Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1223 

comments, go to www.regulations.gov at 

any time or visit Room W12–140 on the 

ground level of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 

from the public to better inform its 

rulemaking process. DOT posts these 

comments, without edit, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this notice, 

contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA 

Driver and Carrier Operations Division; 

Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle 

Safety Standards; Telephone: 614–942– 

6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, contact Docket 

Services, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

FMCSA encourages you to participate 

by submitting comments and related 

materials. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this notice (FMCSA–2017–0373), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which the comment 

applies, and provide a reason for 

suggestions or recommendations. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so the Agency can contact you if it has 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comments online, go 

to www.regulations.gov and put the 

docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2017–0373’’ 

in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click 

‘‘Search.’’ When the new screen 

appears, click on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

button and type your comment into the 

text box in the following screen. Choose 

whether you are submitting your 

comment as an individual or on behalf 

of a third party and then submit. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit comments by mail 

and would like to know that they 

reached the facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. FMCSA will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. 

II. Legal Basis 

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions 

from certain parts of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). 

FMCSA must publish a notice of each 

exemption request in the Federal 

Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The 

Agency must provide the public an 

opportunity to inspect the information 

relevant to the application, including 

any safety analyses that have been 

conducted. The Agency must also 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on the request. 

The Agency reviews safety analyses 

and public comments submitted, and 

determines whether granting the 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety equivalent to, or greater than, 

the level that would be achieved by the 

current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). 

The decision of the Agency must be 

published in the Federal Register (49 

CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for 

denying or granting the application and, 

if granted, the name of the person or 

class of persons receiving the 

exemption, and the regulatory provision 

from which the exemption is granted. 

The notice must also specify the 

effective period and explain the terms 

and conditions of the exemption. The 

exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 

381.300(b)). 

III. Request for Exemption 

The hours of service (HOS) rules (49 

CFR part 395) prescribe the duty-time 

limits and rest requirements for 

interstate drivers of commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs). The rules also require 

most drivers of CMVs in interstate 

commerce to use electronic logging 

devices (ELDs)—not handwritten 

logbooks—to document their HOS duty 

status (49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i)). 

STC is a motor carrier that uses up to 

75 CMVs to transport propane fuel and 

anhydrous ammonia. It has applied for 

exemption because purchasing ELDs 

after two years of reduced revenue 

places an undue financial burden on the 

company. It further states that installing 

ELDs in all its CMVs is burdensome 

because it does not operate year-round, 

and because its operations are 

dependent on the weather. It states that 

it cannot afford to outfit CMVs with 

ELDs if they are only going to sit idle. 

STC asserts that its drivers will 

continue to employ paper logs if the 

exemption is granted, and that this 

would achieve a level of safety 

equivalent to the level of safety that 

would be achieved if an ELD was used 

for recording the duty status of its 

drivers. A copy of STC’s application for 

exemption is available for review in the 

docket for this notice. 

Issued on: December 29, 2017. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00248 Filed 1–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

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: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft post-delisting monitoring plan. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove 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. We seek information, data, 

and comments from the public 

regarding this proposal to delist the 

Monito gecko, and on the draft postdelisting monitoring plan. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

consider your comments on this 

proposed rule, we must receive your 

comments on or before March 12, 2018. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, by February 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule and draft postdelisting monitoring plan by one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1224 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the Docket Number for this 

proposed rule, which is FWS–R4–ES– 

2017–0082. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment now!’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• By hard copy: By U.S. mail or handdelivery: Public Comments Processing, 

Attn: Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0082; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Headquarters, MS BPHC, 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 http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments below for more information). 

Document availability: A copy of the 

draft post-delisting monitoring plan can 

be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0082, or at the Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office website at https:// 

www.fws.gov/caribbean/es. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edwin Mun ̃iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, Road 

301, Km. 5.1, Boquero ́n, Puerto Rico 

00622; P.O. Box 491, Boquero ́n, Puerto 

Rico 00622; or by telephone (787) 851– 

7297 or by facsimile (787) 851–7441. 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 proposed 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)) 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. A species may be delisted 

based on recovery only if the best 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that it is no longer threatened or 

endangered. 

