[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52791-52800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20907]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0082; FXES11130900000C2-178-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BB76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Monito Gecko (Sphaerodactylus micropithecus) From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the Monito gecko (Sphaerodactylus micropithecus) from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. This
determination is based on a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, which indicates that this
species has recovered and the threats to this species have been
eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Accordingly, the
prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act will no
longer apply to this species.
DATES: This rule is effective November 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The proposed and final rules, the post-delisting monitoring
plan, and the comments received on the proposed rule are available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2017-0082 or https://ecos.fws.gov. Comments and materials we received,
as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are
also available for public inspection by appointment, during normal
business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological
Services Field Office, Road 301, Km. 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, Puerto Rico
00622; P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, Puerto Rico 00622; or by
telephone (787) 851-7297.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES above). If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of Regulatory Action
The purpose of this action is to remove the Monito gecko from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)) (i.e., ``delisting'' it)
based on its recovery.
Basis for Action
We may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data
indicate the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered
species for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered; or (3) the original data used
at the time the species was classified were in error (50 CFR 424.11).
Here, we have determined that the species may be delisted based on
recovery as follows:
Rat predation, the threat suspected to be the main cause
of an apparent population decline for the Monito gecko (factor C), was
eliminated by August 1999 when the last rat eradication campaign was
completed by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources (PRDNER). From August 1999 to May 2016, no rats or other
potential exotic predators have been detected on Monito Island.
The species' apparent small population size (factor E),
noted as a threat at the time of listing, may have been an artifact of
bias as surveys were conducted under conditions when the species was
not easily detectable. The Monito gecko is currently considered
abundant and widely distributed on Monito Island.
The Monito gecko and its habitat have been and will
continue to be protected under Commonwealth laws and regulations
(factor D). These existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
protect the Monito gecko now and in the future.
Despite potential climate change effects from a gradual warming
trend for Puerto Rico, we expect the population to persist into the
foreseeable future, especially with the current absence of other
potential threats (e.g., habitat loss, disease, predation).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 15, 1982, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (47 FR 46090) listing the Monito gecko as an endangered
species and designating the entire island of Monito as critical
habitat. On March 27, 1986, we published the Monito Gecko Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1986, 18 pp.). The 5-year review, which was completed on August
8, 2016 (USFWS 2016, 25 pp.), recommended delisting the species due to
recovery. On January 10, 2018 (83 FR 1223), we published a proposed
rule to delist the Monito gecko.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion
under the Recovery section below. Also see http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html for the species profile for this
reptile.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed delisting rule and draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan published on January 10, 2018 (83 FR 1223), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal and
plan by March 12, 2018. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice
inviting general public comments was published in Primera Hora (major
local newspaper) and also announced using online and social media
sources. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the Office of Management and Budget's
Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16,
2004, we solicited the expert opinions from five appropriate and
independent
[[Page 52792]]
specialists regarding the science in the proposed rule and the draft
PDM plan. The purpose of such review is to ensure that we base our
decisions on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We
sent peer reviewers copies of the proposed rule and the draft PDM plan
immediately following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal
Register. We invited peer reviewers to comment, during the public
comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed delisting rule and draft PDM plan. We received responses
from one of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewer for
substantive issues and new information regarding the delisting rule and
PDM plan for the Monito gecko. The peer reviewer generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final delisting rule.
Peer reviewer comments are summarized below and incorporated into the
final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer mentions that the evidence for the
success of the Monito rat eradications is strong, but not compelling.
The reviewer specified that, given the multiple trips to Monito Island
with uniformly negative results, eradication success is the most likely
explanation, but longer term monitoring would elevate confidence in
this conclusion.
Our response: Since the rat eradication campaign in 1999, no rats
have been detected on Monito Island. Based on the information available
and consistent with the peer reviewer's interpretation of the evidence,
is it highly unlikely there are still rats on Monito, unless there has
been a reinvasion after May 2016, which is also unlikely. In addition,
if rats had been present during our 2014 and 2016 trips we would likely
have detected them, given the number of persons out at night searching
for geckos, the relatively small size of the island, the rat detection
devices used, and the scraps of food left out on purpose in the camp
area. None of these methods produced even a suspicion of rats being
present. Based on the best available information, the Service and its
partners concluded that eradication was successful in 1998-1999.
(2) Comment: The peer reviewer mentioned that the gecko abundance
estimate is based on a model that is reasonable but that has not been
validated for this population. Several other commenters questioned the
validity of the model used for the population estimate. They stated
that the model was inaccurate and the estimated abundance was extremely
biased and does not meet the assumptions of the model specified.
Specifically, the model is intended for multi-temporal replication.
Commenters explained that the Service is relying on just a single visit
survey in its erroneous estimates that have overly broad confidence
limits and high statistical error.
Our response: The Service used abundance modeling based on repeated
surveys across multiple days across multiple sites. Specifically, we
observed 84 geckos during 96 surveys among 40 plots across two nights.
The high numbers of geckos detected (84) during the 96 surveys during
the 2016 site visit was the first systematic attempt to survey the
Monito gecko population. Recommendations for future survey efforts have
been noted; for example, marking plots more visibly (Island
Conservation 2016). During the development of the model and survey
methods, the Service wanted methods and models that can be replicated
in order to adjust and improve the abundance estimates accordingly over
time (i.e., validate). Per our Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan, we
recommend conducting surveys every other year for the next 5 years.
For a complete review of the methods and results, a copy of Island
Conservation (2016) report is available at http://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0082. In addition, the methods and a
reproducible code set are freely available online at: https://github.com/nangeli1/Contracts.
Public Comments
(1) Comment: One commenter asked the Service to explain the process
for finding independent specialists when soliciting expert opinion for
peer review.
