
forest has been replaced by mixed second growth forests, savanna 
grasslands, and dense thickets of tangantangan (Falanruw et al. 1989). 
By 1982, vegetation mapping revealed that just five percent of native 
forest remained on Saipan and Tinian (Engbring et al. 1986). This 
remaining forest continues to be threatened by possible development. 
Although 47 percent of the native forest persists on Aguijan (Engbring 
et al. 1986), this habitat is threatened by feral goats. Rota 
experienced extensive agricultural development by the Japanese prior to 
World War II, but was not invaded by allied forces during World War II. 
The absence of an invasion, combined with rugged topography, resulted 
in the persistence of stands of native forest. Today, Rota retains less 
than 60 percent of its native forest (Falanruw et al. 1989). One 18-
hole golf resort has been completed on Rota and plans for additional 
large-scale development, together with smaller developments, continue 
to threaten the remaining limestone forest with fragmentation and 
degradation. Throughout the Mariana Islands, goats, pigs, cattle, and 
deer have caused severe damage to forest vegetation by browsing 
directly on plants, causing erosion (Kessler 1997, Marshall et al. 
1995), and retarding forest growth and regeneration (Lemke 1992b). 
Thus, all of these islands retain only a fraction of their historical 
forested habitat, and this remaining habitat is threatened by the 
fragmentation and degradation associated with development and feral 
animals.
    The northern islands escaped the development that has occurred in 
the southern islands. However, historic introduction of feral goats, 
pigs, and cattle to Sarigan, Pagan, Agrihan, and Anatahan, continues to 
cause significant degradation of forest habitat on these islands 
(Kessler 1997). On Anatahan, Marshall et al. (1995) indicated that 
uncontrolled feral goats could eliminate native forest within 50 years. 
The current severe damage on Anatahan has apparently been rapid, as T. 
Lemke (in litt. 1995) did not note significant erosion or large numbers 
of goats in the early 1980's.
    Military training activities in areas used by fruit bats could 
significantly impact their habitat. The use of Farallon de Mendinilla 
by U.S. armed forces as a bombardment range retards the vegetation 
regeneration, increases erosion that impedes regeneration of 
vegetation, and causes wildfires that destroy habitat. Together, these 
effects limit available fruit bat habitat on this island.

B. Over Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Mariana fruit bats have been used as food since humans first 
arrived on the islands (Lemke 1992a), and their consumption represents 
a significant cultural tradition. Social events and cultural status in 
the Mariana Islands are often enhanced by a variety of foods, and fruit 
bat is highly prized. Because of their scarcity, bats are often 
reserved for the elderly and other respected guests, and one bat may be 
shared among several people (Lemke 1992a).
    Traditionally, fruit bats were captured with limited success using 
nets, traps, thorny branches on poles, or stone projectiles (Lemke 
1992a). Today, bats are mostly taken with shotguns fired at roosting 
and feeding sites or along flyways. One shotgun blast may kill several 
bats, and a successful raid can glean up to 50 bats (Lemke 1992a, Wiles 
1987b). Hunting at nursery colonies can also result in abandonment and 
direct mortality of infant bats (Lemke 1992a).
    From 1975 to 1981, prior to listing the Mariana fruit bats as 
endangered on Guam (49 FR 33881), approximately 15,800 fruit bats were 
shipped to Guam from Rota and Saipan for human consumption (Wiles and 
Payne 1986). During the last two decades, thousands of fruit bats have 
been shipped annually into the Mariana Islands from other Pacific 
islands for human consumption. Most of these shipments were the Palau 
fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus pelwensis) from the Republic of Palau. 
Currently, a single fruit bat can sell for over US$50.00 in the CNMI 
(Worthington and Taisacan 1996).
    Poaching continues to be one of the most important factors in the 
decline of the Mariana fruit bat (Glass and Taisacan 1988, Lemke 1992b, 
Marshall et al. 1995, USFWS 1990, Worthington and Taisacan 1996). 
Reports of poaching on Rota occur almost monthly (S. Taisacan, CNMI 
Division of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1997a, 1997b). In 1987, 
between three and eight bats were reported poached from a small colony 
on Saipan (Glass and Taisacan 1988). Following Typhoon Roy in 1988, 
defoliation and other damage caused by the storm forced bats on Rota to 
forage during the day in areas close to human habitation (Lemke 1992b). 
Poachers took advantage of this situation and extensive illegal hunting 
occurred, reducing the total Rota population by more than half (A. 
Palacios, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, in litt. 1990). Continued 
poaching probably prevents the fruit bats on Rota from increasing in 
number to pre-storm abundance (Worthington and Taisacan 1996). Poaching 
of fruit bats on the northern islands is also occasionally reported, 
and is believed to be an increasingly significant problem in the CNMI 
(Worthington and Taisacan 1996).