• 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. 

• There is no indication that other 

potential remaining threats such as 

natural predation significantly affect the 

gecko’s survival. There are no known 

potential climate change effects (i.e., sea 

level rise) (factor E) that negatively 

affect the Monito gecko. 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request data, comments, 

and new information from other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. The comments that will 

be most useful and likely to influence 

our decisions are those that are 

supported by data or peer-reviewed 

studies and those that include citations 

to, and analyses of, applicable laws and 

regulations. Please make your comments 

as specific as possible and explain the 

basis for them. In addition, please 

include sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to authenticate 

any scientific or commercial data you 

reference or provide. In particular, we 

seek comments concerning the 

following: 

(1) Information concerning the 

biology and ecology of the Monito 

gecko; 

(2) Relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to the Monito 

gecko particularly any data on the 

possible effects of climate change to this 

reptile as it relates to its habitat type, 

the extent of State protection and 

management that would be provided to 

this reptile as a delisted species, and 

evidence of illegal disembarking from 

boats onto the island or other illegal 

activities on Monito Island that may 

affect the species; 

(3) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the 

Monito gecko that may impact or benefit 

the species; and 

(4) The draft post-delisting monitoring 

plan and the methods and approach 

detailed in it. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although they will be noted, will not be 

considered in making a determination, 

as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

that a determination as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

In issuing a final determination on 

this proposed action, we will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

information may lead to a final rule that 

differs from this proposal. All comments 

and recommendations, including names 

and addresses, will become part of the 

administrative record. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. While you can ask us in 

your comment to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. Please note that 

comments posted to this website are not 

immediately viewable. When you 

submit a comment, the system receives 

it immediately. However, the comment 

will not be publically viewable until we 

post it, which might not occur until 

several days after submission. 

Similarly, if you mail or hand-deliver 

a hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review, but we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. To ensure 

that the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking is complete and all 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1225 

comments we receive are publicly 

available, we will post all hardcopy 

submissions on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation 

used in preparing this proposed rule 

will be available for public inspection in 

two ways: 

(1) You can view them on http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search 

Documents box, enter FWS–R4–ES– 

2017–0082, which is the docket number 

for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 

panel on the left side of the screen, 

select the type of documents you want 

to view under the Document Type 

heading. 

(2) You can make an appointment, 

during normal business hours, to view 

the comments and materials in person at 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Caribbean Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides 

for one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown 

in the DATES section of this document. 

We will schedule at least one public 

hearing on this proposal, if any are 

requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and locations, as well as how to 

obtain reasonable accommodations, in 

the Federal Register at least 15 days 

before any hearing. 

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. The final rule identified the 

following threats to the Monito gecko: 

Extremely small population size 

coupled with suspected predation by 

rats. 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. 

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. 

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. A 

study of the diet of other more common 

Sphaerodactylus species in Puerto Rico 

found 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 is 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) on August 1982, and the fact that 

Monito gecko eggs take 2 to 3 months 

to hatch (Rivero 1998, p. 89). During a 

plot survey on 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 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 

considered the most inaccessible island 

within the Puerto Rican archipelago 

(Garcı ́a 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 (escambro ́n 

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 islandwide 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1226 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 × 20 m (400 

m2), so that the survey covered a total 

of 16,000 m2 or approximately 11 

percent of Monito Island. Four twoperson 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 was 

observed during 96 surveys among the 

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 was 

estimated using a standard 

mathematical population model 

accounting for the abundance and 

detection bias that allow 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 (11.3–68.6 percent). The 

estimated number of geckos per plot 

from the best fit model was 73.3 geckos 

(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. The 

Service believes that 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 ecological (behavior) trait for 

researchers to consider 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 predaceous and are known to feed 

on both lizards and lizard eggs (Dodd 

and Ortiz 1983, 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1227 

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 Ortı ́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 

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 (Garcı ́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. 