Our response: 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 of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions
of seven reviewers. We are required by our peer review policy to find
at least three peer reviewers, and we often choose more than three if
they are available. In doing so, the Service looked for experts in the
species, including its life history, habitat and threats that it may
face. The experts cannot have been involved in the production of the
draft rule.
(2) Comment: The peer reviewer stated that the Service does not
have a population trajectory for this species, but rather only a single
snapshot in time. Several other commenters also recommended that more
surveys are needed to assess population trends before delisting, as
well as more ecological studies.
Our response: Gecko detections during 2014 and the 2016 survey
provide substantial evidence that the species is consistently abundant
and widespread across the island. Further, our analysis of the listing
factors shows how the Service determined that the Monito gecko should
be delisted, and survey information is just one of the parameters used
to make that determination. Ultimately, there is no indication that any
of the threats are operating on the population at levels that meet an
endangered or threatened species as defined under the Act. In addition,
conducting ecological studies was considered in the species Recovery
Plan (1986). However, based on the most recent observations,
achievement of the most critical recovery actions (i.e., rat
eradication and survey), and our 5-factor analysis, we have determined
that no additional ecological studies are needed to determine the
listing status for this species. Future needs for studies, status
evaluations, and recommendations will be addressed with the Post-
Delisting Monitoring Plan and its primary goal of monitoring to ensure
the status of the species does not deteriorate and, if a substantial
decline in the species population size or an increase in threats is
identified, to enact measures to halt and reverse unfavorable trends.
(3) Comment: Several commenters specified that there is evidence-
based support that climate change will impact S. micropithecus and
provided scientific articles to support their claim.
Our response: In our proposed rule, we analyzed the potential
effects of climate-related sea-level rise on the Monito gecko and
determined that it was not a threat to the species because the
topography of Monito Island will insulate the species from the effects
of sea-level rise. We asked the public to provide any data or new
information particularly on the possible effects of climate change to
the Monito gecko. Based on the comments and information received, we
evaluated new information and conducted a thorough review of the
relevant literature. We continue to conclude that climate change does
not constitute a threat to the species to the extent that it is
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (Refer to Factor E, below, for a discussion of the
[[Page 52793]]
potential implications of climate change on the Monito gecko).
(4) Comment: One commenter opined that lack of genetic analysis
hinders the Service's ability to assess effective population size,
inbreeding rates, deleterious alleles, and any proactive genetic rescue
plans.
Our response: The Service recognizes that this determination does
not include a genetic analysis of the Monito gecko population but has
determined that one is not needed. The fact that the species is found
throughout Monito Island in the thousands, and that juveniles and
gravid females were found (past and most current surveys), all
demonstrate a large well-represented population with abilities to
recover and adapt from disturbances. Thus, there do not seem to be any
perceptible indications that a lack of genetic representation is
causing species mortality or limiting the species' ability to adapt or
reproduce. Still, any potential genetic rescue plan would need to
consider that the Monito gecko population is endemic, closed to
immigration from other Sphaerodactylus species, and has been isolated
for millions of years.
(5) Comment: Several commenters request the Service recognize the
severe vulnerability of Monito Island and its inhabitants to
catastrophic events such as hurricanes and fires.
Our response: Catastrophic events such as fires or hurricanes were
discussed under Factors A and E, respectively. Neither of these factors
were found to be operating currently, or are expected to be found in
the foreseeable future, on the Monito gecko population to require its
continued listing under the Act. In addition, even though several
hurricanes have potentially affected Monito Island in the past, the
species remains abundant and widespread throughout the island. The
recent Hurricane Maria (Sept. 2017), which caused extensive damage in
Puerto Rico, did not cause significant damage to Monito Island.
Species Information
Biology and Life History
The Monito gecko, Sphaerodactylus micropithecus, (Schwartz 1977,
entire) is a small lizard (approximately 36 millimeters (1.42 inches)
snout-vent length) with an overall pale-tan body and dark-brown
mottling on the dorsal surface. It is closely related to the
Sphaerodactylus macrolepis complex of the Puerto Rican Bank, but
variation in dorsal pattern and scale counts confirm the
distinctiveness of the species; probably resulting from a single
invasion to Monito Island and its subsequent isolation (Schwartz 1977,
p. 990, Dodd and Ortiz 1984, p. 768). Little is known about the biology
of this species, including its diet, reproduction, or potential
predators. Other more common Sphaerodactylus species in Puerto Rico eat
a diverse content of small invertebrates, such as mites, springtails,
and spiders (Thomas and Gaa Kessler 1996, pp. 347-362). Out of the 18
individuals counted by Dodd and Ortiz (1983, p. 120), they found
juveniles and gravid females suggesting that the species was
reproducing. Dodd and Ortiz (1983, p. 121) suspected reproduction
occurs from at least March through November as suggested by the egg
found by Campbell in May 1974, by the gravid females found by Dodd and
Ortiz (1982, p. 121) in August 1982, and the fact that Monito gecko
eggs take 2 to 3 months to hatch (Rivero 1998, p. 89). During a plot
survey in May 2016, two gravid females and several juveniles were found
(USFWS 2016, p. 13). Potential natural predators of the Monito gecko
may include the other native lizard Anolis monensis and/or the Monito
skink (Spondilurus monitae).
Distribution and Habitat
The Monito gecko is restricted to Monito Island, an isolated island
located in the Mona Passage, about 68 km (42.3 mi) west of the island
of Puerto Rico, 60 km (37.3 mi) east of Hispaniola and about 5 km (3.1
mi) northwest of Mona Island (USFWS 1986, p. 2). Monito Island is a
flat plateau surrounded by vertical cliffs rising about 66 m (217 ft)
with no beach and is considered the most inaccessible island within the
Puerto Rican archipelago (Garcia et al. 2002, p. 116). With an
approximate area of 40 acres (c.a. 16 hectares) (Woodbury et al. 1977,
p. 1), Monito Island is part of the Mona Island Reserve, managed for
conservation by the PRDNER (no date, p. 2). The remoteness and
difficulty of access to Monito Island make studying the Monito gecko
difficult (Dodd 1985, p. 2).