C. Disease or Predation

    The brown tree snake, which has caused the extinction of several 
bird species on Guam (Savidge 1987), is probably responsible for the 
lack of recruitment in the single remaining Mariana fruit bat colony on 
that island (Pierson and Rainey 1992, Wiles 1987a). Although only two 
cases of snake predation on Guam bats have been reported (Wiles 1983), 
the brown tree snake is considered capable of preying on young bats at 
their roosts (USFWS 1990). Wiles (1987b) and Wiles et al. (1995) 
suggested that snakes will prey on young bats that have become too 
large to be carried by their mothers and are left at the roosts at 
night. In 1982, 46.6 percent of all juvenile Mariana fruit bats counted 
in northern Guam were judged to be in this size class, but between 1984 
and 1986, after brown tree snakes had spread into the area, no bats of 
this size class were observed (USFWS 1990).
    Brown tree snakes were accidentally introduced to Guam between 1945 
and 1952, probably hidden in ship cargo (Rodda et al. 1992). By 1986 
the snake had reached the extreme northern end of the island (Savidge 
1987), and was probably present throughout the island. Because of a 
variety of historical and ecological factors associated with the snake, 
and due to Guam's location and role as a major transportation hub in 
the Pacific, there is a high probability that human activities will 
disperse brown tree snakes from Guam to other Pacific islands (Fritts 
1988). Reports of snakes found in the CNMI, especially on the island of 
Saipan, have increased since 1986 (Brown Tree Snake Control Plan 1996). 
Between 1986 and 1995, at least 46 snake sightings have been reported 
in the CNMI (Vogt and Marshall 1996). Brown tree snakes have been 
regularly sighted on Saipan (31 sightings since 1986) and occasionally 
on Tinian (4 sightings in 1995). Five brown tree snakes have been 
captured on Saipan (S. Vogt, CNMI DFW pers. comm. 1997, Vogt and 
Marshall 1996). The frequency of snake sightings reported from 1986 
through 1997 indicates that a brown tree snake population may now be 
established on Saipan (Brown Tree Snake Control Plan 1996). Vogt and 
Marshall (1996) argue that Saipan, Tinian, and Rota will eventually 
mirror

[[Page 14646]]

