[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 104952-104959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30376]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033; FXES1113090FEDR-256-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BH98
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Blue Tree Monitor
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the blue tree monitor (Varanus macraei), a lizard species from
Indonesia, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month
finding on a petition to list the blue tree monitor. After a review of
the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that
listing the species is warranted. If we finalize this rule as proposed,
it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. A temporary
rule (emergency action) listing this species as endangered for 240 days
is published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 24, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by February 10, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2171. Individuals in the United States
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability
may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications
relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the
relay services offered within their country to make international calls
to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No.
FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat destruction, modification, or
curtailment; overutilization; disease; predation; the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be
made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
[[Page 104953]]
We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if
any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) provides for a
public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received by the date specified in DATES. Such requests must be sent to
the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date,
time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at section 424.16(c)(3) (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)).
Previous Federal Actions
On April 15, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the blue tree monitor as an endangered
species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On August 17, 2023, we
published in the Federal Register (88 FR 55991) a 90-day finding that
the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted;
that document initiated a status review for the blue tree monitor.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the blue tree monitor. The SSA report currently is undergoing peer
review and will be finalized before a final listing decision is made.
The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with
other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of
the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we will solicit independent scientific review of the
information contained in the blue tree monitor SSA report. The SSA
report and other materials related to this proposed rule can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0033.
Background
The blue tree monitor (Varanus macraei) is a medium-sized monitor
lizard that is distinguished by a unique bright blue spotted pattern on
its head, body, and legs (B[ouml]hme and Jacobs 2001, pp. 7-9; Auliya
and Koch 2020, p. 72). The species has sharp claws, smooth and unkeeled
neck scales, and a long prehensile tail with alternating blue and black
bands (B[ouml]hme and Jacobs 2001, pp. 7-9; Auliya and Koch 2020, p.
72). The blue tree monitor was first described in 2001 (B[ouml]hme and
Jacobs 2001, entire), and genetic testing confirms it is a distinct
species (Ziegler et al. 2007, p. 16) that occupies the V. prasinus
species complex (subgenus Hapturosaurus; Bucklitsch et al. 2016, pp.
37-38). Adults average a snout vent length of 31 centimeters (cm) (12.2
inches (in)) and total length of 88 cm (34.6 in) (Arida et al. 2021, p.
115; Del Canto 2013, p. 19; Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 123).
The blue tree monitor is endemic to the island of Batanta, within
the Raja Ampat Islands of Papua, Indonesia (B[ouml]hme and Jacobs 2004,
p. 214). Batanta has a total area of 455 square kilometers (sq km)
(174.9 square miles (sq mi)), with a maximum length of 61 kilometers
(km) (37.9 miles (mi)) and a maximum width of 13 km (8.1 mi) (Ziegler
et al. 2009, p. 122). The species is rarely encountered on Batanta, so
there is little detail available on the species' life-history and
habitat requirements (Philipp and Philipp 2007, p. 867; Auliya and Koch
2020, p. 72). The blue tree monitor is diurnal and arboreal (B[ouml]hme
and Jacobs 2004, p. 214; Del Canto 2013, p. 19; Ziegler et al. 2009, p.
122), primarily feeds on invertebrates (Auliya and Koch 2020, p. 72;
Del Canto 2013, p. 20), and occupies low-lying forested habitats with
an ambient humidity that ranges from 65 to 100 percent (Del Canto 2013,
p. 19; Sprackland 2011, unpaginated).
No published studies describe the reproductive biology of the blue
tree monitor in the wild; however, experts suggest that breeding
activity coincides with periods of reduced rainfall, such as the post-
monsoonal dry season (Rahmanto et al. 2022, p. 20; Ziegler et al. 2009,
p. 130). Blue tree monitors are capable of laying up to four clutches
of 2 to 7 eggs (average of 3.9 1.2 eggs per clutch) per
year, and the shortest interval between subsequent clutches was
recorded at 95 days (Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 130). Because blue tree
monitors take approximately 2 years to reach sexual maturity (Rauhaus
et al. 2014, p. 33), we estimate the average generation time for the
species to be approximately 2.5 years.