The only life zone present on Monito Island is subtropical dry
forest (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 10). In this life zone, the Monito
gecko has been found in areas characterized by loose rock sheets or
small piles of rocks, exposed to the sun, and with little or no
vegetation cover. Vegetation may or may not be associated with these
areas. On Monito Island, such areas include small groves of Guapira
discolor (barrehorno), Pithecellobium unguis-cati (escambrn colorado),
or Capparis flexuosa (palo de burro) where some leaf litter is present;
areas with loose rocks on the ground; or rock sheets that provide shady
refuges, and numerous regions where large pieces of metal (remnant
ordnance) lay on the ground (Ortiz 1982, p. 2). Being a small, ground-
dwelling lizard, the Monito gecko, like other members of its genus, is
usually found under rocks, logs, leaf litter, and trash (Rivero 1998,
p. 89).
Population Size and Trends
When the species' recovery plan was completed in 1986, only two
island-wide surveys had been completed (Dodd and Ortiz 1983, entire;
Hammerson 1984, entire), with the higher count from Dodd and Ortiz
(1983, p. 120) reporting a total of 18 geckos during a 2-day survey.
During both of these surveys, all geckos were found during the day and
under rocks. Subsequent surveys of variable length and area covered
detected from 0 to 13 geckos during the day as well (PRDNER 1993, pp.
3-4; USFWS 2016, p. 9).
These previous attempts to survey for the Monito gecko are
considered underestimates, because the surveys were done during the day
when the species is more difficult to detect: It seems to be less
active and mostly hiding under rocks, debris, crevices, or other
substrates. Although geckos in the Sphaerodactylinae group are
considered mostly diurnal or crepuscular (Rivero, p. 89; Pianka and
Vitt 2003, p. 185), we suspect that the Monito gecko is more active at
night and thus easier to detect during night surveys. This nocturnal
behavior was confirmed during a May 2014 rapid assessment and a May
2016 systematic survey. During the May 2014 rapid assessment, at least
one gecko was seen during each of the three nights of the trip; some
encounters were opportunistic, and others occurred while actively
searching for the species (USFWS 2016, p. 9). In fact, no geckos were
seen during daylight hours. Geckos were seen on exposed substrates and
not hidden under rocks or litter, although some were seen within leaf
litter mixed with rocks under a Ficus citrifolia tree. Geckos were
observed escaping into the cracks and solution holes of the limestone
rock.
The May 2016 systematic gecko survey involved setting up of 40
random plots on Monito Island (USFWS 2016, p. 10). Each plot was 20 m x
20 m (400 m\2\), so that the survey covered a total of 16,000 m\2\ or
approximately 11 percent of Monito Island. Four two-person teams
visited 10 plots each. Each observer surveyed each plot independently.
All sites were surveyed at least twice, and all took place during the
night. A total of 84 geckos were observed during 96 surveys among the
[[Page 52794]]
40 plots, most on exposed rock. Only 8 out of the 84 counted were found
under a rock or other substrate; all others were out during the night.
Only two geckos were opportunistically found during the day while
observers were turning rocks and dry logs.
Gecko occupancy and abundance were estimated using a standard
mathematical population model accounting for the abundance and
detection bias that allows individuals to go unseen during surveys
(Island Conservation (IC) 2016, p. 5). Occupancy of the geckos on
Monito Island was determined to be 27.8 percent (confidence interval
11.3-68.6 percent). The mean number of geckos per plot was 73.3 (Range:
1-101). The abundance model indicates a total of 1,112 geckos present
within the surveyed plots (95 percent confidence interval: 362-2,281).
Extrapolated across the entire island, Monito Island hosts
approximately 7,661 geckos (50 percent confidence interval: 5,344-
10,590).
Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are not
regulatory documents and are instead intended to establish goals for
long-term conservation of a listed species, define criteria that are
designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been
removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer
need the protections of the Act, and provide guidance to our Federal,
State, and other governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods
to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved
without all recovery criteria being fully met. For example, one or more
criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been
accomplished or become obsolete, yet the Service may judge that,
overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species
is robust enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to
threatened or perhaps delist the species. In other cases, recovery
opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time
the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used
instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may subsequently become
available that was not known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need
to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of species
is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may
not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The following discussion provides a brief review of recovery
planning and implementation for the Monito gecko, as well as an
analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to
evaluating the status of the taxon.
The Monito Gecko Recovery Plan (Plan) was approved on March 27,
1986 (USFWS 1986, entire). The objective of the Plan was to conduct a
systematic status survey and ecological study of the species, and to
reevaluate the species' status and formulate a quantitative recovery
level and specific recovery actions (USFWS 1986, p. 7). This Plan is
considered outdated and does not contain recovery criteria that could
lead to delisting the Monito gecko. However, the Plan does provide
recovery objectives that, when accomplished, would aid in developing
such criteria. No quantitative recovery level was defined due to the
lack of data on historical population levels, population trends, and
apparent historical population size. The objectives were accomplished
as follows:
Recovery Actions
The Plan identifies five primary recovery actions:
(1) Determine the status of the present population;
(2) Conduct basic ecological studies;
(3) Determine extent, if any, of predation and competition by rats
and other native lizards (see Factor C);
(4) Update the Plan; and
(5) Continue protection of the present population.
The following discussion provides specific details for each of
these actions.
Recovery action 1: Determine the status of the species.
From 1982 to 1993, several Monito gecko surveys were conducted
(USFWS 2016, p. 9). However, some of these surveys were either done
before the Plan was completed (USFWS 1986) or did not provide enough
information to answer the population objectives of the Plan, and
current information (see Population Size and Trends above) suggests
that surveys underestimated the number of geckos. Data from the 2014
rapid assessment and the 2016 systematic plot survey show that,
overall, the Monito gecko is abundant across the whole island and
numbers in the thousands, indicating a large healthy population, as
specified in the Species Information section above.
Recovery action 2: Conduct basic ecological studies.
Besides the population survey efforts, no basic ecological studies
have been conducted for the Monito gecko. Conducting ecological
studies, as described in the Plan (USFWS 1986, pp. 7-8), is not crucial
to further assess the species' listing status. There is no indication
that ecological factors such as habitat preferences (species occurs
throughout the island) and fluctuations in reproductive biology or
activity patterns (both unknown), are critical for the species' listing
status. The adjustment of surveys from diurnal to nocturnal was a key
factor for researchers to discover in order to obtain reliable data and
provide optimal population information. We will further discuss any
possible needs of ecological evaluations in relation to post-delisting
monitoring with our partners, but we will likely not need detailed
research on the gecko's ecology based on the status of threats in its
native habitat on Monito Island.
Recovery action 3: Determine the extent, if any, of predation and
competition by rats and native reptiles.
At the time of listing, the presence of rats on Monito Island was
identified as the main threat to the Monito gecko. This threat was
suspected to be the main cause of an apparent population decline for
the Monito gecko, since rats are effective predators and are known to
feed on both lizards and lizard eggs (Dodd and Ortiz 1983, p. 120; Case
and Bolger 1991, pp. 273-278). However, the net effect, if any, of the
potential rat predation on the geckos is debatable. For example, in
comments quoted in the final listing rule (47 FR 46091, October 15,
1982), Dr. H. Campbell indicated that the scarcity of the Monito geckos
was an artifact of the intense predation by black rats (Rattus rattus),
while Dr. A. Schwartz expressed doubts that rats could have any effect
on the gecko or its eggs. Dodd and Ort[iacute]z (1983, p. 121) also
explained that, during their surveys, predator pressure on the gecko
could not be proven and that more studies were needed to determine if
rats or other predators do affect the Monito gecko. The potential
effect of rats on two other relatively common small geckos
(Sphaerodactylus monensis and Sphaerodactylus levinsi) on nearby Mona
and Desecheo Islands (respectively) is also unknown. Nevertheless,
there is ample evidence that the Monito gecko would fare better without
rats (Case and Bolger 1991, entire; Towns et al. 2006, entire; Jones
[[Page 52795]]
et al. 2016, entire; Thibault et al. 2017, entire).
In October 1992, the PRDNER began a black rat eradication and
survey project on Monito Island to benefit native and endemic species
on that Island (Garc[iacute]a et al. 2002, p. 116). The eradication
campaign continued in March 1993 with poisoning (rodenticide) and snap
traps to assess changes in the rat population. A second eradication
campaign started in October 1998, with three eradication events at 4-
month intervals, and again using, in addition to snap traps, chew
blocks (i.e., soft wood pieces soaked in canola oil) as a monitoring
tool.
Garc[iacute]a et al. (2002, pp. 117-118) evaluated the status of
the rat population seven times during the first campaign and five times
during the second campaign. Since the completion of the second
eradication campaign (August 1999), no rats have been detected on
Monito Island. Garc[iacute]a et al. (2002, p. 118) concluded that in
order to be certain that eradication had been achieved, it was
essential to continue an appropriate rat monitoring program on the
island, and recommended using chew blocks. However, no systematic rat
monitoring has been implemented on the island since September 1999.
Nonetheless, during a seabird blood sampling trip in August 2000,
Anderson and Steeves (2000, p. 1) reported not seeing any rats on
Monito Island, as did subsequent PRDNER bird survey trips in 2003.
On May 2014, the Service organized an expedition to Monito Island
with the PRDNER in order to confirm the eradication of black rats from
the island, and to evaluate the status of and threats to the Monito
gecko. The Service and the PRDNER placed 27 snap traps and 70 chew
blocks distributed along transects covering 870 meters in length (USFWS
2016, p. 7). In addition, some food items (i.e., watermelon, left-over
canned food) were intentionally left exposed and available for rats. No
signs of rats were detected on these available sources during this 4-
day/3-night trip. During surveys conducted in May 2016, the Service and
the PRDNER also placed 80 chew blocks, two within each gecko sampling
plot (USFWS 2016, p. 10). No rats were seen or detected with the chew
blocks during this 5-day/4-night trip. This is a marked contrast from
when the species was listed in 1982, when rats were observed island-
wide at all times during a 2-day expedition (47 FR 46090, October 15,
1982).
In short, although it cannot be ascertained when the last rat died,
Monito Island appears to have been rat free since August-September
1999. Thus, the suspected main threat to the species has not been
present for at least the past 18 years.
Other lizards (i.e., Anolis monensis and Spondilurus monitae,
formerly Mabuya mabouya sloani) that naturally occur on the Island may
also prey on the Monito gecko. These other species are considered
diurnal (active during the day), while the Monito gecko is considered
nocturnal (active during the night). Determining the extent of these
potential predator-prey interactions would be challenging. However,
this should no longer be necessary, as the species has persisted
despite potential predatory threats.
Recovery action 4: Update Recovery Plan.
Because of the information on threats and recovery progress that is
provided in the Monito gecko 5-year review (USFWS 2016) and this final
rule, the Monito gecko no longer meets the definition of an endangered
or threatened species. Therefore, a formal update of the 1986 Plan is
not needed.
Recovery action 5: Continue protection of the present population.
Monito Island has been protected by the PRDNER as a nature reserve
since 1986 (PRDNER, no date, p. 2). There are no permanent human
residents on Monito Island and access is allowed only under special
permits issued by the PRDNER, which also maintains a ranger detachment
and biologist on nearby Mona Island. Monito Island is also visited by
illegal immigrants. The frequency of these events varies from year to
year, and illegal immigrants are evacuated fairly quickly by the U.S.
Coast Guard. Furthermore, the impacts of these visitations seem to be
minimal (see discussion below).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species.
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the species is determined, we then evaluate
whether that species may be an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of one or a combination of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying or
delisting a species. In other words, for species that are already
listed as endangered or threatened, the analysis for a delisting due to
recovery must include an evaluation of the threats that existed at the
time of listing, the threats currently facing the species, and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal of the Act's protections.
The following discussion examines the factors that were believed to
affect the Monito gecko at the time of its listing, are currently
affecting it, or are likely to affect the Monito gecko within the
foreseeable future.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
At the time of listing (47 FR 46090, October 15, 1982), the
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat was not
considered a threat to the Monito gecko. In 1940, the U.S. Government
acquired Monito Island, and the entire island was used by the Air
Corps/U.S. Air Force as a high-level radar bombing and gunnery range
(Parsons Corp. 2010, pp. 2-5). In 1961, Monito Island was declared
surplus and was returned to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in
September 1965 (Parsons Corp. 2010, pp. 2-5). Monito Island is managed
by the PRDNER for conservation as part of the Mona Island Reserve
(PRDNER, no date, p. 2). The final listing rule indicated that there
were no plans to continue to use Monito Island for bombing practices at
the time, and any major alteration of the island could be detrimental
to the continued survival of the Monito gecko. In fact, the large
amount of scattered debris on Monito Island suggests significant
historical habitat modification from bombing activities (USFWS 1986, p.
5).
A Monito Island site inspection was conducted in August 2009
(Parsons Corp. 2010, entire). A qualitative reconnaissance and
munitions constituents sampling was performed to confirm the range
location and to evaluate the potential presence of munitions and
explosives of concern (Parsons Corp. 2010, p. ES-1). Although
unexploded ordnance (UXO) and munitions debris was found on Monito
[[Page 52796]]
Island, immediate munitions removal actions were not warranted.
The potential for future UXO detonation activities may have an
effect on the Monito gecko and its critical habitat. Since Monito
Island is a natural reserve, all activities must be coordinated with
the PRDNER. The Service has been conducting informal consultations with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to develop species-specific
standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the Monito gecko and other
federally listed species that occur on Monito Island. These site-
specific SOPs would be considered the appropriate conservation measures
required to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects on the species
or its critical habitat. Based on the current consultation, the
magnitude of threat of these future U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
actions on the Monito gecko is considered minimal and non-imminent
(USCOE 2017).
Monito Island receives illegal immigrants, usually from the western
islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, that are trying to enter U.S.
territory. The PRDNER has stated that illegal immigrants sometimes
light fires on Monito Island in order to be detected and rescued. This
information was documented during the May 2016 trip, where two recent
fire pits were found, along with a small pile of firewood cuttings, on
the south-southeast side of the island on exposed rock with no
vegetation in the immediate vicinity. The presence of fire pits on
Monito Island had not been documented in the past. At least for the two
fire pits found in May 2016, their placement and construction
demonstrates these were controlled fires and their intention was not of
criminal nature. Although there is no information available on the
frequency and damage these fires may be causing, based on what was
documented in May 2016, the potential effects of such fires may also be
considered minimal. To date, there is no indication that any potential
fires have spread throughout the Island.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The final listing rule (47 FR 46091, October 15, 1982) mentioned
that, because of the rarity of the Monito gecko, removal of specimens
could be detrimental. At present, we are not aware of any individuals
taken after listing for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. The remoteness and difficult access of Monito
Island limits any collecting efforts. In addition, access is only
allowed under special permits issued by the PRDNER, mostly for
research, security, or management purposes. Furthermore, the Monito
gecko's apparent rarity may have been an artifact of sampling bias,
because surveys from 1982 to 1993 were done during daylight hours when
the species is mostly hiding and the species has a low detection
probability (see Species Information section).
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The final listing rule (47 FR 46091, October 15, 1982) indicates
that the presence of large numbers of introduced black rats was thought
to be the major factor in the precarious state of the Monito gecko
because, although predation by black rats on this species has not been
confirmed, rats are predaceous and are known to feed on both lizards
and lizard eggs (Dodd and Ortiz 1983, p. 120; Case and Bolger 1991, pp.
273-278). Thus, predation by rats was considered a possible cause of
population decline for the Monito gecko (USFWS 1986, p. 5). As
previously explained above under Recovery Action 3, Monito Island has
been rat free since August-September 1999. Thus, the main threat to the
species has not been present for at least the past 18 years.
Although Monito Island is currently rat free, there is still the
possibility that rats could reach the island again. Rats may be
transferred from Mona Island by floating debris or more likely by human
means. In addition to illegal immigrants, as discussed above, there is
limited evidence of public use of Monito Island for recreational or
unknown purposes. Although it is logistically difficult to disembark on
the island and prohibited because of unexploded ordinances from the
previous military activities, these disembarking events could increase
the chance of invasion and establishment of rats or other exotic
species. However, this possibility is considered very low. The rat
eradication campaign was completed in 1999, and 18 years later, no rats
have been found.