the ecological and economic disaster that has occurred on Guam, 
including the decimation of fruit bat colonies, if snakes are not 
eradicated or better controlled.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Prompted by a severe decline in fruit bat numbers, the CNMI 
legislature in 1977 passed a moratorium on the taking of fruit bats on 
all islands (Pub. L. 5-21, September 1977). Although this moratorium 
has been annually reauthorized until 1996, no agency possessed 
enforcement authority until the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife was 
created in 1981 (Lemke 1992a). Even though this agency has legal 
enforcement authority, implementation of the hunting ban has been 
difficult, and few investigations or convictions have taken place 
(Lemke 1992a). The CNMI prohibition against hunting of fruit bats was 
not continued in 1996 (R. Folta, CNMI Department of Land and Natural 
Resources, in litt. 1996). The bats are listed as threatened or 
endangered (the CNMI makes no specific distinction between the 
threatened and endangered categories) by the CNMI government on Rota, 
Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan (CNMI 1991), but receive no such protection 
on the islands north of Saipan. Additionally, no regulations prohibit 
the taking of these threatened or endangered species (K. Garlick, 
USFWS, Guam, in litt. 1997) and protection of these bats is greatly 
lacking (Worthington and Taisacan 1996; A. Palacios in litt. 1990). The 
Mariana fruit bat is also listed as an endangered species by the 
Government of Guam (Wiles 1982). On Guam, the bat receives significant 
protection from hunting, primarily because its primary colony has 
resided on U.S. Department of the Air Force (Air Force) lands, where 
access is limited, since 1980.
    On October 22, 1987, Pteropus mariannus was included in Appendix II 
of CITES. Continuing declines in bat populations resulted in the 
reclassification of Pteropus mariannus to Appendix I of CITES on 
January 18, 1990, as well as the listing of all other species of 
Pteropus under Appendix II of CITES (except those species already 
listed under Appendix I or with earlier dates under Appendix II), in an 
effort to provide a basis for the control of shipments and as a 
stimulus to exporting countries to manage their bat populations. All 
subspecies of Pteropus mariannus are now protected under CITES and 
listed under Appendix I of that Convention (50 CFR part 23).
    CITES is a treaty established to prevent trade that may be 
detrimental to the survival of plants and animals. Generally, both 
import and export permits are required from the importing and exporting 
countries before an Appendix I species may be shipped, and Appendix I 
species may not be exported for primarily commercial purposes. CITES 
permits may not be issued if the export will be detrimental to the 
survival of the species or if the specimens were not legally acquired. 
However, CITES does not itself regulate take or domestic trade.
    The Republic of Palau became subject to the CITES restrictions for 
trade with the Mariana Islands when it established its independence 
from the United States in October 1994. However, fruit bats from Palau, 
Pohnpei, and the Philippine Islands are reportedly smuggled into the 
Mariana Islands on a regular basis (E. Hester, USFWS, Hawaii, pers. 
comm. 1997; Stinson et al. 1992; Wiles 1992; Worthington and Taisacan 
1996). Experts remain concerned that the demand for fruit bats will 
remain high and poaching pressure on Rota and the northern islands may 
increase (Wiles 1996, Worthington and Taisacan 1995).
    Current activities that may help stabilize and protect the 
population of this bat on the southern islands include a Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the island of Rota. This plan is being 
developed with the cooperation of the CNMI government and the local 
Rota residents, and with technical assistance from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Office. Initiated largely to assist in 
the conservation of the Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), most of the land 
included in the HCP is limestone forest used by bats for foraging and 
roosting. Historic bat roosting areas are also included in the Sabana 
Conservation Area, part of a conservation effort designed by the CNMI 
government meant to limit development in this upper elevation area. 
Preservation of these forested areas is essential for the long term 
stability of fruit bat populations.
    The Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was created on October 
1, 1993, with additional lands incorporated in 1994 by cooperative 
agreements between the Service, the Air Force and the Navy. The 
establishment and management of the Refuge on Navy and Air Force lands 
provides a commitment by the Navy, Air Force, and Service for a 
``coordinated program centered on the protection of endangered and 
threatened species and other native flora and fauna* * *'' Enactment of 
such a program by these agencies will contribute to the continued 
survival and recovery of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam, as important 
foraging and roosting habitat is found within the Refuge boundaries.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Military training activities in areas used by fruit bats could 
significantly disrupt the behavior of these bats. On Guam, military 
aircraft traffic near the primary roosting site creates a potential for 
the abandonment of this roost (Morton 1996). In general, military 
training activities including live-fire exercises and aircraft 
overflights, in or near areas on any of the islands that support fruit 
bats, are likely to disrupt fruit bat behavior and may result in 
mortalities.
    The small number of Mariana fruit bats remaining on Guam, Saipan 
and Aguijan place these colonies at risk of extinction from naturally 
occurring events and environmental factors. Typhoons in particular, 
could eliminate one or more of these colonies. Typhoons can drastically 
reduce or alter forested areas that constitute fruit bat habitat. In 
1988, super Typhoon Roy defoliated or altered almost all of the 
forested areas on Rota (Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). Another typhoon 
that hit the northern island of Maug in 1981 also had similar 
devastating effects on fruit bat habitat (Lemke 1992b). Vegetation 
changes associated with such storms can eliminate fruit bat forest 
habitat, change tree species composition to less desirable species, and 
knock down important food resources (Lemke 1992b). Following Typhoon 
Roy, defoliation and other damage caused by the storm forced the bats 
on Rota to forage during the day in areas close to human habitation 
(Lemke 1992b). Poachers on Rota illegally hunted the bats, reducing 
their numbers by more than half (A. Palacios, in litt. 1990). There is 
no evidence that direct mortality caused by the storm was significant 
(Lemke 1992b). Future storms that cause bats to alter their normal 
behavior patterns could lead to similar episodes of illegal hunting, 
further reducing the remaining population of Mariana fruit bats 
(Worthington and Taisacan 1996).
    Currently, the Mariana fruit bat on Guam is listed as endangered 
(49 FR 33881), and fruit bats in the CNMI on the islands of Aguijan, 
Tinian, and Saipan are identified as candidates for listing as 
threatened or endangered (62 FR 49401). At the time the Guam population 
was listed, fruit bats on the various islands in the Marianas were 
believed to represent separate, discrete populations of Pteropus 
mariannus