No quantitative population information for the species exists
(Bennett 2015, p. 50), though there is evidence of declines in the wild
population on Batanta as a result of overcollection for the pet trade
(Arida et al. 2021, pp. 113-114; Del Canto 2013, p. 19; see Threats,
below).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
blue tree monitor is presented in the SSA report (version 1.1; Service
2024, pp. 1-7).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
[[Page 104954]]
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the
potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our
decision on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the blue tree monitor's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in (and decrease with decreases
in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p.
306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological
requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk
factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2023-0033 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
Based on the species' biology described above and in the SSA report
(version 1.1; Service 2024, pp. 1-7), the blue tree monitor requires an
adequate supply of invertebrates for food; undisturbed, humid, lowland
forests with good canopy cover and continuity; and sufficient
conspecific individuals to find a mate. Owing to the limited data
available, our assessment of species-level needs is developed further
based on general principles as they apply to lizard biology.
Threats
Deforestation
Deforestation causes habitat loss that directly contributes to the
decline of native reptile species in Indonesia
[[Page 104955]]
(Iskandar and Erdelen 2006, p. 72), and Indonesia has one of the
highest deforestation rates in the world (Newman and Valentinus 2005,
p. 1). Illegal logging is contributing to the decline of forested areas
on Batanta (Webb 2005, p. 10; Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 19;
Takeuchi 2003, p. 105), and much of the island's northern coast below
300 meters of elevation has already been logged (Webb 2005, p. 25).
Because blue tree monitors occupy low-lying forested habitats, this
substantial logging of low-lying forests has resulted in significant
habitat loss for the species. Deforestation not only directly removes
blue tree monitor habitat, but it also increases the ecosystem's
vulnerability to catastrophic events such as fires, landslides, and
floods (Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 2). The blue tree monitor exists
in a single population that is restricted in range to low-lying
forested habitat within one small (455 sq km (174.9 sq mi)) island, so
deforestation places the species at even greater risk of extirpation
due to stochastic and catastrophic events.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that
continued greenhouse gas emissions will likely increase global
temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) above pre-industrial levels by 2040, even under optimistic
low-emissions scenarios (Lee et al. 2023, p. 12). Extreme wet and dry
events in Indonesia are expected become more frequent (Kurniadi et al.
2024, p. 160), which will increase the likelihood of natural disasters,
such as landslides (Ahmad et al. 2019, p. 2) and tropical cyclones
(Christensen et al. 2007, p. 879). Natural disasters ultimately
exacerbate habitat loss, and each additional catastrophic event
increases extirpation risk for the blue tree monitor. Considering the
life history and biology of the blue tree monitor, habitat loss and
climate change will continue to decrease the species' viability because
of the species' specialized habitat requirements and narrow
distribution.
Collection for International Pet Trade
Blue tree monitors are valuable on the international pet market,
and collecting and selling them is a source of income for local
residents on Batanta (Arida et al. 2021, pp. 112-115). Newly described
species that are popular in the pet trade are often overcollected to
the point that they become extirpated from their type locality (Stuart
et al. 2006, p. 1137), and blue tree monitors are already undetectable
or extirpated from Pulau Ayem, the collection site of the original type
specimen (Del Canto 2013, p. 19; Arida et al. 2021, pp. 112-114).
Furthermore, lizard hunters in Amdui Village have reported they now
find fewer blue tree monitors during week-long hunting sessions than
they found historically, and they can no longer find the species within
the vicinity of their village and must travel by boat to more remote
areas of Batanta to collect the species (Arida et al. 2021, pp. 114-
116). Despite the indication that overcollection likely is causing
unsustainable population declines, the blue tree monitor continues to
be heavily collected from the wild for the international pet trade
(Arida et al. 2021, pp. 114-115).