Ortiz (1982, p. 7) included the endemic Monito skink Spondilurus
monitae (formerly Mabuya mabouya sloani) as a potential predator of the
Monito gecko. Other species of Mabuya feed primarily on small
invertebrates, but the diversity of prey types in stomach contents,
including small vertebrates, indicates that some skink species (such as
M. bistriata) most likely feed on any moving animal of the appropriate
size (Vitt and Blackburn 1991, p. 920). Mabuya mabouya live in places
where Sphaerodactylus abound (Rivero 1998, p. 106) and it is probable
that geckos constitute an important food item for this skink. During
the 2016 trip, biologists observed one adult skink active at night
within the same exposed rock habitat used by the Monito gecko (i.e.,
exposed karst rock with lots of crevices and holes). It is also highly
probable that another native lizard, Anolis monensis, will prey on the
Monito gecko as well, except that Anolis are considered diurnal. The
Monito gecko's trait of tail autotomy (tail loss) is certainly an
effective predator defense mechanism (Pianka and Vitt 2003, p. 76).
During our May 2014 site visit, 2 out of the 8 geckos captured for
measurements were missing the tips of their tails, and during May 2016,
only 5 geckos out of the 84 seen had missing tail parts. Although
difficult to determine, this suggests natural predation pressure from
the two other native lizard species mentioned above is low.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
When the Monito gecko was listed (47 FR 46091; October 15, 1982),
the species did not have any other statutory or regulatory protections.
Now, territorial laws and regulations protect the Monito gecko. In
1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico enacted Law No. 241-1999, known
as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico (Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de
Puerto Rico). The purpose of this law is to protect, conserve, and
enhance both native and migratory wildlife species; declare property of
Puerto Rico all wildlife species within its jurisdiction; provide
provisions to issue permits; regulate hunting activities; and regulate
exotic species, among other actions. In 2004, the PRDNER approved
Regulation 6766--to regulate the management of threatened and
endangered species in Puerto Rico (Reglamento 6766--Reglamento para
Regir el Manejo de las Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de
Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico), including
the Monito gecko, which was listed as endangered. Article 2.06 of this
regulation prohibits collecting, cutting, removing, among other
activities, listed animals within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico.
There is no evidence that either the law or the regulation is not being
adequately implemented.
Additionally, the PRDNER has managed Monito Island as a natural
reserve since 1986, protecting its wildlife and vegetation. Monito
Island is managed for conservation because it harbors one of the
largest seabird nesting colonies in the Caribbean, in addition to other
endemic and federally listed species like the Higo chumbo cactus
(Harrisia portoricensis) and the
[[Page 52797]]
yellow-shouldered blackbird (Agelaius xanthomus). No human permanent
residents live on the island, and public access is prohibited. The best
available information indicates that Monito Island will remain
permanently protected as a nature reserve and managed for conservation.
In addition, Monito Island harbors additional species protected by the
ESA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Any potential future federal
actions on Monito Island will still require consultation with the USFWS
for those species (e.g., Harrisia cactus, Yellow-shouldered black
bird), thereby potentially also benefiting the Monito gecko from
conservation measures developed for those other species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
In listing the Monito gecko, we considered as a factor the species'
extremely small population size (47 FR 46090, October 15, 1982). As
previously explained in Species Information and Recovery and Recovery
Plan Implementation, the Monito gecko is a small and cryptic species
and difficult to detect, especially during the day. However, all of the
historical surveys documented (USFWS 2016, p. 9) were done during
daylight hours, when the species is apparently less active, safely
hiding from diurnal native reptile predators, and/or exhibiting
behavioral adaptations to avoid the hot temperatures within its xeric
dry forest environment. As discussed above (see Population Size and
Trends), these and other biases cause us to question the validity of
these historical surveys. In contrast, as also discussed above (see
Population Size and Trends), the best available population estimate for
the species, completed during the May 2016 systematic plot survey,
shows that the Monito gecko is widely distributed throughout Monito
Island and gecko abundance appears to number in the thousands,
indicating a large well-represented population (IC 2016, pp. 5-6). Our
post-delisting monitoring will demonstrate the continued recovery of
this species. In general, lizard populations remain fairly stable and
are influenced by predation and amount of resources available, and
predation and competition usually result in populations existing below
their carrying capacity (Pianka and Vitt 2003, p. 64). Based on the May
2014 and 2016 observations and results, there is no indication that
limited resources are acting on the population to warrant listing under
the Act.
Potential sea level rise as a result of climate change is not a
threat to this species or its habitat, because the Monito gecko is
found only on Monito Island, which is 66 m (217 ft) above sea level and
has no beach areas. The current rate of sea level rise in the Caribbean
is 10 cm (3.9 inches) per century, with more specific sea level rise
estimates for Puerto Rico ranging from 0.07 to 0.57 meters (m) (0.20 to
1.87 feet) above current sea level by the year 2060 and between 0.14 to
1.70 m (0.40 to 5.59 feet) by the year 2110 (Puerto Rico Climate Change
Council 2013, p. 64). Thus, the habitat occupied by the Monito gecko
will remain well above the area of Monito Island predicted to be
affected by sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.
Hurricanes, such as the recent Hurricanes Irma and Maria are not
considered a threat to the Monito gecko in part because the island is
66 m above sea level. The vegetation on the island is short and
therefore hurricane impacts are expected to be minimal. Additionally,
the Monito gecko is adapted to living under cover mostly during the day
when the species seems to be less active. Typical forms of cover
include rocks, debris, crevices, or other substrates.
We further evaluated the potential effects of the predicted
scenario of a gradual trend toward a dryer and hotter climate for
Puerto Rico (Henareh et al. 2016, p. 265; Bhardwaj et al. 2018, pp.
133-134). To a certain extent, evaluating the vulnerability of the
Monito gecko to climate change would require linking the magnitude of
changes (i.e., temperature and humidity) with the physiological
response of the species to those changes (Deutsch et al. 2008, p. 6668;
Huey et al. 2009, p. 1; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 39-43; Pacifici et al.