[[Page 14647]]

mariannus. Since the listing of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam in 1984, 
additional information pertaining to the biology of the Mariana fruit 
bat has become available, particularly with regard to the movement of 
bats between islands. Inter-island movement of the Mariana fruit bat 
between the islands of the Mariana archipelago is not a rare event. 
Based on this information, the Service believes it is biologically 
inappropriate to consider fruit bats on each island as distinct 
populations, and the Service believes that the fruit bats in the 
Mariana Islands should be managed as one population.
    Only a ``species'' may be listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Act. This term is defined under section 3 of the Act to include any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife and any distinct population segment of 
any species of fish and wildlife that interbreeds when mature. Service 
policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate populations, 
published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (FR 61 4722), 
precludes treating non-distinct vertebrate populations differently with 
regard to listing status. The Service believes that the Mariana fruit 
bats in the CNMI and Guam represent one population, but recognizes that 
the survival of these bats on Guam continues to be threatened by a 
variety of factors. However, when viewed in the context of representing 
a portion of the entire Mariana fruit bat population in the Mariana 
Islands, rather than as a distinct population as previously thought, 
reclassification from endangered to threatened is appropriate and 
biologically justified. Therefore, proposing to list the entire 
population of Pteropus mariannus mariannus as threatened throughout its 
range, including bats in both the CNMI and Guam, retains an appropriate 
level of protection for this bat on Guam while increasing overall 
protection to the Mariana fruit bat throughout the Mariana Islands.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the species in determining to propose this 
rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is to list the 
Mariana fruit bat as threatened on all islands in the CNMI, and 
reclassify the Mariana fruit bat as threatened on Guam. The loss of 
native forest continues to be a significant threat to the survival of 
this species. Few bats occur on Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan. Although a 
significant number of bats persist on Rota, recent information has 
shown them to be at risk from illegal hunting and loss of forest 
habitat. The brown tree snake continues to prevent recruitment of bats 
on Guam, and the possible future introduction of the brown tree snake 
into the CNMI could also greatly reduce or eliminate the Mariana fruit 
bats on Rota and other islands. The bats on Rota are probably the 
source of bats seen on Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan, making this 
subpopulation particularly important for the survival and recovery of 
the Mariana fruit bat in the southern Mariana Islands. Feral goats 
continue to seriously degrade fruit bat forest habitat on many of the 
northern islands. Although the remoteness of the northern islands 
affords some protection for the bats, it also offers poaching 
opportunities in the absence of wildlife law enforcement personnel. 
Thus, throughout the CNMI and Guam, this species is threatened by 
habitat degradation from human disturbance, animal damage, and 
typhoons; direct exploitation in the form of hunting; and, the direct 
impacts from and the threat of the arrival of the brown tree snake. The 
likelihood of regular inter-island movement between the islands of the 
Mariana archipelago warrants that the Mariana fruit bats in the Mariana 
Island archipelago be viewed as and managed as one population. While 
not in immediate danger of extinction, the Mariana fruit bat from the 
CNMI and Guam is likely to become an endangered species in the 
foreseeable future if the present threats and declines continue.
    Critical habitat is not being proposed for this species, for 
reasons discussed in the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this rule.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (I) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act 
is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service 
finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the 
Mariana fruit bat at this time. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12 
(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when 
one or both of the following situations exist--(1) The species is 
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of 
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to 
the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be 
beneficial to the species.
    Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, authorized, or funded by a Federal 
agency. As such, designation of critical habitat may affect non-Federal 
lands only where such a Federal nexus exists. Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Aside from this added consideration 
under section 7, the Act does not provide any additional protection to 
lands designated as critical habitat. Designating critical habitat does 
not create a management plan for the areas where the listed species 
occurs; does not establish numerical population goals or prescribe 
specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat).
    The publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical 
habitat in the Federal Register, as required for the designation of 
critical habitat, would increase the degree of threat from illegal 
hunting of the Mariana fruit bat and contribute to its decline. As 
discussed under Factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'', the Mariana fruit bat is extremely vulnerable to illegal 
hunting, which contributes to the decline of this species. Poaching 
continues to be one of the most significant factors in the decline of 
the Mariana fruit bat (Glass and Taisacan 1988, Lemke 1992b, Marshall 
et al. 1995, USFWS 1990, Worthington and Taisacan 1996). Reports of 
poaching on Rota occur almost monthly (S. Taisacan, pers. comm. 1997a, 
1997b). Poaching is also known to occur on the northern islands and 
represents a significant threat to bats on these islands (Worthington 
and Taisacan 1996).
    That bats occupy the islands north of Saipan is generally known, 
but specific roost locations are not widely known. On Rota, bat 
roosting areas have been noted on unpublished maps, but specific roost 
sites within these areas have not been mapped. The specific