It is illegal to export wild blue tree monitors from Indonesia
(wild includes specimens taken from the wild and held in captivity,
specimens born in captivity where the parents mated in the wild such as
from fertilized eggs or gravid females collected from the wild, and any
specimens for which there is insufficient evidence that the specimen
meets the requirements for captive-bred or bred in captivity); however,
it is legal to export individuals bred in captivity (CITES source code
C) with a permit (see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms,
below). This effectively creates a loophole through which wild-caught
blue tree monitors enter international trade when they are deliberately
mislabeled as captive-bred (Bennett 2015, p. 56). Many of the
facilities in Indonesia that claim to engage in captive breeding of
blue tree monitors possess only wild-caught blue tree monitors (Auliya
2009, as cited in Koch et al. 2013, pp. 27-28), and a large percentage
of these institutions lack the capability to successfully breed
reptiles (Nijman and Shepherd 2009, p. 7). While it is possible that a
small captive-breeding population of blue tree monitors has been
established in Indonesia, there is no evidence that any such captive
population has the capacity to be self-sustaining. To be self-
sustaining, a population must produce offspring of F2 (the second
generation of offspring that results from breeding two members of the
first filial generation) and subsequent generations, resulting from the
breeding between parents that mated in captivity, and without continued
introduction of wild caught specimens. There is no evidence to suggest
that the individuals being exported out of the country are legitimately
captive-bred, because captive reproduction in blue tree monitors is
sporadic and claims of subsequent generations are rare (Rauhaus et al.
2014, as cited in Bennett 2015, p. 56). Nevertheless, the majority of
blue tree monitors exported out of Indonesia are declared bred in
captivity even though they are likely sourced from the wild (Shepherd
2022, pp. 48-49; Bennett 2015, p. 56), and blue tree monitors that are
legitimately bred in captivity represent less than 1 percent of
worldwide trade (Bennett 2015, p. 50). This laundering of wild-caught
lizards through captive-breeding facilities creates a false sense of
sustainability. In reality, wild populations are declining (Janssen and
Chng 2018, p. 24) and many monitor lizards do not survive long in
captivity.
Monitor lizards are often subject to stressful, unhygienic, and
inhumane conditions along the trade route (Koch et al. 2013, p. 48),
and many specimens are injured or die before they are exported from
Indonesia (Natusch and Lyons 2012, p. 2902; Marshall and Beehler 2007,
as cited in Koch et al. 2013, p. 48). Those blue tree monitors that
survive the trade route often do not survive long in captivity because
tree monitors are particularly susceptible to chronic dehydration and
require specialized care (Mendyk 2015, p. 10). Between 22.5 and 26.4
percent of monitor lizards die before their second year in captivity,
regardless of the specimen's origins (e.g., wild-caught or captive-
born; Mendyk 2015, p. 3). Because monitor lizards have a high mortality
rate along the trade route and in captivity, wild-caught blue tree
monitors will likely continue to be illegally exported out of Indonesia
to meet the demand of the international pet market. Illegal trade not
only disguises the true number of blue tree monitors that are taken
from the wild, it also contributes to the underestimation of
individuals present in the international pet market.
According to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Trade Database, between 2003
and 2022, a total of 5,502 individual blue tree monitors were exported
from Indonesia for commercial purposes (Service 2024, p. 12). The
United States is the largest importer of blue tree monitors and
imported 1,455 live blue tree monitors from 2003 to 2022, which
accounts for approximately 45 percent of the 3,225 global importations
reported by CITES (Service 2024, pp. 11-13). In 2023, the Service's Law
Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) recorded the
importation of 153 individual blue tree monitors, the largest annual
importation total to date, and more than double the
[[Page 104956]]
yearly importation average prior to 2023. LEMIS consistently
underreports the number of blue tree monitors imported into the United
States when compared to the CITES trade database (Service 2024, p. 13),
and the CITES trade database underestimates international trade numbers
(Sl[aacute]bov[aacute] et al. 2021, p. 2), because some specimens that
are not reported in the CITES trade database are sometimes found
advertised for sale (Bennett 2015, p. 51). This suggests that the true
number of blue tree monitors that were imported into the United States
in 2023 is likely higher than the figure reported by LEMIS.
Because reptile collectors often desire to keep rare and brightly
colored species in their collection (Altherr and Lameter 2020, p. 6),
the market demand for blue tree monitors will likely remain high.
Overcollection for the pet trade is known to cause extirpations in
newly described reptile species (Stuart et al. 2006, p. 1137).
