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

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