[[Page 14648]]

location of the only roost on Guam is not widely known by the public. 
The publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat in 
the Federal Register, as required for the designation of critical 
habitat, may increase the degree of threat from illegal hunting of the 
Mariana fruit bat by identifying roosting sites where bats are most 
susceptible to illegal hunting, and contribute to the decline of this 
species.
    With the increased publicity of this species if listing as 
threatened is finalized, a higher incidence of illegal hunting may 
occur, particularly on the islands north of Saipan. Publication of 
precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal 
Register may expose bats on these islands to more frequent illegal 
hunting, thus resulting in the further decline of the species. 
Publication of critical habitat descriptions and maps would ultimately 
make the Mariana fruit bat more vulnerable and increase enforcement 
problems.
    Further, there would be little benefit to the species from a 
critical habitat designation covering habitat and roosts on private, 
Government of Guam, or CNMI lands even if in the future there is 
additional Federal involvement through permitting or funding, such as 
through the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. Designating critical habitat would not create a 
management plan for the bat or establish numerical population goals for 
long-term survival of the species nor directly affect areas not 
designated as critical habitat. Federal involvement, where it does 
occur, can be identified without the designation of critical habitat 
because interagency coordination requirements (e.g., Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Endangered Species Act) are already in 
place.
    Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies refrain from 
contributing to the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat in any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency 
(agency action). This requirement is in addition to the section 7 
prohibition against jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed 
species, and it is the only mandatory legal consequence of a critical 
habitat designation. Any future Federal action that may affect the 
species will be subject to section 7 consultation to ensure that it 
does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 
Implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) define ``jeopardize the 
continuing existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification 
of'' in very similar terms. To jeopardize the continuing existence of a 
species means to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be 
expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species.'' Destruction or adverse modification of 
habitat means an ``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species 
in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of 
that species.'' Common to both definitions is an appreciable 
detrimental effect to both the survival and the recovery of a listed 
species. An action that appreciably diminishes habitat for recovery and 
survival may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species 
because negative impacts to such habitat may reduce population numbers, 
decrease reproductive success, or alter species distribution through 
habitat fragmentation.
    In addition, the only bat roost on Guam is located on military 
lands incorporated into the Guam National Wildlife Refuge by 
cooperative agreements between the Service, the Air Force, and the 
Navy. The establishment and management of the Refuge overlay on Navy 
and Air Force lands provides a commitment by the Navy, Air Force, and 
Service to protect endangered and threatened species. Among other 
provisions, the cooperative agreements establishing the overlay refuge 
provide for the development of a species management plan, including 
actions to benefit the Mariana fruit bat. These agreements also 
establish procedures for coordination and consultation between the 
military and the Service, and include a requirement that the military 
agency coordinate with the Service before undertaking any activities 
that may affect lands identified as providing essential habitat for the 
Mariana fruit bat. Implementation of the refuge overlay agreements will 
contribute to the continued survival and recovery of the Mariana fruit 
bat.
    In the CNMI, the military leases land on Tinian and Farallon de 
Mendinilla, and is aware of the presence of the Mariana fruit bat on 
both of these islands (U.S. Navy 1997; T. Sutterfield U.S. Navy, 
Hawaii, in litt. 1997). On Tinian, the Navy's Natural Resources 
Management Plan for the military lease area recommends actions that 
will, in part, enhance fruit bat habitat (U.S. Navy 1997); the Service 
has provided comments to the Navy regarding this plan (USFWS in litt. 
1997).
    Therefore, there would be no benefit from critical habitat 
designation for roosts or habitat on military land as they are 
currently aware of the bat's occurrence and their actions would be 
subject to the refuge overlay agreements on Guam and section 7 
consultation for any activity it authorized, funded, or carried out. 
The designation of critical habitat would not increase their commitment 
or management efforts. Protection of Mariana fruit bats on these lands, 
as well as military leased land in the CNMI, will most effectively be 
addressed through the recovery process and the consultation process of 
section 7.
    The Service acknowledges that critical habitat designation, in some 
situations, may provide some value to the species by identifying areas 