Overcollection represents an immediate threat to the blue tree
monitor's viability because unsustainable exploitation will likely lead
to the species becoming a rarer and more valuable commodity on the pet
market, and thus a more appealing target for collection (Janssen and
Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2). The average declared value of individual blue
tree monitors in LEMIS has steadily increased from approximately $300
in 2003 to $540 in 2024 (U.S. dollars; Service 2024, p. 9), which is
likely a reflection of the increasing rarity of the species, and the
increasing demand for the species driving further pressure on the
species in the wild. Ultimately, the unsustainable collection of blue
tree monitors increases the species' risk of extinction.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
The blue tree monitor is not listed as a protected species in
Indonesia (Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7/1999 on
Preserving Flora and Fauna Species). Indonesia may establish a harvest
and export quota for specifically listed non-protected species, which
would allow for a purposeful, sustainable harvest of a species that
benefits the local economy and ensures the long-term conservation of
the species (Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. 447/Kpts-11/
2003). However, the blue tree monitor has no established harvest quota
that allows for commercial trade, and, therefore, trade of wild-caught
specimens is illegal under Indonesian law. Despite Indonesia having
restrictions and guidelines in place to regulate the wildlife trade,
few individuals abide by them (Natusch and Lyons 2012, p. 2905), and
these laws and regulations are easily circumvented when trading
protected species or species without commercial harvest quotas (Lyons
and Natusch, 2011 p. 3; Natusch and Lyons, 2012 p. 2902).
Indonesia has been party to CITES since 1979, and the trade of
CITES-listed wildlife from Indonesia is internationally monitored and
regulated (Nijman 2019, pp. 197-198). All Varanus lizards have been
listed under CITES Appendix II since 1975 (Shepherd 2022, p. 48). Under
Indonesian law as a CITES Appendix-II species, it is illegal to export
wild-caught specimens; however, individuals bred in captivity may be
exported from Indonesia with a permit (Shepherd 2022, p. 48; Nijman
2019, p. 198). The Indonesian government regulates captive breeding
through a ``captive-breeding production plan,'' which calculates a
quota of animals allowed to be produced by registered captive-breeding
facilities and exported with a permit (Janssen and Chng 2018, p. 19).
These production quotas are based on inaccurate or unrealistic
biological parameters, and often exceed a species' maximum possible
reproductive output, or are allocated for species with no registered
breeding stock (Janssen and Chng 2018, pp. 23-24). Furthermore, many
registered companies claiming to be commercially breeding wildlife
often lack facilities suitable for captive breeding, and there are
often large discrepancies between reported breeding stock and the
actual breeding stock present at these facilities (Nijman and Shepherd
2009, pp. 7-8). It is through this loophole that CITES regulations are
circumvented in Indonesia, and wild-caught blue tree monitors are
mislabeled as bred in captivity, exported from Indonesia through
registered captive-breeding facilities, and enter the international pet
trade (see Threats, above).
Batanta has one protected area, Pulau Batanta Barat, that covers
170.95 sq km (66 sq mi), but it is unlikely that this area offers
effective protection to blue tree monitors, because logging has been
observed within the protected area (Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 19;
Takeuchi 2003, p. 105), and the laws protecting the area are not
adhered to by locals or corporations (Koch 2016, p. 40).
Current Condition
The best available scientific and commercial data indicate the blue
tree monitor is a narrow endemic with low genetic diversity comprised
of a single population that occupies one island with an area of
approximately 455 sq km (174.9 sq mi) (Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 122).
While no quantitative population data are available to definitively
assess the population status and population trends of the blue tree
monitor (Bennett 2015, p. 50), we are able to assess the resiliency of
the species based on a multitude of factors. Ecological traits alone
leave the blue tree monitor prone to extinction, because the risk of
extinction is highest in monitor lizards that are arboreal, endemic to
small islands, and associated with pristine tropical rainforest
habitats (Koch et al. 2013, p. 46). The blue tree monitor satisfies all
three of these criteria, and the greatest threats to the species'
viability are habitat loss and overcollection for the pet trade.
Much of the blue tree monitor's limited habitat has already been
lost due to deforestation, and illegal logging is expected to continue
on Batanta due to the island's remoteness and lack of legal enforcement
(Webb 2005, p. 25; Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 19; Takeuchi 2003, p.