Garcı ́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. Garcı ́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, the 

Service believes 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. 

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 proposed rule, 

we believe 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 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 (Factor A from the Act) 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, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1228 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 speciesspecific 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. 

Monito Island receives illegal 

immigrants usually from the western 

islands of Cuba and Hispaniola while 

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 

(Factor B from the Act). 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) (Factor C from the 

Act). Thus, predation by rats was 

considered a possible cause of 

population decline for the Monito gecko 

(USFWS 1986, p. 5). As previously 

explained under the Recovery Action 3 

section of this proposed rule, 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 exotics 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 (Factor C from the Act). 

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). 

Rivero (1998, p. 106) states that M. 

mabouya live in places where 

Sphaerodactylus abound, and it is 

probable that geckos constitute an 

important food item for this skink. In 

fact, 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 

(1982), the species did not have any 

other statutory or regulatory protections. 

Currently, in addition to the Act, 

territorial laws and regulations protect 

the Monito gecko (Factor D from the 

Act). 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1229 

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 Extincio ́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 

yellow-shouldered blackbird (Agelaius 

xanthomus). There are no human 

permanent residents 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. 

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) (Factor E from 

the Act). As previously explained in the 

Species Information and Recovery 

sections of this proposed rule, 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 wellrepresented 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 (Factor A from 

the Act) 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). 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 (Factor E from the Act). 

The vegetation on the island is short 

and therefore hurricane impacts are 

expected to be minimal. Additionally, 

the Monito gecko is under rocks most of 

the time. We have no information 

indicating rising temperatures will 

impact the gecko directly or indirectly. 

Proposed 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.’’ On July 

1, 2014, we published a final policy 

interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 

37578). In our policy, we interpret the 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered 

species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ to 

provide an independent basis for listing 

a species in its entirety; thus there are 

two situations (or factual bases) under 

which a species would qualify for 

listing: A species may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range; or a species may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. If a species is in danger of 

extinction throughout an SPR, it, the 

species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ 

The same analysis applies to 

‘‘threatened species.’’ 

The SPR policy is applied to all status 

determinations, including analyses for 

the purposes of making listing, 

delisting, and reclassification 

determinations. The procedure for 

analyzing whether any portion is an 

SPR is similar, regardless of the type of 

status determination we are making. 

The first step in our assessment of the 

status of a species is to determine its 

status throughout all of its range. 

Depending on the status throughout all 

of its range, we will subsequently 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. If we 

determine that the species is in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, throughout all of 

its range, we list the species as an 

endangered (or threatened) species and 

no SPR analysis will be required. The 

same factors apply whether we are 

analyzing the species’ status throughout 

all of its range or throughout a 

significant portion of its range. 

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. We 

conducted a review of the status of 

Monito gecko and assessed the five 

factors to evaluate whether Monito 

gecko is in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, throughout all of its range. In 

considering delisting the Monito gecko, 

we evaluated the range of this reptile to 

determine if any areas could be 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1230 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

considered a significant portion 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. Hence, 

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 believed 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. We conclude that 

the previously recognized impacts to the 

Monito gecko no longer are a threat to 

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 

Consistent with our interpretation 

that there are two independent bases for 

listing species as described above, after 

examining the species’ status 

throughout all of its range, we now 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. Per our 

final SPR policy, we must give 

operational effect to both the 

‘‘throughout all of its range’’ language 

and the SPR phrase in the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Because we determined that 

Monito gecko is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we will consider whether there 

are any significant portions of its range 

in which the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so. 