important for species conservation and calling attention to those areas 
in special need of protection. Critical habitat designation of 
unoccupied habitat may also benefit this species by alerting permitting 
agencies to potential sites for reintroduction and allow them the 
opportunity to evaluate proposals that may affect these areas. However, 
in this case, the existing roosts of Mariana fruit bats are either 
currently known by the military and the CNMI and Guam governments, or 
the appropriate landowners will be notified prior to publication of the 
proposed rule. If future management actions include unoccupied habitat, 
any benefit provided by designation of such habitat as critical will be 
accomplished more effectively and efficiently with the current 
coordination process.
    The Service believes that the minimal benefit of designating 
critical habitat would be far outweighed by the increased threats to 
the species that would result from identification of critical habitat. 
All parties and principal landowners involved in the recovery of the 
Mariana fruit bat will be notified of the location and importance of 
protecting this species and its habitat prior to publication of the 
proposed rule. Protection of this habitat will be addressed through the 
recovery process and through the section 7 consultation process. 
Therefore, the Service finds that designation of critical habitat for 
this species is not prudent at this time, because such designation 
would increase the degree of threat from illegal hunting and is 
unlikely to aid in the conservation of this species.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
activities. Recognition through listing encourages

[[Page 14649]]

and results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private 
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with states and mandates that recovery 
plans be developed for all listed species. The protection required by 
Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities 
involving listed animals are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
Part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service. Parts of Guam, 
Tinian, Rota, and Farallon de Mendinilla are used as, or are under 
consideration for use as, training areas by U.S. armed forces. 
Federally supported activities that could affect the Mariana fruit bat 
or its habitat in the future include, but are not limited to, the 
following--helicopter over-flights at or near roosting areas, 
bombardment of areas where bats are known to occur, and other military 
activities such as troop movements, road and firebreak construction, or 
live-fire exercises that disrupt normal fruit bat biology or habitat. 
Conservation of this bat may be consistent with most ongoing operations 
at these sites, but the proposed listing of the species in the CNMI 
could result in some restrictions on military use of the land.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to import or export; transport in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of a commercial activity; sell or offer for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce; or take (includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect--or attempt any of 
these) any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been 
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and 
State conservation agencies.
    Pursuant to section 10 of the Act and 50 CFR 17.32, permits may be 
issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving 
threatened animal species under certain circumstances. Such permits are 
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, permits are also 
available for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special 
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. Information 
collections associated with these permits are approved under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of 
Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094. For additional 
information concerning these permits and associated requirements, see 
50 CFR 17.32.
    It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would 
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent 
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species. Activities involving the Mariana fruit bat that the Service 
believes will not likely be considered a violation of section 9 
include, but are not limited to, scientific or recreational activities 
within forested areas that support colonies of fruit bats, but 
exclusive of the specific sites known to support these colonies.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the 
Mariana fruit bat resulting in ``take'', or which otherwise could be 
considered a violation of section 9 include, but are not limited to, 
the following:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping of the species;
    (2) Intentional introduction of exotic species that compete with or 
prey on bats, such as the introduction of the predatory brown tree 
snake to islands that support bat colonies;
    (3) Activities that disturb bats from roost sites and feeding 
areas;
    (4) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of forested areas that 
are required by the bats for foraging, roosting, breeding, or rearing 
young;
    (5) Engaging in the unauthorized import or export of these bats or 
in interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines and 
international boundaries).
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
the Service's Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and general 
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063; FAX 
503/231-6243).

Effects of the Rule

    This proposed rule would revise Sec. 17.11(h) to reclassify the 
Guam ``population'' of Pteropus mariannus mariannus from endangered to 
threatened to reflect the Service's conclusion that this subspecies 
consists of only one population. This single population, including 
individuals on Guam, is not in imminent danger of extinction throughout 
a significant portion of its range. Pteropus mariannus mariannus is 
considered, however, likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future, and this proposed rule would revise Sec. 17.11(h) to list the 
Mariana fruit bat as threatened throughout its range. Reclassification 
of the Mariana fruit bat on Guam to threatened does not alter the 
protection under the Act currently afforded to individuals of that 
species on Guam.
    The Mariana fruit bat is listed as threatened or endangered (the 
CNMI makes no specific distinction between the threatened and 
endangered categories) by the CNMI government on Rota, Saipan, Tinian, 
and Aguijan (CNMI 1991), but receives no such protection on the islands 
north of Saipan; additionally, no regulations prohibit the taking of 
fruit bats in the CNMI. The Mariana fruit bat is listed as endangered 
on Guam by the Government of Guam, and take is prohibited (Wiles 1982).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402. 
Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to insure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species. If a Federal action may affect 
a listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal 
consultation with the Service. Parts of Guam, Tinian, Rota, and 
Farallon de Mendinilla are used as, or are under consideration for use 
as,

[[Page 14650]]

training areas by U.S. armed forces. Federally supported activities 
that could affect the Mariana fruit bat or its habitat in the future 
include, but are not limited to helicopter over-flights at or near 
roosting areas, bombardment of areas where bats are known to occur, 
other military activities such as troop movements, road and firebreak 
construction, or live-fire exercises that disrupt normal fruit bat 
biology or habitat. Conservation of this bat may be consistent with 
most ongoing operations at these sites, but the proposed listing of the 
species could result in some restrictions on military use of the land. 
These agencies have been involved in recovery and section 7 
consultation activities for this species since it was listed as 
endangered on Guam in 1984, and they are likely to remain involved. 
Recovery activities are not expected to diminish as the primary 
objective of the recovery strategy is delisting of the species.
    This reclassification is not an irreversible commitment on the part 
of the Service. Reclassifying Pteropus mariannus mariannus to 
endangered would be possible should changes occur in management, 
habitat, or other factors that alter the the present threats to the 
recovery and survival of the species.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of this subspecies 
and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this subspecies; and,
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on this species.
    Final promulgation of the regulation(s) on this species will take 
into consideration the comments and any additional information received 
by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final 
determination that differs from this proposal.
    The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Hearing requests must be received 
within 45 days of the date of publication of the proposal in the 
Federal Register. Such requests must be made in writing and addressed 
to the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 
4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this 
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 
(48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    This rule does not contain collections of information that require 
approval by the OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Author: The author of this proposed rule is David Worthington, Fish 
and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below.

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the table entry for ``Bat, Mariana 
fruit'' under MAMMALS is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Bat, Mariana fruit (=Mariana       Pteropus mariannus    Western Pacific      Entire.............  T                  156,____           NA           NA
 flying fox).                       mariannus.            Ocean--U.S.A. (GU,                                                                            
                                                          MP).                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 17, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-7836 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U