105). Habitat loss reduces the amount of space that blue tree monitors
are able to occupy, which leaves the population more vulnerable to
catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, floods; Newman and
Valentinus 2005, p. 2), and habitat loss diminishes the resiliency of a
population that is also declining because of overcollection for the pet
trade (see Threats, above). Because blue tree monitors are a valuable
commodity on the international pet market (Arida et al. 2021, pp. 112),
and have a high mortality rate along the trade route and in captivity
(Natusch and Lyons 2012, p. 2902, Mendyk 2015, p. 3), it is likely that
overcollection will continue, and together with habitat loss and other
threats is likely to lead to the extirpation of the species if
overcollection continues unabated (Janssen and Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2).
Overcollection of newly described reptiles has previously resulted in
their extirpation from type localities (Stuart et al. 2006, p. 1137),
and this is already true for the blue tree monitor, as it is now
undetectable or extirpated from its type locality (Del Canto 2013, p.
19; Arida et al. 2021, pp. 112-114). Furthermore, lizard hunters report
that the remaining blue tree monitor population on Batanta is declining
(Arida et al. 2021, pp. 114-116), and the species is becoming more
valuable in the pet trade (Service 2024, p. 9), which is likely a
reflection of their increasing rarity in the wild. The blue tree
monitor has always been rare on Batanta (Philipp and Philipp 2007, p.
[[Page 104957]]
867), and because the single remaining population is declining and
occupies a narrow range, the species has low resiliency to adapt to and
withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity.
Species with high redundancy are less vulnerable to random
catastrophic events because they have many populations that are
geographically dispersed over a wide area. Because the blue tree
monitor exists in a single population that is dispersed over an area
that amounts to less than 455 sq km (174.9 sq mi) (Ziegler et al. 2009,
p. 122), the species is vulnerable to extinction caused by catastrophic
events and, therefore, has low redundancy.
Representation is improved in species with high genetic variability
or that inhabit a wide range of ecological settings; both of these
characteristics facilitate adaptation to future environmental changes,
whether natural or anthropogenic. Blue tree monitors do not occupy a
wide range of ecological settings and are restricted to low-lying,
humid forests on a single island (Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 122; Del
Canto 2013, p. 19; Sprackland 2011, unpaginated). Climate change
further threatens the viability of the single blue tree monitor
population because an increased frequency of extreme dry events
threatens to decrease ambient humidity (Kurniadi et al. 2024, p. 160),
which may increase blue tree monitor mortality resulting from
dehydration (Mendyk 2015, p. 10). Because the blue tree monitor only
has one population that occupies a single narrow ecological setting and
the species has a low capacity to adapt to future environmental
changes, the species has low representation.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Determination of Blue Tree Monitor's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined that the blue tree monitor population has been
reduced across its range because of the loss of its limited habitat and
overcollection for the international pet trade. Because the blue tree
monitor is threatened by overcollection for the international pet trade
and only exists in a single population that is endemic to a small
island that is threatened by historical and current habitat loss, the
species is at increased risk of extirpation due to stochastic and
catastrophic events, and is immediately at risk of extinction. The blue
tree monitor currently maintains insufficient resiliency, redundancy,
and representation for its continued existence to be secure.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available, we determine that the blue tree monitor is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. The species does not meet the
statutory definition of a threatened species because it is currently in
danger of extinction, whereas threatened species are those likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the blue tree monitor is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the blue tree monitor warrants listing as an endangered species
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
we determine that the blue tree monitor meets the Act's definition of
an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the blue tree
monitor as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such
endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and
conventions set forth in the Act. Under the Act, a number of steps are
available to advance the conservation of species listed as endangered
or threatened species. As explained further below, these conservation
measures include: (1) recognition, (2) recovery actions, (3)
requirements for Federal protection, (4) financial assistance for
conservation programs, and (5) prohibitions against certain activities.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, as well as
in conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species.
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
[[Page 104958]]
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat.
A Federal ``action'' that is subject to the consultation provisions
of section 7(a)(2) of the Act is defined in our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as all activities or programs of any kind
authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal
agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. With respect to
the blue tree monitor, no known actions would require consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory definition of
``action,'' which clarifies that it applies to activities or programs
``in the United States or upon the high seas,'' the blue tree monitor
is unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations, because the
entire life cycle of this species occurs in terrestrial areas outside
of the United States and the species is unlikely to be affected by U.S.
