Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Blue Tree Monitor, 104952-104959 [2024-30376]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[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