2015, p. 215). For example, the fact that Sphaerodactylus are
particularly vulnerable to overheating and desiccation is an important
criterion to evaluate.
Based on the available information, the Monito gecko should have
low evaporative water loss rates, with behavioral adaptions similar to
other Sphaerodactylus (or other lizards) that exploit arid
microhabitats (Snyder 1979, p. 110; Dunson and Bramham 1981, pp. 257-
258; Nava 2001, pp. 461-463; L[oacute]pez-Ortiz and Lewis 2004, p. 438;
Nava 2004, pp. 18-26; Steinberg et al. 2007, pp. 334-335; Turk et al.
2010, pp. 128-129; Bentz et al. 2011, pp. 46-47; Allen and Powell 2014,
pp. 594-596). Research suggests that these tiny lizards have behavioral
and physiological traits that allow them to acclimate to and survive
under each particular local environment and climate. In the case of the
Monito gecko, the species usually hides and is undetectable during the
day (unless an active search of turning rocks and debris is conducted)
and shifts to a more active and detectable lifestyle during the night.
This is consistent with microhabitat selection and activity patterns
exhibited by other Sphaerodactylus lizards to minimize exposure to
physiologically challenging diurnal conditions of lower humidity and
higher temperatures. Cover during the day not only provides insulation
from higher temperatures, but also protection from predators such as
the relatively abundant Anole lizard on Monito Island. In addition,
Sphaerodactylus eggs are considered extremely resistant to dessication
(Dunson and Bramham 1981, p. 255).
Without any specific climate change studies for the Monito gecko,
it is difficult to predict with certainty how the Monito gecko will
respond to predicted climate change scenarios and how they might affect
the species' fitness and viability. Some researchers suggest that
climate change will increase the thermal stress on tropical lizards,
suggesting a detrimental effect on the basic physiological functions of
these ectotherms (Deutsch 2008, entire; Tewksbury 2008, entire; Huey et
al. 2009, entire). However, with the current absence of other potential
threats (e.g., habitat loss, disease, rat predation, etc.) and the
perpetual legal protection of the species and its habitat as a nature
reserve, the Monito gecko should have the best opportunity to survive
and adapt well past the foreseeable future. Thus, we do not expect the
Monito gecko to be endangered nor threatened currently or in the
foreseeable future by potential climate change effects.
Determination of Species Status
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether a species is
an endangered species or threatened species because of any one or a
combination of the following: (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. The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as any
species ``which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.''
[[Page 52798]]
Monito Gecko--Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of
the status of this species and assessed the five factors to evaluate
whether it is in danger of extinction currently or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. The Monito gecko
is endemic to Monito Island, a small island (approx. 40 acres; 16.2
hectares) off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and it has not been
introduced elsewhere. There are no landscape barriers within Monito
Island that might be of biological or conservation importance. The most
recent survey found that the species occurs across most of the Island.
The basic ecological components required for the species to complete
its life cycle are considered present throughout Monito Island. We
found that Monito gecko populations are persistent with an estimate of
approximately 7,661 geckos (50 percent confidence interval: 5,344-
10,590). During our analysis, we found that impacts thought to be
threats at the time of listing (primarily predation by rats, factor C)
are either not as significant as originally anticipated or have been
eliminated or reduced since listing, and we do not expect any of these
conditions to substantially change post-delisting and into the
foreseeable future, nor do we expect climate change to affect this
species in the foreseeable future. We conclude that the previously
recognized impacts (i.e., rat predation, small population size) to the
Monito gecko no longer threaten the species, such that the species is
no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range now or in
the foreseeable future. In order to make this conclusion, we analyzed
the five threat factors used in making Endangered Species Act listing
(and delisting) decisions. This analysis indicates that the Monito
gecko is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor
is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Monito Gecko--Determination of 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
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (SPR). Where the best available information allows the
Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that
determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide
determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of
imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this
reading, we should first consider whether the species warrants listing
``throughout all'' of its range and proceed to conduct a ``significant
portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a species does not
qualify for listing as either an endangered or a threatened species
according to the ``throughout all'' language.
Having determined that the Monito gecko is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in an SPR. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways, so we first screen the
potential portions of the species' range to determine if there are any
portions that warrant further consideration. To do the ``screening''
analysis, we ask whether there are portions of the species' range for
which there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portion
may be significant; and (2) the species may be, in that portion, either
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. For a particular portion, if we cannot answer both questions in
the affirmative, then that portion does not warrant further
consideration and the species does not warrant listing because of its
status in that portion of its range. We emphasize that answering these
questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a
step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is
required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the SPR prongs: (1) The portion is significant and (2) the
species is, in that portion, either in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. Confirmation that a portion
does indeed meet one of these prongs does not create a presumption,
prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species is an
endangered species or threatened species. Rather, we must then
undertake a more detailed analysis of the other prong to make that
determination. Only if the portion does indeed meet both SPR prongs
would the species warrant listing because of its status in a
significant portion of its range.
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify any portions that warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular portion depends on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address
first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for
that portion of the species' range.
For Monito gecko, we chose to evaluate the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the Monito gecko may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. To
conduct this screening, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. If a species is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range and the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, then the species would not have a greater level
of imperilment in any portion of its range than it does throughout all
of its range and therefore no portions would qualify as an SPR.
We examined the following threats: The destruction and modification
of habitat by humans and exotic foreign species introduced to the
Monito Island, such as rats and mice, including cumulative effects. We
found no concentration of threats in any portion of the Monito gecko's
range at a biologically meaningful scale. Since we found no portions of
the species' range where potential threats are significantly
concentrated or substantially greater than in other portions of its
range, we did not identify any portions where the species may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, no portions warrant further consideration through a more
detailed analysis, and the species is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. Our approach to analyzing SPR in this
determination is consistent with the court's holding in Desert
Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL
4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018).
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information
[[Page 52799]]
indicates that the Monito gecko is not in danger of extinction nor
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we
find that listing the Monito gecko as an endangered species or a
threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
Conclusion and Determination
The Monito gecko has demonstrated the ability to persist despite
changing environmental conditions over time from both anthropogenic and
natural disturbances. Although the Monito gecko population is
considered to have low redundancy (i.e., one population endemic to
Monito Island), no risk of extirpation was identified and no other
populations outside of Monito Island are needed for its recovery. In
addition, the fact that the species was found throughout the Island,
gecko abundance is in the thousands, and past and current occurrence of
juveniles and gravid females, indicates a large, well-represented
population with demonstrated abilities to recover and adapt from
disturbances.
Because the Monito gecko population is considered self-sustaining,
contains a large number of individuals, and has demonstrated high
resilience and viability, we expect this population to persist into the
future. The species is considered abundant within its habitat, which
consists of adequate area and quality to maintain survival and
reproduction in spite of disturbances. Thus, the Monito gecko appears
to have highly resilient population attributes (e.g., habitat
generalist, potential high adult survival rate) that allow at least
some degree of disturbance within a harsh xeric environment.
For the Monito gecko, we determined that a foreseeable future of 20
to 30 years is reasonable. Based on the available information, making
threat projections beyond this time frame increases speculation. For
example, although rats could potentially reinvade Monito Island, the
probability of rats reinvading is considered low since rats have not
been detected after the eradication effort was completed in 1999. In
addition, lifespan data for almost all of the Sphaerodactylus species
is not available. One species from Martinique in the West Indies,
Sphaerodactylus vicenti ronaldi, estimated longevity did not exceed 4
years (Leclair and Leclair 2011). Assuming the Monito gecko would have
a similar lifespan, a foreseeable future of 20 to 30 years would allow
for multiple generations and detection of any population changes. The
Monito gecko has been listed since 1982, has persisted apparent mayor
threats (i.e. bombing effects, rat predation), and is currently well
represented. Further, we do not anticipate significant impacts in the
foreseeable future from climate change factors. Therefore, without no
immediate risk of extinction, we have a baseline to continue assessing
how the Monito gecko population may respond in the foreseeable future.
We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by the Monito gecko
in developing the proposed rule and this final rule. The Service finds
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat (factor A) is not a threat to the continued
existence of the Monito gecko, and we do not expect it to be a threat
in the future. We also conclude that overutilization (factor B) and
disease (factor C) are not a threat to the Monito gecko. Natural
predation by other native lizards may occur, but this activity is
considered a low-magnitude threat because the Monito gecko has
persisted despite potential predation and there is no indication that
the magnitude of an undetermined natural predation pressure
significantly affects the gecko's survival. No rats have been detected
on Monito Island since August 1999. Therefore, we conclude that
predation (factor C) is no longer a threat to the Monito gecko.
The species' apparent small population size (factor E), noted at
the time of listing, may have been an artifact of bias as surveys were
conducted under conditions when the species was not easily detectable.
There are no known potential climate change effects (i.e., sea level
rise or changes in air temperature) (factor A) that negatively affect
the Monito gecko. No other natural or manmade factors are considered
threats (factor E). The Monito gecko and its habitat have been and will
continue to be protected under Commonwealth laws and regulations
(factor D), and these existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
protect the Monito gecko now and in the future. The information
indicates that this species is no longer at risk of extinction, nor is
it likely to experience reemergence of threats and associated
population declines in the foreseeable future. Based on the analysis
above and after considering the best available scientific and
commercial information, we conclude that the Monito gecko does not
currently meet the Act's definition of either an endangered or
threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Effects of This Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Monito gecko
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The
prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act would no
longer apply to the Monito gecko. Federal agencies will no longer be
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to
jeopardize the gecko's continued existence. The prohibitions under
section 9(a)(1) of the Act will no longer make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or
export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or take, possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship Monito geckos. Finally, this
rule will also remove the Federal regulations related to the Monito
gecko listing: The critical habitat designation at 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to implement a system in
cooperation with the States to monitor effectively for not less than 5
years the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery.
Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to
verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the
risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply.
The primary goal of PDM is to ensure that the species' status does not
deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the
decline so that proposing it as threatened or endangered is not again
needed. If at any time during the PDM period, data indicate that
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At
the conclusion of the PDM period, we will review all available
information to determine if re-listing, the continuation of monitoring,
or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the
States (which includes Territories such as Puerto Rico) in development
and implementation of PDM programs. However, we remain responsible for
compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively
engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of
other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the
species' conservation after delisting. In April 2017, the PRDNER and
the Service agreed to be cooperators in the PDM for the Monito gecko.
[[Page 52800]]
We have prepared a PDM Plan for the Monito gecko (USFWS 2017). The
plan is designed to detect significant declines in the Monito gecko
with reasonable certainty and precision, and detect possible new or
reoccurring threats (i.e., presence of rats). The plan:
(1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;
(2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring
outcomes and conclusions;
(3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;
(4) Articulates monitoring methods including sampling
considerations;
(5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and
responsibilities; and
(6) Proposes a PDM implementation schedule including timing and
responsible parties.
It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the
recovered status of the Monito gecko.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that no
tribal lands are affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2017-0082.
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry ``Gecko, Monito'' under
``Reptiles'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(c) by removing the entry for ``Monito Gecko
(Sphaerodactylus micropithecus)''.
Dated: August 9, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-20907 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P