Federal actions. Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated
for this species because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate
critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas outside of
the jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service may also register persons subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States through its captive-bred wildlife (CBW) program if
certain established requirements are met under the CBW regulations (see
50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW registration, the Service may allow a
registrant to conduct certain otherwise prohibited activities under
certain circumstances to enhance the propagation or survival of the
affected species, including take; export or re-import; delivery,
receipt, carriage, transport, or shipment in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial activity; or sale or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A CBW registration may
authorize interstate purchase and sale only between entities that both
hold a registration for the taxon concerned. The CBW program is
available for species having a natural geographic distribution not
including any part of the United States and other species that the
Service Director has determined to be eligible by regulation. The
individual specimens must have been born in captivity in the United
States.
The provisions in section 9(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)(1))
provide a limited exemption from certain otherwise prohibited
activities regarding wildlife specimens held in captivity or in a
controlled environment on the pre-Act date (for species first listed
after the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, the pre-Act date is
the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final regulation
adding such species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
for the first time), provided that such holding and any subsequent
holding or use of the wildlife was not in the course of a commercial
activity (commonly referred to as ``pre-Act'' specimens) (96 Stat.
1426-27 (1982); H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 35
(1982) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 97-418, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 24-
25 (1982)). Specifically, section 9(b)(1) of the Act states that the
prohibitions of sections 9(a)(1)(A) and 9(a)(1)(G) shall not apply to
any fish or wildlife which was held in captivity or in a controlled
environment on (A) December 28, 1973, or (B) the date of the
publication in the Federal Register of a final regulation adding such
fish or wildlife to any list of species published pursuant to section
4(c) of the Act (as relevant to listed wildlife, the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h)) that such holding and any
subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the course
of a commercial activity.
Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there is a limited exemption from
the prohibitions associated with: (1) import into, or export from, the
United States of any endangered wildlife, or (2) violation of
regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened wildlife. Other
prohibitions of section 9--including those at section 9(a)(1)(B)-(F),
regarding take of endangered wildlife, possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken wildlife, interstate or foreign commerce in endangered
wildlife, and sale or offer for sale of endangered wildlife--continue
to apply to activities with qualifying endangered pre-Act wildlife
specimens. Specimens born after the pre-Act date and specimens taken
from the wild after the pre-Act date do not qualify as ``pre-Act''
wildlife under the text of section 9(b)(1) of the Act. If a person
engages in any commercial activity with a ``pre-Act'' specimen on or
after the pre-Act date, the wildlife would immediately cease to qualify
as pre-Act wildlife and become subject to the relevant prohibitions,
because it has been held or used in the course of a commercial
activity.
Additional requirements apply to activities with all blue tree
monitors, separate from their listing or proposed listing as an
endangered species or threatened species. As a CITES-listed species,
all international trade of any blue tree monitor by persons subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States
[[Page 104959]]
must also comply with CITES requirements pursuant to section 9,
paragraphs (c) and (g), of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(c) and (g)) and to
50 CFR part 23. As ``fish or wildlife'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(8)), blue tree
monitor imports and exports must also meet applicable wildlife import/
export requirements established under section 9, paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f), of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(d), (e), and (f)); the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.); and 50 CFR part 14.
Questions regarding whether specific activities with blue tree monitor
would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Service's Division of Management Authority
([email protected]; 703-358-2104).
Related Temporary Emergency Listing
Published concurrently in the Rules and Regulations section of this
issue of the Federal Register, we are exercising our authority pursuant
to section 4(b)(7) of the Act to emergency list for 240 days the blue
tree monitor (Varanus macraei) as an endangered species due to the
imminent risk of extinction resulting from habitat loss and
overcollection for the pet trade. For the reasons discussed in the
preamble of that temporary rule and in this proposed rule, we propose
in this document to make the emergency listing permanent. Please refer
to the Regulation Promulgation section of the temporary rule for the
amendment to add the blue tree monitor to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) that we are proposing to make
permanent in this document.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared
in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rulemaking is
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Branch
of Delisting and Foreign Species.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Signing Authority
Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on December 3, 2024. Acting Director Steve Guertin
approved these packages December 15, 2024. On December 16, 2024, the
acting Director authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-30376 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P