We evaluated the range of the Monito 

gecko to determine if any area may be 

significant. The Monito gecko is 

endemic to Monito Island where they 

are under formal protection and 

management in the State owned nature 

reserve and 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. These areas include 

small groves 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. Because its 

range is limited to Monito Island and 

the only life zone present on Monito 

Island is subtropical dry forest, we find 

that the species is comprised of a single, 

contiguous population and there are no 

logical biological divisions delineating 

portions of the range. For this reason, 

we did not identify any portions that 

may be significant because of natural or 

biological divisions indicating 

biological or conservation importance. 

We also examined whether any 

threats are geographically concentrated 

in some way that would indicate the 

species may be in danger of extinction, 

or likely to become so, in a particular 

area. We conclude that none of them are 

concentrated in any particular area of 

the species’ range; all factors act 

uniformly throughout its range. The 

factors affecting the Monito gecko occur 

at similarly low levels throughout its 

range and would affect all individuals of 

the population. Because the species acts 

as a single population, no portion is 

likely to have a different status or be 

differently affected by threats than any 

other portion or than that of the species 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, no 

threats or their effects are sufficiently 

concentrated to indicate the species may 

be in danger of extinction, or likely to 

become so in any area of the species’ 

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 a detailed SPR analysis 

because there cannot be any portion, 

including a significant portion, of the 

species’ range where the species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. For these 

reasons, we conclude that the species is 

not in danger of extinction, or likely to 

become so, throughout a significant 

portion of its range. 

Conclusion and Determination 

The Monito gecko has demonstrated 

the ability to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time 

from both anthropogenic and natural 

disturbances. And although there is no 

genetic information available for the 

Monito gecko, there are no indications 

of a decreased fitness or that a lack of 

representation is causing species 

mortality or limiting the species’ ability 

to adapt. Although the Monito gecko 

population is considered to have low 

redundancy (i.e., one population 

endemic to Monito Island), no 

immediate 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 and gecko abundance is in the 

thousands, indicates a large wellrepresented population with 

demonstrated abilities to recover and 

adapt from disturbances. 

Because the Monito gecko population 

is considered self-sustaining, contains a 

relatively 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. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the threats faced by 

the Monito gecko in developing this 

proposed 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 not a threat to the 

Monito gecko. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1231 

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 immediate risk of extinction, nor is it 

likely to experience reemergence of 

threats and associated population 

declines in the 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 an endangered or 

threatened species throughout its range. 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

If this proposed rule is finalized, it 

would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove 

the Monito gecko from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

If this proposed rule is finalized, the 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act would no longer 

apply to the Monito gecko. Federal 

agencies would 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 would 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 would 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. 

We have prepared a Draft 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. 

Concurrent with this proposed 

delisting rule, we announce the draft 

PDM plan’s availability for public 

review. The plan can be viewed in its 

entirety at http://www.fws.gov/ 

caribbean/es or at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0082. Copies can 

also be obtained from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office, Boquero ́n, Puerto 

Rico (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). We seek information, data, 

and comments from the public 

regarding the Monito gecko and the 

PDM strategy. We are also seeking peer 

review of this draft PDM plan 

concurrently with this comment period. 

We anticipate finalizing this plan, 

considering all public and peer review 

comments, prior to making a final 

determination on the proposed delisting 

rule. 

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 will solicit the expert opinions of at 

least five appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding the science in this 

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 will send peer 

reviewers copies of this proposed rule 

and the draft PDM plan immediately 

following publication of the proposed 

rule in the Federal Register. We will 

invite 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 

will summarize the opinions of these 

reviewers in the final decision 

documents, and we will consider their 

input and any additional information 

we receive as part of our process of 

making a final decision on this proposal 

and the draft PDM plan. Such 

communication may lead to a final 

decision that differs from this proposal. 

Clarity of This Proposed Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

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: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1232 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 author of this document 

is Jan P. Zegarra, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to 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 

■ 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. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry ‘‘Gecko, Monito’’ under ‘‘ 

Reptiles’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95(c) by removing the 

entry for the ‘‘Monito gecko 

(Sphaerodactylus micropithecus)’’. 

Dated: December 1, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00207 Filed 1–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 433–15–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS