Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Palo de Rosa From Endangered to Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule, 37091-37113 [2021-14661]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Environmental Review
ANE NH E5 Portsmouth, NH [Amended]
Portsmouth International Airport at Pease,
NH
(Lat. 43°04′41″ N, long. 70°49′24″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile
radius of Portsmouth International Airport at
Pease.
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’, prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 8,
2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South,
Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
[FR Doc. 2021–14932 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am]
The Proposal
The FAA proposes an amendment to
Title 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D
airspace, increasing the radius to 4.7
miles from 4.5 miles, removing Class E
airspace area designated as an extension
to Class D and Class E surface area, as
it is no longer necessary, and amend
Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Portsmouth
International Airport at Pease,
Portsmouth, NH, due to the
decommissioning of the PEASE VOR/
DME and cancellation of the associated
approach procedures (SIAPs). This
action would update the airport name to
Portsmouth International Airport at
Pease, formerly Pease International
Tradeport. In addition, the FAA would
update the geographic coordinates of the
airport and Littlebrook Air Park to
coincide with the FAA’s database.
Class D and E airspace designations
are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004,
and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
This document proposes to amend
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order
7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37091
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The Proposed Amendment
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059;
FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reclassification of the Palo
de Rosa From Endangered to
Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:
■
Paragraph 5000
Class D Airspace.
*
*
*
*
*
ANE NH D Portsmouth, NH [Amended]
Portsmouth International Airport at Pease,
NH
(Lat. 43°04′41″ N, long. 70°49′24″ W)
Eliot, Littlebrook Air Park, ME
(Lat. 43°08′35″ N, long. 70°46′24″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL
within a 4.7-mile radius of the Portsmouth
International Airport at Pease, excluding that
airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of the
Littlebrook Air Park.
Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace
Designated as an Extension to Class E
Surface Area.
*
*
*
ANE NH E4
*
*
Portsmouth, NH [Removed]
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward from 700 feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00023
*
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
RIN 1018–BE56
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon) from endangered to
threatened (downlist) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The proposed
downlisting is based on our evaluation
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, which
indicates that the species’ status has
improved such that it is not currently in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, but that
it is still likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. We also propose a
rule under section 4(d) of the Act that
provides for the conservation of palo de
rosa.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
September 13, 2021. 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 August 30, 2021.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37092
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
You may submit comments
on this proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on 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:
Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W (JAO),
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).
Document availability: This proposed
rule, list of literature cited, and
supporting documents are available at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edwin Mun˜iz, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office, P.O.
Box 491, Boquero´n, PR 00622;
telephone (787) 851–7297. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ADDRESSES:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, a species may warrant
reclassification from endangered to
threatened if it no longer meets the
definition of endangered (in danger of
extinction). The palo de rosa is listed as
endangered, and we are proposing to
reclassify (downlist) palo de rosa as
threatened, because we have determined
it is not currently in danger of
extinction. Downlisting a species as a
threatened species can only be
accomplished by issuing a rulemaking.
What this document does. This rule
proposes to reclassify palo de rosa as a
threatened species on the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants and
to establish provisions under section
4(d) of the Act that are necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of this species.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
an endangered species or a threatened
species based on any of the five 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. In our August 2017 5-year
status review, we recommended
downlisting this species from
endangered to threatened based on our
evaluation of these factors. We may
downlist a species if the best available
commercial and scientific data indicate
the species no longer meets the
applicable definition in the Act. We
have determined that palo de rosa is no
longer in danger of extinction and,
therefore, does not meet the definition
of an endangered species. However, the
species meets the definition of a
threatened species under the Act
because it is affected by the following
current and ongoing threats: Habitat
loss, degradation, and fragmentation
from urban development; agricultural
practices and rights-of-way
maintenance, coupled with habitat
intrusion by exotics; other natural or
manmade factors, such as hurricanes;
and this tree’s slow growth, limited
dispersal, and low recruitment.
The information used for our 2017 5year review, and the best currently
available information, indicate that
there are at least 1,144 known
individuals (including adults and
saplings) of palo de rosa. These
individuals are distributed in at least 66
subpopulations (which include the 16
known localities identified at the time
of the recovery plan development)
throughout Puerto Rico. About 25 (38
percent) of those subpopulations show
evidence of reproduction or natural
recruitment (USFWS 2017, p. 6, table 1).
The increase in the number of known
individuals and new localities reflects
increased survey efforts but does not
necessarily indicate that previously
known populations are naturally
expanding their range. Approximately
70 percent of individuals occur in areas
managed under some conservation
status or in areas subject to little habitat
modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region
of Puerto Rico. The remaining
individuals occur within areas severely
encroached and vulnerable to urban or
infrastructure development.
The slow growth of this tree and its
reproductive biology suggest that palo
de rosa is a late successional species,
whose saplings may remain under
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
closed canopy until a natural
disturbance induces favorable
conditions for their development.
Although natural disturbances (e.g.,
tropical storms or hurricanes) can
promote the recruitment of saplings into
adulthood, the palo de rosa population
should be composed of different size
classes in order to be able to withstand
such stochastic events.
Recovery actions such as propagation
and planting have shown to be feasible,
and the species is currently being
propagated by the Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources (PRDNER),
and planted in the Susu´a and Guajataca
Commonwealth Forests, as well as on
lands within Fort Buchanan, owned by
the U.S. Army. We have established a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
with Fort Buchanan and PRDNER to
address the conservation of the species
within Fort Buchanan and to promote
the propagation of palo de rosa for
recovery purposes (U.S. Army, Fort
Buchanan 2015, entire).
We are proposing to promulgate a
section 4(d) rule. We propose to adopt
the Act’s section 9(a)(2) prohibitions as
a means to provide protective
mechanisms to palo de rosa. We also
propose specific tailored exceptions to
these prohibitions to allow certain
activities covered by a permit or by an
approved cooperative agreement to
carry out conservation programs, which
would facilitate the conservation and
recovery of the species.
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 effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not
downlist palo de rosa as a threatened
species.
(2) New information on the historical
and current status, range, distribution,
and population size of palo de rosa.
(3) New information on the known
and potential threats to palo de rosa,
including habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation; habitat intrusion by
exotics; hurricanes; and this tree’s slow
growth, limited dispersal, and low
recruitment.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(4) New information regarding the life
history, ecology, and habitat use of palo
de rosa.
(5) Current or planned activities
within the geographic range of palo de
rosa that may have adverse or beneficial
impacts on the species.
(6) Information on regulations that are
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of palo de rosa and that
the Service can consider in developing
a 4(d) rule for the species.
(7) Information concerning the extent
to which we should include any of the
section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or
whether any other activities should be
excepted from the prohibitions in the
4(d) rule (to the extent permitted by
Commonwealth law).
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, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
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.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://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 at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059 on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all
comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information
we receive (and any comments on that
new information), we may conclude that
the species should remain listed as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
endangered instead of being reclassified
as threatened, or we may conclude that
the species no longer warrants listing as
either an endangered species or a
threatened species. In addition, we may
change the parameters of the
prohibitions or the exceptions to those
prohibitions if we conclude it is
appropriate in light of comments and
new information received.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act 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 and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing. For
the immediate future, we will provide
these public hearings using webinars
that will be announced on the Service’s
website, in addition to the Federal
Register. The use of virtual public
hearings is consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ which was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016,
Director’s Memorandum ‘‘Peer Review
Process,’’ we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding
the scientific data and interpretations
contained in this proposed rule. We will
send copies of this proposed rule to the
peer reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We
will ensure that the opinions of peer
reviewers are objective and unbiased by
following the guidelines set forth in the
Director’s Memo, which updates and
clarifies Service policy on peer review
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016,
entire). The purpose of such review is
to ensure that our decisions are based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly,
our final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Previous Federal Actions
On April 10, 1990, we published a
final rule listing palo de rosa as an
endangered species in the Federal
Register (55 FR 13488). The final rule
identified the following threats to palo
de rosa: Loss of habitat due to past
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37093
deforestation and urban development;
forest management practices that do not
take the species into consideration;
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and the species’
vulnerability to natural disturbances
such as flash flooding along stream
beds. On September 20, 1994, we
completed the recovery plan for this
species (USFWS 1994, entire). We
completed a 5-year status review on
August 9, 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). In
that review, we recommended that palo
de rosa be downlisted to threatened
because new occurrences of the species
have been located and a substantial
number of individuals have been
documented (i.e., 963 adult individuals
(not considering seedlings or saplings)
in 54 subpopulations). The 5-year
review is available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059.
For additional details on previous
Federal actions, see Recovery, below.
See https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/
speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK for the
species profile for this tree.
I. Proposed Reclassification
Determination
Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, ecology, and overall
viability of the palo de rosa was
presented in the 5-year review (USFWS
2017, entire). Below, we present a
summary of the biological and
distributional information discussed in
the 5-year review and new information
published or obtained since.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Palo de rosa is a small evergreen tree
that may reach up to 15 meters (m) (49
feet (ft)) in height and is a member of
the Icacinaceae family (USFWS 1994, p.
1). The branches are smooth and dark
gray and have conspicuous small
lenticels (raised pores on the stem of a
woody plant that allows gas exchange
with the atmosphere and internal
tissues) (Liogier 1994, p. 41). Leaves are
ovate, are rounded or in some cases
elliptic, and occasionally have an acute
apex and short (6–8 millimeters (mm)
(0.2–0.3 inches (in)) petiolate; flowers
are solitary or grouped in a three to five
flower cluster. The fruit is about 2.5
centimeters (cm) (0.98 in) long and up
to 2.2 cm (0.86 in) wide and is smooth
and with a thin outer layer that turns
dark purple when ripe. The seed is
about 2 cm (0.8 in) long (Liogier 1994,
p. 41; Santiago Valentı´n and ViruetOquendo 2013, p. 62). Palo de rosa may
be difficult to identify when sterile.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37094
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Reproductive Biology
When the palo de rosa recovery plan
was written, information about the
flowering and fruiting pattern was
limited due to the species not being
well-studied and the infrequent
observation of reproductive events,
although flowering was observed in May
and July 1993 (USFWS 1994, p. 5). A
morphological description of the palo
de rosa flower and fruit was completed
based on material collected from wild
individuals, cultivated material, and
data from herbarium specimens
(Santiago-Valentı´n and Viruet-Oquendo
2013, entire). The species bears
hermaphrodite flowers, flowers for a
short period at the beginning of the
rainy season and develops fruits
subsequently until November (Breckon
and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; SantiagoValentı´n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p.
62). Few buds and flowers occurred
from April to May, with an explosive
flowering in June, coinciding with the
beginning of the rainy season in May.
Herbarium specimens demonstrated
flowering and fruiting between May and
July, with an exception of one specimen
with flowers collected in December
(Santiago-Valentin and Viruet-Oquendo
2013, p. 62). Flower and fruit
production are documented in
individuals with diameters at breast
high greater than 5 in (12.7 cm). Despite
the high number of adult individuals
reported, only a few reach that stem size
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15;
USFWS 2009, unpubl. data).
The cluster distribution of seedlings
under the parent trees indicates that
seeds are dispersed by gravity.
Subpopulations in northern Puerto Rico
are located on top of limestone hills
indicating that some disperser (e.g.,
animal vector) took them there in the
past (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Fruit-eating
bats are a possible seed disperser
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15).
However, camera monitoring of a tree
bearing mature fruits at the Gua´nica
Commonwealth Forest (GCF) showed
that despite the high availability of
mature fruits, bats ignored them
(Monsegur-Rivera 2004, pers. obs.). The
Puerto Rican flower bat (Phyllonycteris
major) is an extirpated frugivorous bat
(Rodrı´guez-Dura´n and Kunz 2001, p.
358), and could have acted as a natural
disperser of palo de rosa (MonsegurRivera 2004–present, pers. obs.).
Another hypothesis is that bats no
longer recognize palo de rosa fruit as a
food source due to the small size of the
currently known subpopulations when
compared to other food sources
(Monsegur-Rivera 2004–present, pers.
obs.). Dispersal by water has been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
hypothesized for the subpopulations in
the southern coast, as these
subpopulations are located at the
bottom of small drainages. However,
observations in GCF indicate that
establishment of seedlings in these
drainages is low, because seeds are
buried by sediments and small plants
are uprooted by high flows during
storms (Monsegur-Rivera 2007, pers.
obs.).
Due to the infrequency of fruit
production, germination experiments
have been limited. Attempts to
germinate seeds from the Dorado
(Mogotes de Higuillar) population
(northern Puerto Rico) have proven to
be difficult (10 percent success) as the
majority of seeds were attacked by
insects (Coleoptera) (Ruiz Lebro´n 2002,
p. 2). The species also has been
germinated by PRDNER and the
University of Puerto Rico (Caraballo
2009, pers. comm.). In February 2007, a
preliminary germination trial of palo de
rosa obtained a 50 percent germination
success (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl.
data). The germination starts with the
development of a long taproot, probably
an adaptation to secure the
establishment of the seedlings under
closed canopy conditions with a thick
bed of leaf litter. Despite damage to the
apical meristem (tissue in which new
stem and root growth occurs) of the
seedlings, seedlings were able to regrow
and produced a new stem (MonsegurRivera, unpubl. data). This finding
indicates that propagation of the species
is feasible and may be used in palo de
rosa recovery efforts. Palo de rosa is not
known to reproduce vegetatively,
although multiple stems may regrow
from a tree that has been cut.
Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat
Palo de rosa was described by Ignatius
Urban (1908) from material collected by
Leopold Krug near the municipality of
Mayagu¨ez in 1876 (Liogier 1994, p. 42).
Based on the description of the type
locality (area from where the species
was originally collected and described),
the collection site may correspond to an
area known as Cerro Las Mesas. At the
time of listing, palo de rosa was known
from nine individuals in three areas and
considered endemic to Hispaniola and
Puerto Rico (55 FR 13488, April 10,
1990, p. 55 FR 13489). Subpopulations
and populations were not defined or
identified at the time of listing. The
species was known from the limestone
hills near the municipality of Bayamo´n
in northern Puerto Rico, several sites in
the GCF in southwest Puerto Rico, and
one individual on the southern slopes of
the Maricao Commonwealth Forest
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(MCF) (55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990, p.
55 FR 13489).
At the time the recovery plan was
written in 1994, there was little
information on the species’ distribution,
ecology, and reproductive biology;
therefore, in the recovery plan, species
experts considered each subpopulation
or cluster of individuals as a population.
The recovery plan describes additional
individuals observed as a result of
increased survey efforts in suitable
habitat. In the 1994 recovery plan, we
estimated 200 palo de rosa individuals
in 16 populations (now defined as
subpopulations and noted with ‘‘(RP)’’
in the table below). An additional
population (now considered a
subpopulation) was reported in 1996,
increasing the total number of trees to
207 adult individuals (Breckon and
Kolterman 1996, p. 4).
The current understanding of palo de
rosa’s biological and ecological
requirements has led us to define a
population as a geographical area with
unique features (substrate or climate)
and continuous forested habitat that
provides for genetic exchange among
subpopulations (i.e., cross-pollination)
where the species occurs. We further
considered natural barriers (e.g.,
mountain ranges and river valleys) and
extensive gaps of forested habitat to
discern the boundaries of these broader
populations because connectivity
between subpopulations is critical to
support a functional population of palo
de rosa due to the cross-pollination
requirement of the species.
Furthermore, the flowering of palo de
rosa is sporadic and not synchronized,
thus prompting us to further define a
population as groups of subpopulations
that show connectivity to secure crosspollination. Based on the above
information, we have determined palo
de rosa to be distributed across Puerto
Rico in 14 populations composed of 66
subpopulations containing 1,144
individuals (not including seedlings).
Following this approach, 8 of the 14
current populations (containing 47
subpopulations with approximately 804
individuals) occur in the geographical
areas associated with the 16 populations
(now defined as subpopulations)
included in the Service’s 1994 recovery
plan. Since 1994, we have identified 6
additional populations (as currently
defined) composed of 19
subpopulations (342 individuals)
ranging in size from 5 to 124 individuals
in areas associated with remnants of
forested habitat suitable for the species.
Thus, these additional occurrences are
key in understanding the current
condition of the species.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37095
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Currently, the number of palo de rosa
individuals has increased from 9
individuals on protected lands at the
time of listing to 407 individuals
(representing 36 percent of known
individuals or 32 percent of
subpopulations) currently occurring in
areas managed for conservation (e.g.,
Commonwealth Forest and Federal
lands; see table, below). An additional
396 individuals (38 percent of
subpopulations) occur in areas subject
to little habitat modification due to the
steep topography in the northern karst
region of Puerto Rico (see table, below).
The remaining 30 percent of the
subpopulations (containing
approximately 341 individuals) occur
within areas severely encroached and
vulnerable to urban or infrastructure
development (see table, below).
However, the resiliency of all
subpopulations depends on interaction
(cross-pollination) with nearby
subpopulations. Despite the increase in
the number of known subpopulations
and individuals, there are no records of
recruited individuals reaching
reproductive size in the past three
decades. We also do not have any
records of recent dispersal and range
expansion of the species. The following
discussion provides the most updated
information on these populations, and
their respective geographical areas.
TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO
DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO
Gua´nica Commonwealth
(GCF).
Forest
Montes de Barinas .........................
Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas .......................
Susu´a
Commonwealth
(SCF).
Cerro Las
Bermeja.
Mesas
and
Forest
Sierra
Aguadilla-Quebradillas ....................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Municipality
Evidence of
reproduction or
recruitment
La Cobana
(GCF) (RP) 2.
Hoya Honda
(GCF) (RP) 2.
Yauco .................
No ......................
7
2
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Gua´nica ..............
Yes .....................
16
2
Can˜on Los
Murcie´lagos
(GCF) (RP) 2.
Can˜on Las
Eugenias
(GCF).
Can˜on Las
Trichilias
(GCF).
Gua´nica ..............
Yes .....................
5
2
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4;
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 591, MAPR herbarium.3
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Yauco .................
No ......................
3
2
Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs.
Gua´nica ..............
Yes .....................
49
2
Yauco Landfill ....
Yauco .................
Yes .....................
40
2
Montes de
Barinas.
GuayanillaCORCO (RP) 2.
Yauco .................
No ......................
5
0
Breckon and Kolterman 2003, p. 4;
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 240, 252 and 880,
MAPR herbarium 3; Breckon
7012, MAPR herbarium.3
Monsegur-Rivera 2015; Monsegur
1591, MAPR herbarium.3
Morales 2011, pers. comm.
Guayanilla ..........
Yes .....................
53
0
Quebrada PecesSCF (RP) 2.
Quebrada
Grande-SCF
(RP) 2.
Rı´o Loco-SCF
(RP) 2.
Sierra Bermeja
(RP) 2.
Guaniquilla-Buye
(RP) 2.
Aguadilla Road
PR–2.
Ramey Solar Observatory.
Yauco .................
No ......................
11
2
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4;
Monsegur-Rivera 2014, unpubl.
data; Breckon 4590 and 5201,
MAPR herbarium 3; Monsegur
1586, MAPR herbarium.3
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Yauco .................
Yes .....................
59
2
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Yauco .................
No ......................
25
2
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Cabo Rojo-Lajas
No ......................
2
2
Cabo Rojo ..........
No ......................
2
0
Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016; Monsegur
1583, MAPR herbarium.3
Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs.
Aguadilla ............
No ......................
1
0
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
Aguadilla ............
No ......................
1
1
Isabela ...............
No ......................
2
2
Acevedo-Rodrı´guez
2014;
Acevedo-Rodrı´guez 15931, U.S.
5
herbarium.
Monsegur-Rivera 2009; Monsegur
1051, MAPR herbarium.3
Isabela ...............
Yes .....................
14
1
Isabela ...............
No ......................
1
1
Isabela ...............
No ......................
5
1
Isabela ...............
Yes .....................
24
1
PRHTA 4 2007, entire; Monsegur
1559, MAPR herbarium.3
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
Quebradillas .......
No ......................
5
1
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
Quebradillas .......
No ......................
1
1
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
Quebradillas .......
No ......................
2
1
PRDNER 2009, entire; Monsegur
1087, MAPR herbarium.3
Subpopulation
name
Population
Guajataca Commonwealth Forest.
El Costillar-Rı´o
Guajataca
(RP) 2.
Rı´o Guajataca
(RP) 2.
Cara del IndioGuajataca.
El Tu´nelGuajataca
(RP) 2.
Quebrada
Columbiana.
Guajataca Gorge
south.
MerenderoGuajataca.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Number of
adults
Development
threat 2
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Source
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4;
Monsegur 1578, MAPR herbarium.3
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4.
37096
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO
DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued
Population
Municipality
Evidence of
reproduction or
recruitment
Quebradillas .......
No ......................
3
1
Trejo 2441, UPR herbarium.6
Quebradillas .......
Camuy ................
Quebradillas .......
Camuy ................
No ......................
No ......................
No ......................
Yes .....................
4
1
8
10
0
1
0
1
Hatillo .................
No ......................
16
1
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
Trejo 2533, UPR herbarium.6
PRDNER 2015, entire.
USFWS 2017; Breckon 8126,
MAPR herbarium.3
Sustache-Sustache 2010, entire.
Camuy ................
No ......................
2
1
Monsegur-Rivera 2015, entire.
Camuy ................
Hatillo .................
Arecibo ...............
Arecibo ...............
Arecibo ...............
Arecibo-Ciales ....
Yes .....................
No ......................
No ......................
No ......................
No ......................
Yes .....................
33
7
2
12
1
32
1
1
2
2
2
1
Ciales .................
No ......................
2
1
Arecibo ...............
No ......................
2
1
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
PRHTA 4 2007, entire.
Trejo 2408, UPR herbarium.6
Trejo 2462, UPR herbarium.6
Axelrod 8134, UPRRP herbarium.7
Trejo 2222 and 2473, UPR herbarium.6
Sustache 685 and 688, SJ herbarium.8
USFWS 2009, entire.
Arecibo ...............
No ......................
1
1
Cambalache
Commonwealth
Forest (RP) 2.
Tortuguero Lagoon.
Hacienda
Esperanza.
Arecibo ...............
No ......................
15
2
Manati ................
No ......................
1
2
Manati ................
Yes .....................
51
2
Ciudad Me´dica
del Caribe.
Highway PR–604
Highway PR–22
Highway PR–155
Manatı´ ................ Yes .....................
59
1
Manatı´ ................ No ......................
Vega Baja .......... No ......................
Vega Baja .......... Yes .....................
2
7
31
0
0
0
Vega Serena ......
Vega Baja ..........
No ......................
3
0
Productora de
Vega Baja .......... No ......................
Agregados.
Vı´a Verde ........... Manatı´ ................ No ......................
Hacienda
Dorado ............... Yes .....................
Sabanera.
15
0
1
101
1
1
Subpopulation
name
Quebrada
Bellaca.
Arca de Noe .......
Piedra Gorda .....
Quebradillas 481
Camuy-Hatillo ................................. Rı´o Camuy PR–2
(RP) 2.
R. Ortiz and
Sons Quarry.
Rı´o Camuy-Camino del Rı´o.
Rı´o Camuy oeste
Rı´o Camuy este
Arecibo ............................................ Mata de Pla´tano
El Tallonal ..........
Highway PR–10
Utuado-Ciales (Rı´o Encantado) ...... Las Abras ...........
Ciales High
School.
Senderos de
Miraflores.
Miraflores Ward ..
Arecibo-Vega Baja ..........................
Dorado ............................................
La Virgencita ...................................
Mogotes de Nevares ......................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
San Juan-Fajardo ...........................
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Development
threat 2
Source
Acevedo-Rodrı´guez 11717, U.S.
herbarium.5
Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4;
Breckon 8325, MAPR herbarium.3
Breckon 8325, MAPR herbarium.3
Monsegur-Rivera 2009; Monsegur
1038,
MAPR
herbarium 3;
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data.
PRDNER 2013, entire.
Breckon 8153, MAPR herbarium.3
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data.
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data;
Acevedo-Rodrı´guez 12293, U.S.
herbarium.5
Monsegur 1091, MAPR herbarium.3
PRDNER 2009, entire.
Higuillar Avenue
Dorado ...............
Yes .....................
23
0
La Virgencita
south.
Dorado ...............
Yes .....................
41
0
La Virgencita
north.
Rı´o Lajas ............
Highway PR–142
Mogotes de
Nevares.
Mogotes de
Nevares/
Campanilla.
Mogotes de
Nevares/
Holsum.
Primate Center ...
Dorado ...............
Yes .....................
42
0
PREPA 9 2010, entire.
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 1584, MAPR herbarium.3
Monsegur-Rivera and SustacheSustache 2011, entire.
PRDNER 2015; USFWS 2018,
unpubl. data; Monsegur 1648,
MAPR herbarium.3
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data.
Dorado ...............
Dorado ...............
Toa Baja ............
No ......................
No ......................
Yes .....................
5
2
30
0
0
0
Trejo 2276, UPR herbarium.6
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data.
PRDNER 2009, entire.
Toa Baja ............
No ......................
8
0
Morales 2014, entire.
Toa Baja ............
No ......................
13
0
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data.
Toa Baja ............
Yes .....................
4
1
Sabana Seca .....
Parque Monagas
Toa Baja ............
Bayamon ............
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
10
70
2
2
Parque de las
Ciencias.
Fort Buchanan
(RP) 2.
Bayamo´n ............
Yes .....................
39
1
Guaynabo ..........
Yes .....................
25
2
Guaynabo ..........
Yes .....................
30
1
Santiago-Valentı´n
and
RojasVa´zquez 2001, entire.
USFWS 2017, p. 8.
USFWS 2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 1582, MAPR herbarium.3
PRDNER 2013; Proctor 50105, SJ
herbarium.8
USFWS
2018,
unpubl
data;
Rodrı´guez-Cruz
2013,
pers.
comm.; Monsegur 1576, MAPR
herbarium.3
Breckon 5208, MAPR herbarium 3;
Proctor 51111, SJ herbarium.8
Mogotes de
Caneja.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Number of
adults
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37097
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO
DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued
Population
Totals .......................................
Subpopulation
name
Municipality
Evidence of
reproduction or
recruitment
Monte Picao .......
El Convento .......
Cano´vanas .........
Fajardo ...............
Yes .....................
No ......................
46
1
66 Subpopulations.
............................
26 Yes ................
40 No .................
1,144 adults
Number of
adults
Development
threat 2
0
2
Source
PRDNER 2013, entire.
PRDNER 2009; Liogier
UPR herbarium.6
32299,
20 Vulnerable.
25 Low.
21 Protected.
1 In
the Development Threats column, 0 = Vulnerable to development; 1 = Low vulnerability due to topography; and 2 = Protected.
indicates subpopulations known at the time the recovery plan was finalized (1994).
herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the Department of Biology at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.
4 ‘‘PRHTA’’ is the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority.
5 ‘‘U.S. herbarium’’ is the United States National Herbarium.
6 ‘‘UPR herbarium’’ is the Botanical Garden of the University of Puerto Rico.
7 ‘‘UPRRP herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras.
8 ‘‘SJ herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at San Juan.
9 ‘‘PREPA’’ is the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority.
2 (RP)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3 ‘‘MAPR
The distribution of palo de rosa
extends along the southern coast of
Puerto Rico, from the municipality of
Cabo Rojo east to the municipality of
Guayanilla, in five geographical areas or
populations: (1) Gua´nica
Commonwealth Forest, (2) Montes de
Barinas, (3) Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas, (4)
Susu´a Commonwealth Forest, and (5)
Cerro Las Mesas-Sierra Bermeja. In
addition, palo de rosa extends along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico from the
municipality of Aguadilla east to the
municipality of Fajardo in the following
nine areas or populations: (1) AguadillaQuebradillas, (2) Camuy-Hatillo, (3)
Arecibo, (4) Utuado-Ciales, (5) AreciboVega Baja, (6) Dorado, (7) La Virgencita,
(8) Mogotes de Nevares, and (9) San
Juan-Fajardo (USFWS 2017, p. 11).
The range of the species extends to
Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and
Haiti) (Acevedo-Rodrı´guez and Strong,
2012, p. 369; Axelrod 2011, p. 184);
however, there is little information on
the population structure and status of
palo de rosa in these countries, and
information is limited to scattered
herbarium collections. In the Dominican
Republic, the species occurs in
Provincia (Province) de La Altagracia,
Provincia de Samana´, Provincia de
Puerto Plata, Provincia de Pedernales,
and Provincia de San Cristobal (JBSD,
unpubl. data). On the northern coast of
Haiti, palo de rosa has been recorded at
‘‘Massif du Nord’’ along a dry river
(JBSD, unpubl. data). However, these
herbarium specimens provide no data
on the subpopulation or population
abundance or number of associated
individuals. Palo de rosa is categorized
as critically endangered according to the
Red List of Vascular Flora in the
Dominican Republic (Lista Roja de la
Flora Vascular en Repu´blica
Dominicana), an assessment of the
conservation status of all vascular plants
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
conditions at the GCF, natural
recruitment of this species has been
recorded at Can˜o´n Hoya Honda and
Can˜o´n Las Trichilias. The Yauco
Landfill subpopulation provides
connectivity with the northernmost GCF
subpopulation, bringing the GCF
population to 120 (see table, above)
(USFWS 2017, p. 7).
Populations Along the Southern Coast
Montes de Barinas: The range of palo
of Puerto Rico
de rosa extends from the GCF north to
Gua´nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF): the Montes de Barinas hills (range of
The GCF is a natural area comprising
limestone hills along the boundary of
one of the best remnants of subtropical
the municipalities of Yauco and
dry forest vegetation in Puerto Rico and Guayanilla) in habitat similar to that of
still harbors remnants of pristine dry
the GCF (Monsegur-Rivera 2009–2018,
limestone forest (primary vegetation)
pers. obs.). This is a tract of privately
that is prime habitat for palo de rosa
owned lands located primarily along
(Monsegur-Rivera 2009, p. 3). The GCF
Indios Ward in the municipality of
has been managed for conservation
Guayanilla, and Cambalache Ward in
since 1930, following its designation as
the municipality of Yauco. The forest
´ lvarez et al.
a public forest in 1917 (A
was partially logged for charcoal
1990, p. 3; Murphy and Lugo 1990, p.
production and ranching; however, the
15). The climate in this forest is
prime habitat for native and endemic
seasonal, with most precipitation
plant species remains undisturbed due
occurring between September and
to its marginal agricultural value (79 FR
October (Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278).
53315, September 9, 2014, p. 79 FR
53326). The number of palo de rosa
All known palo de rosa
individuals may be greater than the five
subpopulations found within the dry
currently known, as this habitat has not
limestone forests along the southern
coast of Puerto Rico occur at the bottom been adequately surveyed (Morales
2011, pers. comm.).
of forested ravines (areas that provide
Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas: The range of
enough moisture for seedling
palo de rosa extends east to Cedro Ward
recruitment). These ravines are mesic
in the municipality of Guayanilla,
(moist) habitats where evidence of
where the species was collected along a
natural recruitment has been
forested drainage (MAPR, unpubl. data).
documented (Monsegur-Rivera 2003–
This population is composed of at least
2018, pers. obs.). Eighty palo de rosa
53 individuals, with some evidence of
individuals have been documented in
five subpopulations within the GCF (see natural recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera
2014, unpubl. data), suggesting the
table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman
1993, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2009–2018, population is stable (USFWS 2017, p.
15) (see table, above). Additional
pers. obs.; USFWS 2018, unpubl. data).
subpopulations may occur on
Fruit production has been recorded at
undisturbed habitat remnants of
Can˜o´n Hoya Honda, Can˜o´n Los
evergreen dry forest over limestone
Murcie´lagos, and Can˜o´n Las Trichilias
substrate in the municipality of
(USFWS 2017, pp. 7–8) (see table 1,
Pen˜uelas (north of the Pen˜uelas
above). Despite the overall dry habitat
in the Dominican Republic as
determined by the Ministry of Higher
Education Science and Technology
Ministry (Garcia et al. 2016, p. 4).
The following information
summarizes the current abundance,
distribution, and habitat of palo de rosa
populations in Puerto Rico.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37098
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Landfill) (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers.
obs.).
Susu´a Commonwealth Forest (SCF):
The habitat of palo de rosa includes
moist drainages and rivers on serpentine
soils within the Susu´a Commonwealth
Forest (SCF). Palo de rosa is known
from 95 individuals (including saplings)
in three subpopulations in the SCF (see
table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman
1993, p. 4; UPR, unpubl. data). No
seedlings have been recorded in surveys
of the SCF population (Breckon and
Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Hamilton 2018, p.
31).
Similar habitat on serpentine soils
extends northwest of the SCF to the
boundaries of the MCF. In this forest,
palo de rosa is historically known from
a single individual in the upper
watershed of the Rı´o Cupeyes (Cupeyes
River), on the edge of former State Road
PR–362 (MAPR, unpubl. data). The palo
de rosa tree was apparently killed due
to lightning damage, although other
individuals may occur in this
inaccessible area (Monsegur-Rivera
2006, pers. obs.).
Cerro Las Mesas (Mayagu¨ez) and
Sierra Bermeja (Lajas and Cabo Rojo):
The type specimen collected in 1876
was likely collected between Cerro Las
Mesas in the municipality of Mayagu¨ez
and the area north of Poblado Rosario in
the municipality of San German
(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.).
Cerro Las Mesas is the westernmost
distribution of the serpentine outcrops
in Puerto Rico and lies within the
subtropical moist forest life zone (Ewel
and Witmore 1973, p. 72). Palo de rosa
was misidentified in the Sierra Bermeja
subpopulation, then discovered in 2015
at La Tinaja on the Laguna Cartegena
National Wildlife Refuge (LCNWR) and
in 2016 on a property known as Finca
Marı´a Luisa, currently under a
conservation easement managed by Para
La Naturaleza, Inc. (PLN), the
operational unit of The Conservation
Trust of Puerto Rico (see table, above)
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 6; PLN
2013, entire; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p.
9; MAPR, unpubl. data). The Sierra
Bermeja subpopulation co-occurs with
five other federally listed plants,
indicating high-quality habitat with
potential for undetected palo de rosa.
The two individuals in the GuaniquillaBuye subpopulation occur in an area
with small hills with limestone outcrops
that is located about 9.6 kilometers (6
miles) west-northwest of Sierra Bermeja,
adjacent to an area known as Punta
Guaniquilla in the municipality of Cabo
Rojo (see table, above) (Va´zquez and
Kolterman 1998, p. 277).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Populations Along the Northern Coast of
Puerto Rico
Palo de rosa also occurs in the
northern limestone belt in the karst
region of Puerto Rico. This area along
the northern coast is important to the
conservation of palo de rosa (USFWS
2017, p.11). Despite deforestation for
agriculture in the 1930s, a west-to-east
band of continuous forested landscape
extends from Aguadilla to San Juan, and
additional limestone outcrops extend to
the northeast corner of Puerto Rico in
the municipalities of Loı´za and Fajardo
(Lugo et al. 2001, pp. 1–2; Miller and
Lugo 2009, p. 95). The southern and
northern limestone belts differ in
climate, with wet and moist life zones
(sensu Holdridge 1967) characterizing
the environmental conditions along the
north coast of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al.
2001, p. 5). The karst area is
characterized by a steep topography and
a dense concentration of haystack hills
or mogotes, with valleys and sinkholes
between the hills (Lugo et al. 2001, p.
11). The steep topography and low
agricultural value provide refugia and
serve as a seed source for natural
regeneration on adjacent forested lands
following the abandonment of
agricultural lands.
Aguadilla-Quebradillas (including the
Rı´o Guajataca): Fourteen
subpopulations make up the AguadillaQuebradillas population. The
westernmost subpopulation of palo de
rosa occurs in the municipality of
Aguadilla (USFWS 2017, p. 7). The two
subpopulations in this municipality are
single trees, with no evidence of
recruitment (see table, above)
(Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; UPR
unpubl. data). Rare endemic plants
along the cliff areas from Aguadilla to
Quebradillas highlight the good habitat
quality; hence, more individuals of palo
de rosa may occur in this area and in
suitable habitat south and east of the
municipality of Aguadilla, along an area
known as Cordillera Jaicoa, a rough
karst region between the municipalities
of Moca and Isabela (Caraballo and
Santiago-Valentı´n 2011, p. 2; AcevedoRodrı´guez 2014, p. 7).
Cordillera Jaicoa extends east to the
Guajataca Commonwealth Forest
(GuCF), which is in the municipality of
Isabela and covers about 2,357 ac (953.8
ha) (PRDNER 2008, p. 1). Palo de rosa
is known from one subpopulation at the
GuCF with no evidence of recruitment
(USFWS 2017, p. 7). Fifty-two
individuals in seven subpopulations of
palo de rosa occur in or near the Rı´o
Guajataca (Guajataca Gorge), with
natural recruitment recorded in the two
largest subpopulations (see table, above)
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4;
Monsegur-Rivera 2003–2018, pers. obs.;
PRHTA 2007, pp. 16–18; USFWS 2017,
p. 7).
Four additional scattered
subpopulations with 16 palo de rosa
individuals occur in the municipality of
Quebradillas and Camuy (PRHTA 2007,
pp. 16–18; PRDNER 2015, p. 16; UPR,
unpubl. data), just east of Lago
Guajataca (Guajataca Reservoir). Thus,
the current number of individuals for
the subpopulations in Aguadilla, the
GuCF, the Guajataca Gorge, and
neighboring lands is at least 72
individuals distributed along variable
size classes, and with evidence of
recruitment in at least two
subpopulations (see table, above).
Camuy-Hatillo (Rı´o Camuy): Another
population of palo de rosa occurs along
the margins of the Rı´o Camuy, between
the municipalities of Camuy and
Hatillo. Five subpopulations have been
discovered since 2006 (see table, above)
(Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7;
Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.;
MAPR, unpubl. data). Two
subpopulations have seedlings and
evidence of recruitment (see table,
above) (PRHTA 2007, p. 19; Morales
2014, unpubl. data; USFWS 2017, p. 8).
One subpopulation was recorded during
the evaluation for a proposed quarry
expansion and noted in association with
other endemic trees (e.g., Manilkara
pleeana (mameyuelo) and Polygala
cowellii (a´rbol de violeta)) (SustacheSustache 2010, p. 7). As the Guajataca
Gorge and the Rı´o Camuy areas remain
relatively unexplored, we expect
additional individuals of palo de rosa
may occur there. The current estimated
number of palo de rosa individuals in
the Camuy-Hatillo population is 68
adults (see table, above).
Arecibo (including Rı´o Tanama´ and
Rı´o Abajo Commonwealth Forest):
Farther east, three palo de rosa
subpopulations occur in the Arecibo
municipality. Two of the three
subpopulations occur in the 159-ha
(392-ac) natural areas of El Tallonal and
Mata de Pla´tano with an approved
Private Forest Stewardship Management
Plan (PRDNER 2005, entire). Available
information indicates that at least 15
individuals occur on El Tallonal, Mata
de Pla´tano, and the Rı´o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest (RACF) (see
table, above). Additional
subpopulations may occur along the
margins of the Rı´o Tanama´ (Tanama´
River) and the steep cliff areas in the
RACF. The forested corridor of the Rı´o
Tanama´ connects Mata de Pla´tano and
El Tallonal to the RACF between the
municipalities of Arecibo and Utuado,
where palo de rosa also occurs.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Although palo de rosa is known only
from one individual in the RACF
collected in 1994, suitable habitat
occurs within the RACF and the species
may be found within the forest
boundaries (Acevedo-Rodrı´guez and
Axelrod 1999, p. 277).
Utuado-Ciales (Rı´o Encantado): Palo
de rosa subpopulations extend east of
Lago Dos Bocas (Dos Bocas Reservoir)
from Finca Opiola east to the town of
Ciales (Rı´o Encantado), in habitat
similar to the RACF. The general area is
known as the Rı´o Encantado Natural
Protected Area, a mosaic of forested
habitat among the municipalities of
Florida, Manatı´, and Ciales, occupying
736 ha (1,818 ac) managed by PLN (PLN
2011b, p. 5). At least 37 palo de rosa
individuals occur in four
subpopulations, with one subpopulation
(Las Abras) showing some evidence of
recruitment. The Rı´o Encantado area
remains botanically unexplored due to
the remoteness and steepness of the
terrain; thus, we anticipate that
additional palo de rosa subpopulations
may occur in the Rı´o Encantado area.
Additional subpopulations of this
species extend north to a low (west to
east) chain of mogotes at Miraflores
Ward, in Arecibo.
Arecibo-Vega Baja (including
Cambalache Commonwealth Forest
(CCF), Laguna Tortuguero Natural
Reserve (LTNR), and Hacienda La
Esperanza Natural Reserve): The
Arecibo-Vega Baja population includes
10 subpopulations, 3 of which show
evidence of recruitment (see table,
above). Subpopulations occur within
the protected areas of the CCF, the
LTNR between the municipalities of
Manatı´ and Vega Alta, and at Hacienda
La Esperanza Natural Reserve in the
municipality of Manatı´ (see table,
above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p.
4; PLN 2011a, p. 3). Hacienda La
Esperanza Natural Reserve is managed
by PLN, and covers an area of
approximately 925 ha (2,286 ac)
between the CCF and the LTNR,
including a coastal valley with
cemented sand dunes and a series of
mogotes that provide habitat for palo de
rosa (PLN 2011a, p. 3). Additional palo
de rosa individuals may occur in this
subpopulation as the entire area with
suitable habitat has not been surveyed.
Five additional subpopulations of the
species occur on private lands in the
municipalities of Manatı´ and Vega Baja
(see table, above). Thus, the current
number of individuals for the region
between the CCF, Hacienda La
Esperanza Natural Reserve, LTNR, and
neighboring private lands is at least 185
plants (see table, above). An historical
specimen from Islote Ward in Arecibo
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
indicates the species’ habitat extended
to the sand dunes in the past (UPR,
unpubl. data). However, this specimen
is from the 1940s, and the area of Islote
has been almost entirely deforested for
agriculture and urban development, we
have determined this subpopulation is
extirpated (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers.
obs.).
Dorado (Mogotes de Higuillar): The
area of Mogotes de Higuillar represents
high-quality habitat for palo de rosa as
evidenced by the two subpopulations
with strong recruitment. The Hacienda
Sabanera subpopulation (formerly
known as Hacienda San Martı´n) was
assessed pre- and post-hurricane and
showed no loss of individuals (84 and
101, respectively) and had different size
classes represented (see table, above)
(USFWS 2017, p. 8; USFWS 2018, p.
12). The higher number of palo de rosa
individuals recorded during 2018 does
not mean a population increase
compared to previous surveys as neither
assessment covered the entire area of
suitable habitat. The subpopulation
discovered in 2011 just south of the
Hacienda Sabanera subpopulation
shows strong evidence of recruitment as
well with adult trees, saplings, and
hundreds of seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera
and Sustache 2011, p. 3; USFWS 2017,
p. 8). Thus, the number of palo de rosa
individuals for the area comprising
Mogotes de Higuillar and neighboring
lands is at least 124, with evidence of
natural recruitment that includes
seedlings and saplings (see table,
above).
La Virgencita: The distribution of palo
de rosa extends south of Highway PR–
22, to the area known as Cruce La
Virgencita where the species was
recorded in 2014. Of the four
subpopulations, the La Virgencita south
subpopulation habitat is highlighted by
the presence of multiple endemic
species and species with narrow
distribution (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13–15).
The four subpopulations in La
Virgencita and adjacent mogotes are
made up of at least 90 trees, with
evidence of saplings and seedlings in
the two La Virgencita subpopulations
(see table, above). The presence of other
rare species in adjacent mogotes is an
indicator of potentially suitable palo de
rosa habitat with little disturbance and
highlights the possible occurrence of
additional individuals.
Mogotes de Nevares and Sabana Seca:
The range of palo de Rosa extends west
of Rı´o La Plata (La Plata River) to an
area known as Mogotes de Nevares and
north to the former Sabana Seca Naval
Station in the municipality of Toa Baja.
There are scattered records of the
species from the area of Mogotes de
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37099
Nevares, but early collections do not
estimate abundance. The five
subpopulations in Mogotes de Nevares
include three subpopulations (Mogotes
de Navares, Primate Center, and Sabana
Seca) with evidence of recruitment (see
table, above). A subpopulation occurs
on the former Sabana Seca Naval Station
and a second on an adjacent area near
the Primate Research Center (SantiagoValentı´n and Rojas Va´zquez 2001, p. 57;
Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.). The
best available information and recent
survey data in the area of Mogotes de
Nevares account for at least 65
individuals of different size classes,
including seedlings (see table, above).
Due to the good quality of the habitat
and the presence of remnants of native
vegetation, it is very likely additional,
undetected subpopulations of palo de
rosa occur along these mogotes.
San Juan Metropolitan Area
(including neighboring municipalities of
Bayamo´n and Guaynabo, and east to
Fajardo): In the metropolitan area of San
Juan, palo de rosa occurs at four
subpopulations in the municipalities of
Bayamo´n (2) and Guaynabo (2) (see
table, above). Five of the subpopulations
in the San Juan-Fajardo population
show evidence of recruitment; only the
El Convento subpopulation does not.
The Parque Monagas subpopulation
occurs in a small, forested area managed
for recreation and shows evidence of
recruitment post-Hurricane Marı´a
(USFWS 2018, p. 21). The palo de rosa
subpopulation in Fort Buchanan is
noted in the 1994 recovery plan, and
saplings and new seedlings were noted
in a post-Hurricane Marı´a assessment
(USFWS 2018, p. 25). The Fort
Buchanan and Mogotes de Caneja
subpopulations are part of a larger chain
of mogotes known as Mogotes de Caneja
that were fragmented due to the
construction of Highway PR–22. Two
subpopulations (Monte Picao and El
Convento) occur east of the
municipality of San Juan in small
limestone outcrops (see table, above).
Based on the available information, the
palo de rosa subpopulations at Parque
de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and
Fort Buchanan (including the entire area
of Mogotes de Caneja), and the scattered
subpopulations along northeast Puerto
Rico, are estimated at least 211
individuals, including saplings, and
with evidence of seedling recruitment
(see table, above).
Palo de rosa occurs in variable
habitats but is dependent on the specific
microhabitat conditions. On dry
limestone forest like the GCF, the
species occurs at the bottom of
drainages that provide moisture,
whereas at the SCF, palo de rosa occurs
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37100
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
along the borders of rivers. The
subpopulations along the northern karst
of Puerto Rico are found on the top of
limestone hills, possibly because those
areas have no agricultural value, and so
were not impacted by conversion to
agricultural lands. Such variability in
habitats indicates the species’ current
fragmented distribution and lack of
connectivity between populations are
the result of earlier land-clearing and
habitat modification. Information from
specimens deposited at multiple
herbaria (i.e., New York Botanical
Garden, Smithsonian Institution, UPR,
UPRRP, and MAPR) suggests palo de
rosa was originally more common and
widespread throughout Puerto Rico.
Recruitment and Population Structure
At least 25 subpopulations of the 66
subpopulations show evidence of fruit
production and seedling or sapling
recruitment (see table, above) (USFWS
2017, pp. 8, 11–12). Fruit production
and seed germination have been
documented in several subpopulations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2016, pers. obs.).
However, individual palo de rosa trees
grow extremely slowly and the growth
of the saplings is also quite slow, with
an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3
ft) after 20 years growth. Therefore, it is
estimated that, under natural
conditions, individuals of palo de rosa
may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size, and the currently
known subpopulations are experiencing
slow recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera
2018, pers. obs.). In addition, seeds of
this species are not dispersed by any
discernible method other than gravity.
Thus, recruitment is limited to the
proximity of the parental tree, limiting
the species’ potential to colonize further
suitable habitat, and limiting the
survival of clustered seedlings due to
closed canopy conditions and
competition with the parental tree.
Palo de rosa is a late successional
species and requires several decades to
reach a reproductive size under natural
conditions. Evidence from herbarium
specimens suggests that palo de rosa
once extended to the coastal lowlands of
Puerto Rico, including dune ecosystems.
Population dynamics and survey
assessments support the hypothesis that
palo de rosa is a late successional
species, whose saplings may remain
dormant under closed canopy
conditions, until there is some natural
disturbance that provides favorable
conditions for the development of the
saplings. Thus, the species may require
an open canopy to promote seedling
growth and is adapted to natural
disturbances such as hurricanes
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
this scenario, the natural populations
show a slow natural recruitment that
requires stable habitat conditions with a
regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering
and fruiting) have been associated with
bigger trees as observed in four
subpopulations, where tree diameters
reach 13–20.5 cm (5.1–8.1 in) and
canopies are higher (at least 10 m) (32.8
ft) (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8;
USFWS 2009, p. 4). For example, one
large tree in the El Costillar-Rı´o
Guajataca (subpopulation had an
estimated 1,000 seedlings under one
tree with an almost 90 percent
survivorship of 156 monitored seedlings
after 18 months (Breckon and Kolterman
1992, p. 8). Further visits to this
subpopulation indicate the survival of
seedlings and saplings remains high,
with evidence of additional recruitment
(Monsegur-Rivera 2007, 2012, and 2014,
pers. obs.).
Recruitment may be intermittent in
some subpopulations. For example, a
subpopulation with no seedling survival
following a fruiting event in 2004 was
noted to contain about 30 small saplings
in the post-Hurricane Marı´a assessment
in 2018, suggesting the subpopulation is
slowly recruiting (USFWS 2018, p. 25).
Since 2009, hundreds of seedlings have
been recorded in the Fort Buchanan
subpopulation (Monsegur-Rivera 2009–
present, pers. obs.). In 2018, at least 12
saplings ranging from 0.3–1.0 m (0.9–3.3
ft) were observed. Saplings this size can
withstand seasonal drought stress, and
individuals are likely to persist in the
long term if the habitat remains
unaltered. Cross-pollination between
subpopulation maximizes the likelihood
of fruit production and contributes to
recruitment, which underscores the
importance of conserving the species
through a landscape approach.
Of the 26 subpopulations currently
showing evidence of natural
recruitment, 9 of the 26 occur in areas
that are managed for conservation. The
9 subpopulations constitute 36 percent
of subpopulations showing natural
recruitment and contain nearly 300
individuals in total. There is no
evidence of natural recruitment at this
time for the remaining 40
subpopulations, although the species’
life history implies that recruitment may
still occur in these populations when a
canopy opening is created and suitable
conditions for recruitment are present.
Forest cover in Puerto Rico has
increased since the widespread
deforestation in the 1930s–1950s
(Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but
the availability of suitable habitat prior
to deforestation and habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fragmentation implies palo de rosa may
have had greater abundance and wider
distribution. Although current
information on population structure
indicates the species requires some
open canopy areas to promote
recruitment, widespread deforestation
fragments habitat and creates edges
(habitat transition zones). The possible
long-term negative effects of habitat
fragmentation and edge effect on
subpopulations with recruitment
adjacent to habitat disturbance are still
unknown. Current observations from the
2018 post-hurricane assessment suggest
subpopulations encroached by
development or agriculture were
negatively affected by weedy vegetation
invading the habitat following
Hurricane Marı´a (e.g., Cayaponia
americana (bejuco de torero), Dioscorea
alata (n˜ame), and Thunbergia
grandiflora (pompeya). However, the
extent of such impact remains uncertain
and further monitoring is needed. Such
information highlights the effect of
habitat fragmentation on the natural
recruitment of palo de rosa.
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered and threatened species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. Recovery plans must, to the
maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which,
when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of the Act, that
the species be removed from the list.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for
us and our partners on methods of
enhancing conservation and minimizing
threats to listed species, as well as
measurable criteria against which to
evaluate progress towards recovery and
assess the species’ likely future
condition. However, they are not
regulatory documents and do not
substitute for the determinations and
promulgation of regulations required
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A
decision to revise the status of a species,
or to delist a species is ultimately based
on an analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data available to determine
whether a species is no longer an
endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that
information differs from the recovery
plan.
There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species,
and recovery may be achieved without
all criteria being fully met. For example,
one or more criteria may be exceeded
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
while other criteria may not yet be
accomplished. In that instance, we may
determine that the threats are
minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no
longer meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. In
other cases, we may discover new
recovery opportunities after having
finalized the recovery. Parties seeking to
conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new
information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new
information may change the extent to
which existing criteria are appropriate
for identifying recovery of the species.
The recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management
that may, or may not, fully follow all of
the guidance provided in a recovery
plan.
The following discussion provides an
analysis of the recovery criteria and
goals as they relate to evaluating the
status of the taxon. The recovery plan
for this species does not provide
downlisting criteria (USFWS 1994,
entire). The recovery plan for palo de
rosa indicates the species could be
considered for delisting when the
following criteria are met: (1)
Populations known to occur on
privately owned land are placed under
protective status; (2) an agreement
between the Service and the U.S. Army
concerning the protection of the species
on their land (Fort Buchanan) has been
prepared and implemented; and (3)
mechanisms for the protection of palo
de rosa have been incorporated into
management plans for Maricao,
Gua´nica, Susu´a, and Cambalache
Commonwealth Forests. Also, the plan
notes that given the discovery of
additional populations, priority should
be given to enhancement and protection
of existing populations in protected
areas and the protection of palo de rosa
on privately owned land (USFWS 1994,
p. 13). At the time the recovery plan was
written, only 200 individuals in 16
populations (currently defined as
subpopulations) were known. In
addition, the lack of recruitment in palo
de rosa populations was not known to
be a concern; therefore, recovery criteria
primarily address protection of palo de
rosa habitat. We apply our current
understanding of the species’ range,
biology, and threats to these delisting
criteria to support our rationale for why
downlisting is appropriate.
Delisting criterion 1 has been partially
met. At the time the recovery plan was
written, 4 of 16 populations (now
defined as subpopulations) occurred on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
private lands. Currently, of the 66
known palo de rosa subpopulations, 45
are located within private lands. From
those 45, 3 subpopulations (i.e., 7
percent of subpopulations, or 65
individuals) are under protective status
(e.g., Hacienda Esperanza, El Tallonal,
and Mata de Pla´tano) (see table, above).
The subpopulations on the private
natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata
de Pla´tano are protected from habitat
modification, and each has an approved
private forest stewardship management
plan that includes measures for the
protection of listed species within the
property (PRDNER 2005, entire). The
palo de rosa individuals found at
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve
are protected, as this reserve also is
managed for conservation by PLN, and
the management plan considers palo de
rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67).
Additional conservation efforts have
been implemented throughout
coordination among the Service, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and PRDNER resulting in the protection
in perpetuity of approximately 257 acres
of private forested habitat adjacent to
the northern boundary of the GCF,
which will benefit the Yauco Landfill
palo de rosa subpopulation (PRDNER
2015, p. 1). This conservation effort
maintains the connectivity between
subpopulations and maximizes the
species’ viability. In addition, the
PRDNER acquired private lands that
included suitable habitat for palo de
rosa and incorporated them into the
GCF, increasing the protected area from
the approximately 4,016 ha (9,923 ac) in
1996, to at least 4,400 ha (10,872 ac)
(Monsegur 2009, p. 8).
While this criterion has only been
partially met, with the identification of
additional individuals, populations, and
subpopulations, of the 1,144 palo de
rosa individuals known, only 341 (29
percent) occur on private lands with no
protection. Currently, 407 individuals
(representing 36 percent of known
individuals or 32 percent of
subpopulations) occur in areas managed
for conservation.
Together with our partners, we have
met delisting criterion 2. In 2015, the
Service signed an MOU with the U.S.
Army and PRDNER for the protection,
management, and recovery of palo de
rosa at Fort Buchanan (U.S. Army, Fort
Buchanan 2015, entire). As a result, the
mogote where palo de rosa is found at
the military base is managed for
conservation, propagation and planting
of palo de rosa has taken place, and the
species is frequently monitored (USACE
2014, p. 3). Nonetheless, the viability of
the Fort Buchanan subpopulation is
influenced by interaction with other
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37101
individuals in neighboring private lands
and areas subject to development.
Lastly, we determine delisting
criterion 3 to be obsolete. Although
species-specific management plans do
not exist for Commonwealth forests, the
natural reserves are managed for
conservation by PRDNER as
recommended by the Master Plan for the
Commonwealth Forests of Puerto Rico
(DNR 1976, entire). These management
efforts prevent adverse impacts to plants
and animals, particularly listed species
such as palo de rosa, and their habitats.
Forest management protects palo de
rosa along the southern coast of Puerto
Rico where the GCF and SCF
subpopulations (175 individuals) are
located within the boundaries of these
forests. The development of effective
conservation mechanisms for the
species outside Commonwealth forests
also protects palo de rosa, as
components of the resiliency of
populations (e.g., effective crosspollination, fruit set, and natural
recruitment) depend on the interactions
among neighboring subpopulations.
Thus, we continue working with
PRDNER and other partners to monitor
and survey suitable unexplored habitat
for palo de rosa, to develop sound
conservation strategies, and to
proactively identify priority areas for
conservation. Such conservation
measures may include the maintenance
and enhancement of effective forested
buffer areas and corridors to provide
connectivity between palo de rosa
subpopulations, and to secure the
microhabitat conditions necessary to
promote the species’ recruitment.
In conclusion, the implementation of
recovery actions, in addition to the
identification of numerous additional
individuals and subpopulations, have
reduced the risk of extinction for palo
de rosa. Of the 1,144 adult palo de rosa
individuals known, only 341 (29
percent) occur on private lands with no
protection. Currently, 407 individuals
(representing 36 percent of known
individuals or 32 percent of
subpopulations) occur in areas managed
for conservation. Although many
individuals occur on protected lands,
we have identified 20 subpopulations
throughout Puerto Rico where habitat
modification and fragmentation can still
occur. Puerto Rico’s laws and
regulations protect palo de rosa on both
public and private lands, and other
protection mechanisms (i.e.,
conservation easements) have been
implemented, but impacts to palo de
rosa subpopulations may occur due to
lack of enforcement, misidentification of
the species, agricultural practices, and
unregulated activities (see Summary of
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37102
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Biological Status and Threats, below).
Based on the biology of palo de rosa and
its dependence on cross-pollination,
impacts that reduce connectivity
between subpopulations may affect the
breeding capacity of the species, and
thus its long-term recruitment and
viability. The recovery of palo de rosa
will include collaboration and
partnership efforts with PRDNER and
private landowners to develop
conservation strategies and
recommendations when evaluating
urban and infrastructure development
projects that could affect these
subpopulations. Recovery efforts should
be directed towards landscape planning
and management strategies that would
ensure abundance and distribution of
palo de rosa subpopulations to allow
cross-pollination and recruitment and
contribute to the long-term recovery of
palo de rosa.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Regulatory Framework
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 is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘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:
(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 consider these same five
factors in downlisting a species from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
endangered to threatened or delisting a
species (50 CFR 424.11(c)–(e)).
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
expected response by the species, 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 now and in the
foreseeable future.
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. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far
into the future as we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats
and the species’ responses to those
threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time
in which we can make reliable
predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean
‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable
if it is reasonable to depend on it when
making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
We consider 50 years to be the
foreseeable future within which we can
reasonably determine the threats, the
magnitude of those threats, and the
species’ response to those threats. The
foreseeable future for the individual
factors and threats vary. However, based
on the available information from
ongoing monitoring of populations
known at the time of listing, it is
estimated that under natural conditions,
individuals of palo de rosa may require
at least 40 years to reach a reproductive
size, and the reproductive ecology of
palo de rosa is consistent with late
successional species. Within 50 years,
an individual plant of palo de rosa
would reach a reproductive size and
effectively contribute to the next
generation. Therefore, this timeframe
accounts for maturation, the probability
of flowering, effective cross-pollination,
setting viable fruits, seed germination,
and early seedling survival and
establishment, taking into account
environmental stochastic events such as
drought periods. Some palo de rosa life
stages are more sensitive to a particular
threat (e.g., seedling and sapling
susceptibility to drought conditions);
therefore, the species’ response to
threats in all life stages and the effects
of these responses can be reasonably
determined within the foreseeable
future (50 years). We can also
reasonably predict development and
habitat fragmentation and modification
within this timeframe based on current
trends. Furthermore, the established
timeframe for the foreseeable future
provides for the design and
implementation of conservation
strategies to protect and enhance
currently known populations.
In terms of climate, we recognize that
modelled projections for Puerto Rico are
characterized by some divergence and
uncertainty later in the century
(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). However,
we have reasonable confidence in
projections within a 50-year timeframe
representing the foreseeable future for
palo de rosa because uncertainty is
reduced within this timeframe. We
assessed the climate changes expected
in the year 2070 and determined that
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
downscaled future climate change
scenarios indicate that Puerto Rico is
predicted to experience changes in
climate that will affect palo de rosa
(Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). Thus,
using a 50-year timeframe for the
foreseeable future allows us to account
for the effects of projected changes in
temperature, the shifting of life zones,
and an increase in droughts in the
habitat.
Analytical Framework
The 5-year review (USFWS 2017,
entire) documents the results of our
comprehensive biological status review
for the species, including an assessment
of the potential threats to the species.
The following is a summary of the key
results and conclusions from the 5-year
review and the best available
information gathered since that time.
The 5-year review can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
Below, 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.
Habitat Destruction and Modification
Habitat destruction and modification,
including forest management practices,
were identified as factors affecting the
continued existence of palo de rosa
when it was listed in 1990 (55 FR
13488; April 10, 1990). At present,
forest management practices within
Commonwealth forests are not
considered a threat to palo de rosa
because of existing regulatory
mechanisms and lack of evidence of
direct impacts to the species due to
forest management practices. For
example, although there is evidence of
palo de rosa individuals with multiple
stems due to historical deforestation and
harvesting for charcoal production in
the GCF, selective harvesting and
deforestation is no longer a threat to the
GCF population. Similar to the GCF, the
palo de rosa SCF population (i.e.,
Quebrada Peces, Quebrada Grande, and
Rı´o Loco subpopulations) is also
entirely under conservation, and we
have no evidence of adverse impacts to
the species due to forest management
practices.
However, that is not necessarily the
case on private lands; the
subpopulations of Montes de Barinas
and Guayanilla-CORCO remain
vulnerable to deforestation and habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
modification. In Montes de Barinas,
palo de rosa occurs on private
properties subject to urban
development, resulting in encroachment
of native dry forest areas, and thus in
the isolation of palo de rosa (see 79 FR
53307, September 9, 2014, with
reference to threats in the same area).
These areas also are threatened by
deforestation for cattle grazing and the
extraction of timber for fence posts
(Roma´n-Guzman 2006, p. 40; see 79 FR
53307, September 9, 2014). In fact,
active extraction of timber for fence
posts has been reported adjacent to the
Montes de Barinas subpopulation and
on a neighboring property with other
endemic species, with palo de rosa
individuals in the Montes de Barinas
population likely to be cut if harvesting
continued (Monsegur-Rivera 2003–2006,
pers. obs.; Morales 2011, pers. comm.).
In addition, the area of Montes de
Barinas showed evidence of bulldozing
and subdivision for urban development
(Roma´n-Guzman 2006, p. 40).
The habitat at the Guayanilla-CORCO
population is impacted on a regular
basis by the Puerto Rico Energy and
Power Authority (PREPA) for the
maintenance of power lines and
associated rights-of-way (USFWS 2017,
p. 16). Impacts to the species’ habitat
have been reported in that area as a
result of construction of access roads to
PREPA towers (Monsegur-Rivera 2014–
2020, pers. obs.). Such habitat
disturbance and modification affect the
integrity of palo de rosa habitat and
likely results in direct and indirect
impacts to individuals. In fact, some
access roads go through drainages that
provide good habitat for palo de rosa
and could affect microhabitat conditions
necessary for seedling germination and
recruitment. In addition, these dirt
access roads provide corridors for the
establishment of exotic plant species
like guinea grass (Megathyrsus
maximus) and zarcilla (Leucaena
leucocephala), which outcompete the
native vegetation (including palo de
rosa) and promote favorable conditions
for human-induced fires (USFWS 2017,
p. 16). Moreover, these dirt roads are
used to access the forested habitat for
harvesting of timber for fence posts
(Monsegur-Rivera 2014, pers. obs.).
Similarly, the habitat in the
municipalities of Pen˜uelas and Ponce
(i.e., Punta Cucharas) near the
Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas population has
been severely fragmented by urban
development (e.g., housing
development, hotels, a jail, a landfill,
rock quarries, and highway PR–2) (see
79 FR 53307, September 9, 2014), and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37103
due to maintenance of PREPA power
lines (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. obs.).
In Sierra Bermeja and Cerro las Mesas,
private forested lands also have been
impacted through deforestation, mainly
for agricultural practices (i.e., grazing by
cattle and goats, and associated
conversion of forested habitat to
grasslands) and some urban
development (i.e., construction of
houses and roads) (Ceden˜o-Maldonado
and Breckon 1996, p. 349; USFWS 1998,
p. 6; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 6). Most
of the Sierra Bermeja mountain range
was zoned with specific restrictions on
development activities to protect the
natural resources of the area (JPPR 2009,
pp. 151–153). This zoning allows for
agricultural activities and construction
of residential homes with the
implementation of best management
practices and some limitations (JPPR
2009, p. 151; JPPR 2015, pp. 118–129).
Nonetheless, landowners continue
impacting the habitat through activities
like cutting new access roads on their
properties and conversion of forested
land to pasture (Pacheco and MonsegurRivera 2017, pers. obs.). The palo de
rosa population in Sierra Bermeja is
limited to two isolated individuals on
protected lands (LCNWR and PLN
conservation easement), with no
evidence of natural recruitment.
Similarly, the other two palo de rosa
individuals in Guaniquilla-Buye, also in
southwest Puerto Rico, are found within
private lands subject to urban and
tourist development, although these
plants are not yet impacted.
Core subpopulations of palo de rosa
occur in the northern karst belt of
Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 1),
where approximately 80 percent of the
known sites for palo de rosa occur on
private lands not managed for
conservation. These private lands are
encroached upon by development and
subject to habitat modification activities
(e.g., urban development) detrimental to
palo de rosa. The palo de rosa
subpopulation at GuCF is the
westernmost record of the species in
northern Puerto Rico that lies within an
area managed for conservation. As
previously discussed, the GuCF
subpopulations extend to private lands
along the Guajataca Gorge. Although the
steep terrain and low agricultural value
of this area has protected the
subpopulations from habitat
modification, some remain vulnerable to
infrastructure development (e.g.,
possible expansion of Highway PR–22
between the municipalities of Hatillo
and Aguadilla). For example, three
previously unknown subpopulations
(including one showing recruitment)
were located during the biological
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37104
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
assessments for the proposed expansion
of Highway PR–22 (PRHTA 2007, p. 19).
Another subpopulation vulnerable to
habitat modification is the MerenderoGuajataca; this area is managed for
recreation, and the habitat remains
threatened by vegetation management
activities (e.g., maintenance of green
areas and vegetation clearing along
trails). Habitat modification can also
have implications beyond the direct
impacts to a subpopulation. Although
the palo de rosa in the MerenderoGuajataca subpopulation have produced
flowers, there are no records of fruit
production or seedlings (MonsegurRivera 2009–present, pers. obs.); this is
likely due to habitat modification at the
site. Nonetheless, this subpopulation
may interact through cross-pollination
with the nearby El Tu´nel-Guajataca
subpopulation and, thus, contribute to
observed recruitment in other Guajataca
Gorge subpopulations. A palo de rosa
subpopulation was located during a
biological assessment for the proposed
expansion of an existing quarry adjacent
to the Rı´o Camuy (Sustache-Sustache
2010, p. 7). We expect impacts to this
subpopulation from the quarry activities
will interfere with the natural
recruitment of the species along the Rı´o
Camuy.
Habitat encroachment is evident on
private lands surrounding the CCF,
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve,
and Tortuguero Lagoon Natural
Preserve, where at least six known
subpopulations occur within private
lands adjacent to areas subject to
development or infrastructure projects.
The subpopulations at Hacienda
Esperanza extend to private lands on
their southern boundary, where
development projects have been
proposed (e.g., Ciudad Me´dica del
Caribe; PRDNER 2011, pp. 24–25).
Habitat modification in those areas can
result in direct impacts to palo de rosa
individuals and can interrupt the
connectivity between subpopulations
(e.g., cross-pollination). In addition, the
analysis of aerial images indicates four
additional subpopulations occurring on
private lands in the proximity of
Hacienda Esperanza are encroached
upon by urban development, rock
quarries, and agricultural areas
(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.).
The palo de rosa subpopulations at
Hacienda Sabanera in Dorado have been
encroached upon by development. We
prepared a biological opinion during the
consultation process for the
construction of Hacienda Sabanera and
its associated impacts on palo de rosa
(USFWS 1999, entire). The biological
opinion indicates that approximately 83
of the 200 acres (including forested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
mogote habitat) would be impacted, and
6 adults, 12 saplings, and 35 seedlings
of palo de rosa would be directly
affected by the proposed project
(USFWS 1999, p. 6). Although we
concluded that the project would not
jeopardize the continued existence of
palo de rosa (USFWS 1999, p. 7), the
project resulted in substantial loss of
forested habitat, promoting edge habitat
favorable for intrusion of weedy species.
In addition, a series of mogotes along
Higuillar Avenue, south of Hacienda
Sabanera, are expected to be impacted
by proposed road construction
(PRDNER 2013, pp. 22–24), and we have
no information that plans for the road
have been discarded. Encroachment
conditions similar to those in Hacienda
Sabanera also occur in the areas of La
Virgencita (north and south), Mogotes
de Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las
Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort
Buchanan. For example, at La
Virgencita, the population of palo de
rosa is bisected by Highway PR–2 and
could be further impacted if the road is
widened in the future. Landslides have
occurred in this area in the past and
road maintenance in this vulnerable
area may trigger slide events (PRDNER
2015, pp. 13–15). In addition, palo de
rosa individuals are found within the
PREPA power line rights-of-way (Power
Line 41500), and there is evidence the
overall decrease or absence of saplings
or juveniles in the La Virgencita south
population may be the result of habitat
modification and resulting edge habitat
due to the maintenance of the PREPA
power line rights-of-way (PRDNER
2015, pp. 13–15; USFWS 2018, p. 33).
In addition, the westernmost
subpopulation of palo de rosa occurs in
the municipality of Aguadilla in an area
identified by the Puerto Rico Highway
and Transportation Authority (PRHTA)
as part of the proposed expansion of
highway PR–22 (USFWS 2017, p. 7).
The Mogotes de Nevares, Sabana
Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque
Monagas, and Fort Buchanan
subpopulations are also severely
fragmented by urban development and a
rock quarry (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Such
fragmentation compromises the
connectivity between subpopulations.
Some of these areas are vulnerable to
landslides due to changes in the contour
of the terrain associated with a high
density of urban development,
encroachment, and quarry operations
(e.g., Parque Monagas and Fort
Buchanan) (U.S. Army 2014, p. 3).
Although Fort Buchanan habitat is set
aside for conservation, landslides have
occurred within and near Fort
Buchanan and the subpopulation
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
remains threatened due to potential
landslides. Fort Buchanan is evaluating
a possible slope stabilization project for
the site (U.S. Army 2014, pp. 4, 9–11).
Palo de rosa occurs within several
National Parks on Hispaniola
(Dominican Republic and Haiti) (e.g.,
Parque Nacional del Este, Parque
Nacional Los Haitises, and Parque
Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco). Despite
the occurrence of the species within
areas managed for conservation (e.g.,
Parque del Este and Sierra de
Bahoruco), these areas continue to be
affected by illegal deforestation for
agriculture and charcoal production,
and enforcement of existing regulations
is limited (Jime´nez 2019, pers. comm.).
The dependence of the human
population of Haiti on wood-based
cooking fuels (e.g., charcoal and
firewood) has resulted in substantial
deforestation and forest conversion to
marginal habitat in both Haiti and
adjacent regions of the Dominican
Republic (e.g., Sierra de Bahoruco), and
the expected increases in the human
population in Haiti will result in an
increase in the demand for such fuel
resources (USFWS 2018, p. 4). In fact,
there has recently been increasing
amounts of deforestation and habitat
degradation in the Sierra de Bahoruco
and the surrounding region (Grupo
Jaragua 2011, entire; Goetz et al. 2012,
p. 5; Simons et al. 2013, p. 31). In 2013,
an estimated 80 square kilometers
(19,768.4 acres) of forest in the area was
lost primarily due to illegal clearing of
forested habitat for agricultural
activities (Gallagher 2015, entire). Vast
areas (including suitable habitat for palo
de rosa) along the border between Haiti
and Dominican Republic (including
within National Parks) are being cleared
and converted to avocado plantations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.).
Such deforestation extends to other
National Parks, such as Parque Nacional
del Este and Isla Saona, where illegal
vegetation clearing for agriculture and
tourism development continue to occur
(Monsegur-Rivera 2011, pers. obs.). For
example, analysis of aerial images from
Isla Saona (Parque Nacional del Este)
show extensive deforestation and
conversion of forested habitat to
agricultural lands during the last decade
(Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. obs.).
Impacts to palo de rosa populations due
to development and habitat destruction
and modification in Hispaniola are not
described in the final listing rule for the
species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990),
but current information indicates that
palo de rosa and its habitat are being
affected by deforestation for agricultural
practices and extraction for fuel
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
resources. To summarize, forest
management practices within
Commonwealth Forests are no longer
considered a threat to palo de rosa. The
palo de rosa populations at the CCF,
GCF, GuCF, RACF, and SCF are
protected, as these forest reserves are
protected by Commonwealth laws and
managed for conservation. Nonetheless,
populations extending onto private
lands in southern Puerto Rico are
vulnerable to impacts from urban
development, agricultural practices
(e.g., harvesting fence posts), and
maintenance of power lines and rightsof-way (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers.
obs.). In addition, the majority of the
subpopulations along the northern karst
of Puerto Rico occur on private lands,
where habitat encroachment occurs and
creates edge habitat conditions (habitat
intrusion by exotics that precludes
seedling establishment) and affects
connectivity and natural recruitment.
For example, despite the abundance of
individuals at the palo de rosa
subpopulation adjacent to the former
CORCO in Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas,
recruitment is limited due to the
multiple stressors, including
maintenance of power line rights-ofway, fence post harvest, and intrusion of
exotic plants species, as well as the
changes in microhabitat conditions at
these sites, which preclude seedling
establishment. Furthermore, habitat
fragmentation along the northern coast
may affect cross-pollination among
subpopulations, resulting in the lack of
fruit production at isolated
subpopulations with a smaller number
of individuals (e.g., MerenderoGuajataca).
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms
In the final listing rule (55 FR 13488;
April 10, 1990), we identified the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms as one of the factors
affecting the continued existence of palo
de rosa. At that time, the species had no
legal protection, because it had not been
included in Puerto Rico’s list of
protected species. Once palo de rosa
was federally listed, legal protection
was extended by virtue of an existing
cooperative agreement (under section 6
of the Act) with the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Federal listing assured the
addition of palo de rosa to the
Commonwealth’s list of protected
species, and the Commonwealth
designated palo de rosa as endangered
in 2004 (DRNA 2004, p. 52).
In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico approved Law No. 241, also known
as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico
(Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Rico), and palo de rosa is legally
protected under this law. The purpose
of this law is to protect, conserve, and
enhance both native and migratory
wildlife species, and to declare as
property of Puerto Rico all wildlife
species within its jurisdiction, to
regulate permits, to regulate hunting
activities, and to regulate exotic species,
among other activities. This law also has
provisions to protect habitat for all
wildlife species, including plants. In
2004, the PRDNER approved Regulation
6766 or Regulations to Govern the
Management of Species Vulnerable and
Danger of Extinction in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
(Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las
Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de
Extincio´n en el Estado Libre Asociado
de Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of
Regulation 6766 prohibits, among other
activities, collecting, cutting, and
removing of listed plant individuals
within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico
(DRNA 2004, p. 11). The provisions of
Law No. 241–1999 and Regulation 6766
extend to private lands. However, the
protection of listed species on private
lands is challenging, as landowners may
be unaware that species are protected
and may damage those species (e.g., by
cutting, pruning, or mowing) (USFWS
2017, p. 23), which might be the case if
palo de rosa is cut for fence posts.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law
No. 133 (1975, as amended in 2000),
also known as Puerto Rico Forests’ Law
(Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico),
protects the areas of the GCF, SCF,
GuCF, RACF, and CCF, and, by
extension, the palo de rosa individuals
on them. Section 8(a) of this law
prohibits cutting, killing, destroying,
uprooting, extracting, or in any way
hurting any tree or vegetation within a
Commonwealth forest. The PRDNER
also identified these Commonwealth
forests as ‘‘critical wildlife areas.’’ This
designation constitutes a special
recognition with the purpose of
providing information to
Commonwealth and Federal agencies
about the conservation needs of these
areas, and to assist permitting agencies
in precluding adverse impacts as a
result of project endorsements or permit
approvals (PRDNER 2005, pp. 211–216).
In addition, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico Law No. 292 (1999), also known as
Puerto Rico Karst Physiographic
Protection and Conservation Law (Ley
para la Proteccio´n y Conservacio´n de la
Fisiografı´a Ca´rsica de Puerto Rico),
regulates the extraction of rock and
gravel for commercial purposes, and
prohibits the cutting of native and
endemic vegetation in violation of other
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37105
laws (e.g., Law No. 241–1999 and
Regulation 6766). Law No. 292–1999
applies to karst habitat in both southern
and northern Puerto Rico.
On the LCNWR, habitat is managed in
accordance with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee, as
amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 [Improvement Act]), and collection
of plants within refuge lands is
prohibited by title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 27.51.
The LCNWR has a comprehensive
conservation plan that includes
measures for the protection and
recovery of endangered and threatened
plant species (USFWS 2011a, p. 35).
Furthermore, the Puerto Rico Planning
Board (Junta de Planificacio´n de Puerto
Rico) classified most of the mountain
range of Sierra Bermeja as a District of
Conservation of Resources (Distrito de
Conservacio´n de Suelos) (JPPR 2009, p.
151). This conservation category
identifies lands with particular
characteristics that need to be
maintained or enhanced (e.g., provide
habitat for species of concern), and
establishes specific restrictions for
development (JPPR 2009, p. 151). Also,
in 2015, the Puerto Rico Planning Board
approved the Land Use Plan for Puerto
Rico, and categorized most of the Sierra
Bermeja Mountains, including the
LCNWR, as Rustic Soil Specially
Protected (Suelo Rustico Especialmente
Protegido) where no urban development
is considered due to location,
topography, aesthetic value,
archaeological value, or ecological value
of land (Puerto Rico Planning Board
Interactive Map 2020).
The palo de rosa individuals found at
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve
are protected, as this reserve also is
managed for conservation by PLN, and
the management plan considers palo de
rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67).
The PLN also manages the Rı´o
Encantado Natural Protected Area, a
mosaic of at least 1,818 ac (736 ha) of
forested habitat (including extensive
areas of suitable habitat for palo de rosa)
in the municipalities of Florida, Manatı´,
and Ciales, and PLN plans to continue
acquiring habitat at this geographical
area (PLN 2011b, p. 5). Also, palo de
rosa is protected and managed under an
MOU among the U.S. Army Garrison,
Fort Buchanan, the Service, and
PRDNER (U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan
2015, entire). This palo de rosa
subpopulation is found in a mogote
designated for conservation (USACE
2014, p. 3).
In addition, the private natural
reserves of El Tallonal and Mata de
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37106
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Pla´tano, which contain subpopulations
of palo de rosa in the municipality of
Arecibo, are protected from habitat
modification and have approved private
forest stewardship management plans
that include measures for the protection
of listed species within the properties
(PRDNER 2005, 47 pp.). We have an
extended history of collaboration with
these two reserves, providing financial
and technical assistance for the
implementation of recovery actions to
benefit listed species.
In addition to protections provided by
the Act, the species is protected from
collection and provided management
considerations by the Improvement Act
within one national wildlife refuge
(LCNWR). In addition, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally
protects palo de rosa, including
protections to its habitat, through
Commonwealth Law No. 241–1999 and
Regulation 6766, which prohibit, among
other actions, collecting, cutting, and
removing listed plants. If we downlist
this species, we do not expect this
species to be removed from legal
protection by the Commonwealth.
Although these protections extend to
both public and private lands, as
discussed above, protection of this
species on private land is challenging.
Habitat that occurs on private land is
subject to pressures from agricultural
practices (e.g., grazing, harvesting fence
posts) and development. Accidental
damage or extirpation of individuals has
occurred because private landowners or
other parties on the property may not be
able to identify the species or may not
be aware that palo de rosa is a protected
species. Habitat modifications and
fragmentation continue to occur on
private lands, which can increase the
likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic
plants and human-induced fires and
reduce connectivity between
populations and the availability of
suitable habitat for the species’
recruitment. In short, this plant is now
more abundant and widely distributed,
including within conservation land, so
the threat due to inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms has been
reduced. However, the occurrences of
palo de rosa on private lands continue
to need enforcement of existing
prohibitions, as well as increased
attention and associated outreach to
highlight the species’ conservation and
importance.
Recruitment
Here, we summarize the continuing
threat of low recruitment on palo de
rosa populations, and we describe this
influence on palo de rosa viability in
greater detail under Recruitment and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Population Structure, above.
Characteristics of palo de rosa’s life
history may contribute to the slow or
lack of recruitment observed in current
subpopulations (Monsegur-Rivera 2018,
pers. obs.). Individual palo de rosa trees
grow extremely slowly, and the growth
of the saplings is also quite slow, with
an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3
ft) after 20 years of growth. It is
estimated that, under natural
conditions, individuals of palo de rosa
may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size. In addition, seeds of
this species are not dispersed by any
discernible method other than gravity
and concentrate under the parental tree.
Thus, recruitment is limited to the
proximity of the parental tree, limiting
the species’ potential to colonize further
suitable habitat, and limiting the
survival of clustered seedlings due to
closed canopy conditions and
competition with the parental tree.
Population dynamics and survey
assessments support the conclusion that
palo de rosa is a late successional
species, whose saplings may remain
dormant under closed canopy
conditions, until there is some natural
disturbance that provides favorable
conditions for the development of the
saplings. Thus, the species requires an
open canopy to promote seedling
growth and is adapted to natural
disturbances such as hurricanes
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under
this scenario, the natural populations
show a slow natural recruitment that
requires stable habitat conditions with a
regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering
and fruiting) have been associated with
larger, more mature trees (Breckon and
Kolterman 1992, p. 8; USFWS 2009, p.
4). Cross-pollination between or among
subpopulations maximizes the
likelihood of fruit production and
contributes to recruitment, which
underscores the importance of
conserving the species through a
landscape approach to promote natural
recruitment. Although current
information on population structure
indicates the species requires some
open canopy areas to promote
recruitment, widespread deforestation
fragments habitat and creates edges
(habitat transition zones).
There is no evidence of natural
recruitment at this time for 40 of the 66
known subpopulations, although the
species’ life history implies that
recruitment may still occur in these
populations when a canopy opening is
created and suitable conditions for
recruitment are present. Forest cover in
Puerto Rico has increased since the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
widespread deforestation in the 1930s
(Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but
the species was likely more widespread
prior to deforestation and habitat
fragmentation. A life history
requirement for a closed canopy forest
for adult individuals with canopy
openings to promote seedling and
sapling recruitment was likely more
sustainable in populations with greater
abundance and distribution than the
species currently exhibits. Smaller and
more isolated subpopulations are less
able to provide closed canopy
conditions with small pockets of
openings; thus, inherent palo de rosa
life history characteristics have an effect
on recruitment, and this effect is
expected to continue in the future.
Hurricanes and Related Threats
At the time of listing, we considered
individuals of palo de rosa vulnerable to
flash flood events (see 55 FR 13490,
April 10, 1990). Flash floods remain a
moderate threat and may compromise
the natural recruitment of seedlings,
particularly on subpopulations along
the southern coast of Puerto Rico where
the species occurs at the bottom of
drainages (USFWS 2017, p. 17). Below,
we describe these threats and other
natural and human-caused factors
affecting the continued existence of palo
de rosa.
As an endemic species to the
Caribbean, palo de rosa is expected to be
well adapted to tropical storms and
associated disturbances such as flash
floods. Under natural conditions,
healthy populations with robust
numbers of individuals and recruitment
should withstand tropical storms, and
these weather and climatic events may
be beneficial for the population
dynamics of palo de rosa by creating
small openings in the closed canopy to
allow seedling and sapling growth. The
islands of the Caribbean are frequently
affected by hurricanes. Puerto Rico has
been directly affected by four major
hurricanes since 1989. Successional
responses to hurricanes can influence
the structure and composition of plant
communities in the Caribbean islands
(Lugo 2000, p. 245; Van Bloem et al.
2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 2005, p.
572; Van Bloem et al. 2006, p. 517).
Examples of the visible effects of
hurricanes on the ecosystem includes
massive defoliation, snapped and windthrown trees, large debris
accumulations, landslides, debris flows,
and altered stream channels, among
others (Lugo 2008, p. 368). Hurricanes
can produce sudden and massive tree
mortality, which varies among species
but averages about 41.5 percent (Lugo
2000, p. 245). Hence, small populations
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of palo de rosa may be severely
impacted by hurricanes, resulting in
loss of individuals or extirpation. The
impact of catastrophic hurricanes is
exacerbated in small populations.
There is evidence of damage to
individuals of palo de rosa due to
previous hurricane events (e.g.,
Hurricane Georges in 1998) at the
Hacienda Sabanera and Hacienda
Esperanza subpopulations (USFWS
2017, p. 17). A post-hurricane
assessment of selected populations of
palo de rosa was conducted to address
the impact of Hurricane Marı´a (USFWS
2018, entire). Even though Hurricane
Marı´a did not directly hit the GCF,
evidence of damage to palo de rosa trees
was recorded at Can˜on Las Trichilias
(e.g., uprooted trees and main trunk
broken) (USFWS 2018, p. 3). Additional
evidence of direct impacts (including
mortality) due to Hurricane Marı´a were
recorded in the Hacienda Esperanza,
Hacienda Sabanera, Parque Monagas,
and La Virgencita subpopulations
(USFWS 2018, entire). An analysis of
high-resolution aerial images from these
sites following Hurricane Marı´a shows
extensive damage and modification to
the forest structure, with
subpopulations in southern Puerto Rico
exposed to less wind damage (Hu and
Smith 2018, pp. 1, 17). When comparing
affected subpopulation abundance, the
evidence of direct impacts to
individuals of palo de rosa due to
Hurricane Marı´a appear to be
discountable. However, this posthurricane assessment focused on
previously surveyed robust
subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire).
Overall, the subpopulations along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico suffered
severe defoliation, with trees showing
mortality of the crown apex, but some
trees showing regrowth 6 months posthurricane (USFWS 2018, entire).
However, hurricane damage extends
beyond the direct impacts to individual
palo de rosa trees. As mentioned above,
the subpopulations along the northern
coast of Puerto Rico are severely
fragmented due to prior land-use
history. Disturbance and edge effects
associated with urban development and
infrastructure corridors may promote
the establishment and spread of
invasive, nonnative plant species, and
lianas (woody vines) typical of early or
intermediate successional stages, which
may result in rare and endemic plant
species being outcompeted (Hansen and
Clevenger 2005, p. 249; Madeira et al.
2009, p. 291). Hurricanes may not
introduce nonnative species to the forest
structure, but they can promote
favorable conditions for these species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
and therefore increase the relative
abundance of nonnatives.
Habitat intrusion by exotics is
positively correlated to the distance of
the disturbance gap (Hansen and
Clevenger 2005, p. 249). Thus, the
adverse effects from human-induced
habitat disturbance (e.g., deforestation
and urban development) can be
exacerbated by hurricanes by creating or
increasing this disturbance gap. A posthurricane assessment provided evidence
that all palo de rosa subpopulations
along the north coast of Puerto Rico
showed habitat intrusion by weedy
vines (e.g., Dioscorea alata (n˜ame),
Thunbergia grandiflora (pompeya),
Cissus erosa (caro de tres hojas), and
Cayaponia americana (bejuco de
torero)) following Hurricane Marı´a
(USFWS 2018, entire). In the same
assessment, weedy vegetation and vines
densely covered an area in the Hacienda
Esperanza subpopulation, where palo de
rosa occurs at a low-elevation mogote,
and Hacienda Sabanera, where the
habitat that harbors the palo de rosa
population was cut to the edge of the
population of the species due to urban
development (USFWS 2018, pp. 8–18).
Examination of aerial images of the
habitat shows a flattened forest structure
indicative of hurricane damage, with
standing trees missing main branches
and canopy. Competition with
nonnative species and weedy vines for
necessary resources (space, light, water,
nutrients) may reduce the natural
recruitment by inhibiting germination
and outcompeting seedlings of native
species (Rojas-Sandoval and Mele´ndezAckerman 2013, p. 11; Thomson 2005,
p. 615). Palo de rosa seedlings at
Hacienda Esperanza were covered (and
outcompeted) by weedy vines following
Hurricane Marı´a (USFWS 2018, p. 8). At
Fort Buchanan, 6 months after
Hurricane Marı´a, the vegetation at the
base of the mogote on that property was
overgrown and dominated by weedy
species. However, weedy vegetation had
not reached palo de rosa individuals at
the top of the mogote, and there was
little evidence of adverse impacts to
seedlings and saplings due to
competition with exotics (USFWS 2018,
p. 8).
The GCF subpopulations of palo de
rosa are surrounded by a large tract of
intact native forest, providing a buffer
zone that precludes habitat invasion by
exotics. Despite the overall evidence of
canopy opening and some impacts to
individuals of palo de rosa due to
Hurricane Marı´a, there was no evidence
of habitat intrusion by exotics at Can˜on
Las Trichilias and Can˜on Hoya Honda
(USFWS 2018 pp. 3–8), which
highlights the importance of
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37107
maintaining native forested habitat that
provides a buffer for palo de rosa
subpopulations.
The above discussion indicates that
the potential adverse impacts due to
hurricanes and the associated habitat
intrusion by exotic plant species are
variable, depending on habitat
fragmentation, topography, distance to
disturbance, and the size of the
subpopulation. It further highlights the
importance of having healthy
populations with robust numbers of
individuals and a stratified population
structure (i.e., seedlings, saplings, and
adults) to allow for recovery following
hurricanes and associated habitat
disturbance.
Climate Change
Regarding the effects of climate
change, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is
unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Observed
effects associated with climate change
include widespread changes in
precipitation amounts and aspects of
extreme weather including droughts,
heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the
intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC
2014, p. 4). Rather than assessing
climate change as a single threat in and
of itself, we examined the potential
effects to the species and its habitat that
arise from changes in environmental
conditions associated with various
aspects of climate change.
We examined a downscaled model for
Puerto Rico based on three IPCC global
emissions scenarios from the CMIP3
data set—mid-high (A2), mid-low (A1B),
and low (B1)—as the CMIP5 data set
was not available for Puerto Rico at that
time (Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279–
280). These scenarios are generally
comparable and span the more recent
representative concentration pathways
(RCP) scenarios from RCP 4.5 (B1) to
RCP 8.5 (A2) (IPCC 2014, p. 57). The B1
and A2 scenarios encompass the
projections and effects of the A1B
scenario; we will describe our analyses
for the B1 (RCP 4.5) and A2 (RCP 8.5)
scenarios and recognize the A1B (RCP
6.0) projections and effects fall into this
range.
The modelling of climate projections
expected in Puerto Rico used in our
analysis extends to 2100. We
acknowledge inherent divergence in
climate projections based on the model
chosen, with uncertainty increasing
later in the century (Khalyani et al.
2016, p. 275). However, we assessed the
climate changes expected in the year
2070, a 50-year timeframe representing
the foreseeable future for palo de rosa
(as described in Regulatory Framework,
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37108
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
above). Under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5
scenarios, precipitation declines while
temperature and total dry days increase,
resulting in extreme drought conditions
that would result in the conversion of
subtropical dry forest into dry and very
dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280).
Downscaled future climate change
scenarios indicate that by 2070, Puerto
Rico is predicted to experience a
decrease in rainfall, along with
increased drought intensity under RCP
4.5 and 8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 265;
Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 133; U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP)
2018, 20:820). The western region of
Puerto Rico has already experienced
negative trends in annual rainfall (PRCC
2013, p. 7). Temperatures are also
expected to rise between 2020 and 2070.
Under RCP 4.5, a mean temperature
increase of 4.6–5.4 degrees Celsius (°C)
(40.3–41.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) is
projected, and an increase of 7.5–9 °C
(45.5–48.2 °F) is projected under RCP
8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). As
precipitation decreases influenced by
warming, it will tend to accelerate the
hydrological cycles, resulting in wet and
dry extremes (Jennings et al. 2014, p. 4;
Cashman et al. 2010, p. 1). Downscaled
general circulation models predict
dramatic shifts in the life zones of
Puerto Rico with potential loss of
subtropical rain, moist, and wet forests,
and the appearance of tropical dry and
very dry forests are anticipated under
both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios
(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275).
Nonetheless, such predicted changes in
life zones may not severely affect palo
de rosa due to its distribution
throughout Puerto Rico, which includes
different life zones and habitat types.
Vulnerability to climate change
impacts is a function of sensitivity to
those changes, exposure to those
changes, and adaptive capacity (IPCC
2007, p. 89; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19).
As described earlier, palo de rosa is a
species with low recruitment and seed
dispersal limited to gravity, limiting its
potential to reach areas with suitable
microhabitat conditions for its
establishment. Despite the evidence of
multiple reproductive events (fruit
production) in one subpopulation, low
recruitment of saplings and a
population structure dominated by
adult trees could be the result of
mortality and thinning of individuals at
the seedling stage due to drought stress.
The projected prolonged droughts
expected with climate change may affect
the phenology of palo de rosa, resulting
in the loss of developing flowers and
fruits, or reduce the viability of the few
produced seeds, reducing the likelihood
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
of natural recruitment. In addition,
hurricanes followed by extended
periods of drought caused by climate
change may result in microclimate
alterations that could allow other plants
(native or nonnative) to become
established and become invasive (Lugo
2000, p. 246), which would preclude the
recruitment of palo rosa seedlings.
Based the distribution of palo de rosa
and its habitat, we have determined that
conditions associated with climate
change could impact this species.
Climate change is almost certain to
affect terrestrial habitats and palo de
rosa; however, the future extent and
timing of those effects beyond the
foreseeable future is uncertain. Some
terrestrial plant populations are able to
adapt and respond to changing climatic
conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire),
but the ability of palo de rosa to do so
is unknown. A sound, long-term
monitoring of known palo de rosa
populations is needed to understand the
effects on the species’ viability.
In summary, other natural and
manmade factors, such as hurricanes
and related threats due to habitat
fragmentation, edge habitat, habitat
intrusion by exotic plant species, and
the low recruitment and limited
dispersal of palo de rosa, are current
threats to the species. Hurricanes and
post-hurricane habitat encroachment
and nonnative plant invasion have
affected subpopulations along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico (USFWS
2018, entire). Invasive species can
preclude the establishment of new palo
de rosa individuals through competition
for sunlight, nutrients, water, and space
to grow. Although climate change is
almost certain to affect terrestrial
habitats, there is uncertainty about how
predicted future changes in
temperature, precipitation, and other
factors will influence palo de rosa.
Small Population Size
At the time of listing (55 FR 13488;
April 10, 1990), we considered small
population size as a threat affecting the
continued survival of palo de rosa,
based on the species’ limited
distribution and low number of
individuals (i.e., only 9 individuals
throughout the species’ range in Puerto
Rico). Based on this information, we
considered the risk of extinction of palo
de rosa very high. New distribution and
abundance information available since
the species was listed reflects that palo
de rosa is more abundant and widely
distributed than previously thought
(USFWS 2017, entire); thus, we no
longer consider limited distribution as
an imminent threat to this species.
However, at least 37 (56 percent) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
known subpopulations are composed of
10 or fewer individuals. The effect of
small population size exacerbates other
threats and makes these subpopulations
vulnerable to extirpation by stochastic
and catastrophic events.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the threats faced by
palo de rosa in developing this
proposed rule. Limited distribution and
a low number of individuals were
considered a threat to palo de rosa when
we listed the species (55 FR 13488;
April 10, 1990), but recent information
indicates the species is more abundant
and widely distributed than known at
the time of listing. However, other
threats are still affecting palo de rosa.
Based on the analysis above, although
we no longer consider limited
distribution as an imminent threat to
this species, we conclude that habitat
destruction and modification on
privately owned lands (particularly
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico),
and other natural or manmade factors
(e.g., hurricanes, habitat fragmentation
resulting in lack of connectivity
between individuals, and habitat
encroachment by invasive species) have
been greatly reduced but continue to
threaten palo de rosa populations. In
addition, low recruitment related to
sporadic flowering and fruit production,
and the slow growth of seedlings under
close canopy conditions (e.g., species
reproductive biology and ecology),
coupled with the threats discussed
above, are expected to remain threats to
palo de rosa. It is also expected that palo
de rosa will be affected by climate
change within the foreseeable future,
particularly by generalized changes in
precipitation and drought conditions.
Climate change is expected to result in
more intense hurricanes and extended
periods of drought. Increased hurricanes
are expected to cause direct mortality of
adult trees downed due to high winds,
whereas more intense drought
conditions are expected to reduce the
species’ reproductive output (reduced
flowering and fruiting events) and also
preclude seedling and sapling
recruitment. However, based on the best
available data, we do not consider
climate change to represent a current or
an imminent threat to this species
across its range.
Species viability, or the species’
ability to sustain populations over time,
is related to the species’ ability to
withstand catastrophic population- and
species-level events (redundancy), to
adapt to novel changes in its biological
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and physical environment
(representation), and to withstand
environmental and demographic
stochasticity and disturbances
(resiliency). The viability of a species is
also dependent on the likelihood of new
stressors or continued threats, now and
in the future, that act to reduce a
species’ redundancy, representation,
and resiliency. A highly resilient palo
de rosa population should be
characterized by sufficient abundance
and connectivity between reproductive
individuals to allow for reproductive
events and cross-pollination, an age
class structure representative of
recruitment greater than mortality,
multiple subpopulations within the
population, and the availability of highquality habitat to allow for recruitment.
High representation for the species is
characterized by multiple populations
occurring within a wide range of
environmental conditions (e.g.,
substrate and precipitation) that allow
for sufficient genetic variability.
Multiple resilient populations across the
range of the species characterize high
redundancy for palo de rosa.
We evaluated the biological status of
palo de rosa both currently and into the
future, considering the species’ viability
as characterized by its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. Based
on the analysis of available herbarium
specimens, we have determined the
species’ distribution and abundance was
once more common and widespread,
and was likely a dominant late
successional species of coastal to
middle elevation (500 m (1,640 ft))
habitats, and even extended to coastal
valleys and sand dunes (see table,
above) (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers.
obs.). The current known palo de rosa
subpopulations are remnants of the
species’ historical distribution,
persisting on areas of low agricultural
value (e.g., top of the mogotes) that were
affected by deforestation for charcoal
production, as evidenced by individuals
with multiple trunks of palo de rosa
sprouting from the same base. Based on
the available information on palo de
rosa’s natural distribution at the time of
listing, and considering that 40 of the
known 66 subpopulations currently
show no recruitment and no
subpopulations appear to be expanding
due to natural dispersal, palo de rosa
populations exhibit reduced resiliency.
No subpopulations appear to be
dispersing, and no populations are
highly resilient. None of the currently
known subpopulations of palo de rosa
are considered a recent colonization
event or natural expansion of the
species within its habitat. The species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
persisted through the almost entire
deforestation of Puerto Rico with less
than 6 percent of remaining forested
habitat across the island by the 1930s
(Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), when the low
elevation coastal valleys habitat of palo
de rosa was extensively deforested for
agricultural practices (e.g., sugar cane
and tobacco plantations). There are
broad accounts regarding the extensive
deforestation and habitat modification
that occurred in Puerto Rico until the
1950s (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), which
resulted in changes in forest structure
and diversity, pollinators’ assemblages,
seed dispersers, and the prevailing
microhabitat conditions in which palo
de rosa evolved. Despite the return from
such deforestation, known
subpopulations show a clustered and
patchy distribution, and are
characterized by a population structure
dominated by adults. Moreover, the
species faces a low recruitment rate and
slow growth, resulting in few saplings
reaching a reproductive size; in
addition, the species shows minimal or
no dispersal (limited to gravity). Based
on our observations, it has taken about
60 years from the peak of deforestation
(1930s) for palo de rosa to show some
initial evidence of recruitment.
We consider that palo de rosa has
limited redundancy, as it is known from
multiple subpopulations (66)
throughout its geographical range,
representing 14 natural populations
distributed throughout the southern and
northern coasts of Puerto Rico.
Nonetheless, about 37 (56 percent) of
the known subpopulations are
composed of 10 or fewer individuals
and show little or no recruitment and,
thus, reduced resiliency (see table,
above). As described above, the species
faces a low recruitment rate, slow
growth and limited dispersal, and
patchy and small subpopulations,
resulting in an increased vulnerability
to extirpation of these subpopulations.
All these characteristics are limiting
factors and make the species vulnerable
to catastrophic and stochastic events,
such as hurricanes and droughts, that
can cause local extirpations. The best
available information indicates that palo
de rosa is not naturally expanding into
or colonizing habitats outside the areas
where it is known to occur.
In terms of the representation of palo
de rosa, we have no data on its genetic
variability. Although the species occurs
in a wide range of habitats and
environmental conditions, it has a
fragmented distribution, scattered
(sporadic) flowering events, and a low
recruitment rate. Thus, little or no
genetic exchange is thought to occur
between extant subpopulations, likely
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37109
resulting in outbreeding depression,
which may explain the lack of effective
reproduction and recruitment
(Frankham et al. 2011, p. 466). The low
recruitment rate results in little transfer
of genetic variability into future
generations, limits the expansion of the
species outside its current locations,
and limits its ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions. For
example, the loss or reduction of
connectivity between subpopulations in
areas like Arecibo-Vega Baja, Dorado, La
Virgencita, Mogotes de Nevares, and
San Juan-Fajardo can be detrimental to
the long-term viability of the species as
it affects cross-pollination and,
therefore, gene flow. In fact, the only
populations that occur entirely within
native forest areas managed for
conservation are GCF and SCF. This
continued protected habitat provides for
an effective cross-pollination (gene
flow) that can secure the long-term
viability of the species. However, the
overall representation of palo de rosa is
reduced, as the GCF and SCF
populations are restricted to the
southern coast and the genetic
representation of palo de rosa in the
northern karst area, a different
ecological environment, is vulnerable
because that habitat is threatened by
destruction or modification.
Determination of Palo de Rosa’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 ‘‘endangered species’’
or ‘‘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 within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. For a more detailed
discussion on the factors considered
when determining whether a species
meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ and
our analysis on how we determine the
foreseeable future in making these
decisions, please see Regulatory and
Analytical Framework, above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the section 4(a)(1)
factors, we have determined that palo de
rosa’s current viability is higher than
was known at the time of listing
(population current estimate of 1,144
individuals in 66 subpopulations) based
on the best available information.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37110
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Currently, the number of palo de rosa
individuals has changed from 9
individuals in protected lands at the
time of listing to 407 individuals (32
percent of subpopulations) currently
occurring in areas managed for
conservation (e.g., Commonwealth
Forest and Federal lands). Furthermore,
396 individuals (38 percent of
subpopulations) occur in areas subject
to little habitat modification due to the
steep topography in the northern karst
region of Puerto Rico. The remaining 30
percent of the subpopulations
(containing approximately 341
individuals) occur within areas severely
encroached and vulnerable to urban or
infrastructure development.
Nonetheless, habitat destruction and
modification on privately owned lands
(particularly along the northern coast of
Puerto Rico) and other natural or
manmade factors (such as hurricanes,
habitat fragmentation, lack of
connectivity between populations,
habitat intrusion by invasive species,
and the species’ reproductive biology)
continue to threaten the viability of palo
de rosa. Although population numbers
and abundance of palo de rosa have
increased, and some identified threats
have decreased, our analysis indicates
that threats remain. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that palo de rosa no longer
meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species throughout all of its
range. We therefore proceed with
determining whether palo de rosa meets
the Act’s definition of a threatened
species (i.e., is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future) throughout all of its range.
In terms of habitat destruction and
modification, we can reasonably
determine that 70 percent of
subpopulations (71 percent of
individuals) are not expected to be
substantially affected by habitat
destruction and modification in the
foreseeable future. This majority occurs
within protected lands managed for
conservation (36 percent of the known
individuals or 32 percent of
subpopulations) or on private lands
with low probability of modification
due to steep topography (35 percent of
the known individuals or 38 percent of
subpopulations). However, for the 30
percent of subpopulations occurring in
areas severely encroached and
vulnerable to urban or infrastructure
development now and into the future
(30 percent of the known individuals),
we are reasonably certain these
subpopulations will continue to have a
lower resiliency (due to reduced
connectivity (cross-pollination) and lack
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
of recruitment), and, in some cases, may
experience the loss of individuals or
subpopulations adjacent to critical
infrastructure such as highways or other
development within the foreseeable
future (e.g., Hacienda Sabanera, PR–2
and PR–22 maintenance and expansion,
Islote Ward extirpation).
We have evidence that some
populations are showing signs of
reproduction and recruitment. However,
due to the slow growth of the species it
may take several decades to ensure
these recruitment events effectively
contribute to a population’s resiliency
(new individuals reach a reproductive
size). Despite no longer considering
limited distribution as an imminent
threat to this species, we have identified
factors associated with habitat
modification and other natural or
manmade factors that still have some
impacts on palo de rosa and affect the
species’ viability and effective natural
recruitment. The species still faces
dispersal problems, and the recruitment
is still limited to the proximity of parent
trees; we have no evidence of a
population of palo de rosa that is the
result of a recent colonization event or
a significant population expansion. This
renders the known subpopulations
vulnerable to adverse effects related to
habitat fragmentation and lack of
connectivity, which may preclude
future recruitment and the population’s
resiliency.
In addition, despite the presence of
regulations protecting the species both
on public and private lands, the
protection of palo de rosa on private
lands remains challenging. Habitat
modifications and fragmentation
continue to occur on private lands,
which can increase the likelihood of
habitat intrusion by exotic plants and
human-induced fires, and reduce
connectivity between populations
(affecting cross-pollinations) and the
availability of suitable habitat for the
natural recruitment of the species. Still,
none of these is an imminent threat to
the species at a magnitude such that the
taxon warrants endangered status across
its range. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that
palo de rosa is not currently in danger
of extinction, but it is likely to become
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
portion of its range. The court in Center
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020
WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020)
(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated
the aspect of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014)
that provided that the Services do not
undertake an analysis of significant
portions of a species’ range if the
species warrants listing as threatened
throughout all of its range. Therefore,
we proceed to evaluating whether the
species is endangered in a significant
portion of its range—that is, whether
there is any portion of the species’ range
for which both (1) the portion is
significant, and (2) the species is in
danger of extinction in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more
efficient for us to address the
‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’
question first. We can choose to address
either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we
reach a negative answer with respect to
the first question that we address, we do
not need to evaluate the other question
for that portion of the species’ range.
Following the court’s holding in
Center for Biological Diversity, we now
consider whether there are any
significant portions of the species’ range
where the species is in danger of
extinction now (i.e., endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for palo de
rosa, we choose to address the status
question first—we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution
of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify any
portions of the range where the species
is may be endangered. Kinds of threats
and levels of threats are more likely to
vary across a species’ range if the
species has a large range rather than a
very small natural range, such as the
palo de rosa. Species with limited
ranges are more likely to experience the
same kinds and generally the same
levels of threats in all parts of their
range.
For palo de rosa, we considered
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in any portion of the
species’ range at a biologically
meaningful scale in the context of its
small natural range. We examined the
following threats: Habitat destruction,
fragmentation, and modification;
invasive species; hurricanes; and the
effects of climate change, including
cumulative effects. We have identified
that habitat destruction and
modification is threatening known
populations in three of the five areas
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
along the southern coast of Puerto Rico
and eight of nine populations along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico,
particularly on privately owned lands
throughout the range of the species. In
addition, habitat destruction and
modification are occurring within the
species’ range in Hispaniola. Habitat
encroachment by invasive plant species
and habitat fragmentation caused by
harvesting of timber for fence posts and
maintaining rights-of-way are also
considered to be further stressors to the
viability of palo de rosa across the
species’ range. Changes in climatic
conditions are expected to result in
more intense hurricanes and extended
periods of drought under RCPs 4.5 and
8.5, but the effect of these changes on
palo de rosa is unknown. The expected
changes in climatic conditions will
affect all populations of palo de rosa
uniformly across the range of the
species. Lastly, palo de rosa populations
across the range experience low
recruitment rates, slow growth, and
limited dispersal.
We found no concentration of threats
in any portion of palo de rosa’s range at
a biologically meaningful scale. Thus,
there are no portions of the species’
range where the species has a different
status from its rangewide status.
Therefore, no portion of the species’
range provides a basis for determining
that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its
range, and we determine that the
species is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range. This is consistent with
the courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors
v. Department of the Interior, No. 16–
cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F.
Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that palo de rosa meets the
Act’s definition of a threatened species.
Therefore, we propose to reclassify palo
de rosa as a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. We are proposing to reclassify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
palo de rosa as a threatened species, and
if we adopt this rule as proposed, the
prohibitions in section 9 would no
longer apply directly to the palo de rosa.
We are therefore proposing below a set
of regulations to provide for the
conservation of the species in
accordance with section 4(d) of the Act,
which also authorizes us to apply any
of the prohibitions in section 9 of the
Act to a threatened species. The
proposal, which includes a description
of the kinds of activities that would or
would not constitute a violation,
complies with this policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section
4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two
sentences. The first sentence states that
the Secretary of the Interior shall issue
such regulations as he deems necessary
and advisable to provide for the
conservation of species listed as
threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has
noted that statutory language like
‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates
a large degree of deference to the agency
(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592
(1988)). Conservation is defined in the
Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring
any endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary. Additionally,
the second sentence of section 4(d) of
the Act states that the Secretary may by
regulation prohibit with respect to any
threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish
or wildlife, or 9(a)(2), in the case of
plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the
Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate
appropriate regulations tailored to the
specific conservation needs of the
threatened species. The second sentence
grants particularly broad discretion to
the Service when adopting the
prohibitions under section 9 of the Act.
The courts have recognized the extent
of the Secretary’s discretion under this
standard to develop rules that are
appropriate for the conservation of a
species. For example, courts have
upheld rules developed under section
4(d) as a valid exercise of agency
authority where they prohibited take of
threatened wildlife, or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007);
Washington Environmental Council v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002
U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37111
2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d)
rules that do not address all of the
threats a species faces (see State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th
Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was initially
enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the
threatened list, the Secretary has an
almost infinite number of options
available to him with regard to the
permitted activities for those species. He
may, for example, permit taking, but not
importation of such species, or he may
choose to forbid both taking and
importation but allow the transportation
of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under
section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to
address palo de rosa’s specific threats
and conservation needs. Although the
statute does not require us to make a
‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding with
respect to the adoption of specific
prohibitions under section 9, we find
that this rule as a whole satisfies the
requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to
issue regulations deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of palo de rosa. As
discussed above under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, we have
concluded that palo de rosa is likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future primarily due to
habitat destruction and modification,
particularly by urban development,
right-of-way maintenance, rock quarries,
and grazing. Additionally, other natural
or manmade factors like hurricanes,
invasive species, and landslides still
threaten the species. The provisions of
this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of palo de rosa by
encouraging conservation programs for
the species and its habitat and
promoting additional research to inform
future habitat management and recovery
actions for the species. The provisions
of this proposed rule are one of many
tools that we would use to promote the
conservation of palo de rosa. This
proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if
and when we make final the
reclassification of palo de rosa as a
threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would
provide for the conservation of palo de
rosa by prohibiting the following
activities, except as otherwise
authorized or permitted: Importing or
exporting; certain acts related to
removing, damaging, and destroying;
delivering, receiving, transporting, or
shipping in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37112
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
activity; or selling or offering for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce.
As discussed above under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats, the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
species’ habitat or range (specifically,
urban development, maintenance of
power lines and associated rights-ofway, infrastructure development, rock
quarries, grazing by cattle, and
extraction of fence posts), inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, and
other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species’ continued
existence (specifically, hurricanes,
invasive plant species, landslides, and
habitat fragmentation and lack of
connectivity between subpopulations)
are affecting the status of palo de rosa.
A range of activities have the potential
to impact this plant, including
recreational and commercial activities.
Regulating these activities will help
preserve the species’ remaining
populations, slow their rate of potential
decline, and decrease synergistic,
negative effects from other stressors. As
a whole, the regulation would help in
the efforts to recover the species.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above,
involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened
plants, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance propagation or
survival, for economic hardship, for
botanical or horticultural exhibition, for
educational purposes, or for other
purposes consistent with the purposes
and policy of the Act. Additional
statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions are found in sections 9 and
10 of the Act.
We recognize the special and unique
relationship with our State and
Territorial natural resource agency
partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State and Territorial
agencies often possess scientific data
and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened,
and candidate species of wildlife and
plants. State and Territorial agencies,
because of their authorities and their
close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a
unique position to assist the Services in
implementing all aspects of the Act. In
this regard, section 6 of the Act provides
that the Services shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the
States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any
qualified employee or agent of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Territorial conservation agency that is a
party to a cooperative agreement with
the Service in accordance with section
6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his
or her agency for such purposes, would
be able to conduct activities designed to
conserve palo de rosa that may result in
otherwise prohibited activities for
plants without additional authorization.
We also recognize the beneficial and
educational aspects of activities with
seeds of cultivated plants, which
generally enhance the propagation of
the species, and therefore would satisfy
permit requirements under the Act. We
intend to monitor the interstate and
foreign commerce and import and
export of these specimens in a manner
that will not inhibit such activities,
providing the activities do not represent
a threat to the survival of the species in
the wild. In this regard, seeds of
cultivated specimens would not be
regulated provided a statement that the
seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’
accompanies the seeds or their
container.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule
would change in any way the recovery
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the
Act, the consultation requirements
under section 7 of the Act, or our ability
to enter into partnerships for the
management and protection of palo de
rosa. However, interagency cooperation
may be further streamlined through
planned programmatic consultations for
the species between us and other
Federal agencies, where appropriate. We
ask the public, particularly State and
Territorial agencies and other interested
stakeholders that may be affected by the
proposed 4(d) rule, to provide
comments and suggestions regarding
additional guidance and methods that
the Service could provide or use,
respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this proposed 4(d)
rule (see Information Requested, above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the 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:
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined in the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), need not be prepared in
connection with determining a species’
listing status under the Endangered
Species Act. In an October 25, 1983,
notice in the Federal Register (48 FR
49244), we outlined our reasons for this
determination, which included a
compelling recommendation from the
Council on Environmental Quality that
we cease preparing environmental
assessments or environmental impact
statements for listing decisions.
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. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no
Tribal lands affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES–
2020–0059 and upon request form the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
37113
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Authors
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office.
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Scientific name
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the
entry ‘‘Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon’’ under
FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.12
plants.
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
*
Common name
Where listed
Status
*
Palo de rosa ..............
*
Wherever found .........
T
Endangered and threatened
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Listing citations and
applicable rules
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
*
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon ...............
*
■
*
*
3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows:
§ 17.73
Special rules—flowering plants.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
(a) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de
rosa).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions that apply to endangered
plants also apply to Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon (palo de rosa). Except as
provided under paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, it is unlawful for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit,
to solicit another to commit, or cause to
be committed, any of the following acts
in regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at
§ 17.61(b) for endangered plants.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as
set forth at § 17.61(c)(1).
(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy
the species on any areas under Federal
jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
*
*
*
damage or destroy the species on any
other area in knowing violation of any
law or regulation of the Territory or in
the course of any violation of a
Territorial criminal trespass law, as set
forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of commercial activity, as set
forth at § 17.61(d) for endangered plants.
(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth
at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In
regard to Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo
de rosa):
(i) The prohibitions described in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section do not
apply to activities conducted as
authorized by a permit issued in
accordance with § 17.72.
(ii) Any employee or agent of the
Service or of a Territorial conservation
agency that is operating under a
conservation program pursuant to the
terms of a cooperative agreement with
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
*
*
55 FR 13488, 4/10/1990; [Federal Register
citation of final rule]; 50 CFR 17.73(g).4d
Sfmt 9990
*
*
the Service in accordance with section
6(c) of the Act, who is designated by
that agency for such purposes, may,
when acting in the course of official
duties, remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction
members of palo de rosa that are
covered by an approved cooperative
agreement to carry out conservation
programs.
(iii) You may engage in any act
prohibited under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section with seeds of cultivated
specimens, provided that a statement
that the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’
accompanies the seeds or their
container.
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the
Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–14661 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37091-37113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14661]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification
of the Palo de Rosa From Endangered to Threatened With Section 4(d)
Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon) from endangered to
threatened (downlist) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The proposed downlisting is based on our evaluation of
the best available scientific and commercial information, which
indicates that the species' status has improved such that it is not
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, but that it is still likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. We also propose a rule under section 4(d) of the
Act that provides for the conservation of palo de rosa.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
September 13, 2021. 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 August 30, 2021.
[[Page 37092]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on 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: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W
(JAO), 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).
Document availability: This proposed rule, list of literature
cited, and supporting documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; telephone (787) 851-
7297. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets
the definition of endangered (in danger of extinction). The palo de
rosa is listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify
(downlist) palo de rosa as threatened, because we have determined it is
not currently in danger of extinction. Downlisting a species as a
threatened species can only be accomplished by issuing a rulemaking.
What this document does. This rule proposes to reclassify palo de
rosa as a threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and to establish provisions under section 4(d) of the
Act that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
this species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on any
of the five 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. In our August 2017 5-year status
review, we recommended downlisting this species from endangered to
threatened based on our evaluation of these factors. We may downlist a
species if the best available commercial and scientific data indicate
the species no longer meets the applicable definition in the Act. We
have determined that palo de rosa is no longer in danger of extinction
and, therefore, does not meet the definition of an endangered species.
However, the species meets the definition of a threatened species under
the Act because it is affected by the following current and ongoing
threats: Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from urban
development; agricultural practices and rights-of-way maintenance,
coupled with habitat intrusion by exotics; other natural or manmade
factors, such as hurricanes; and this tree's slow growth, limited
dispersal, and low recruitment.
The information used for our 2017 5-year review, and the best
currently available information, indicate that there are at least 1,144
known individuals (including adults and saplings) of palo de rosa.
These individuals are distributed in at least 66 subpopulations (which
include the 16 known localities identified at the time of the recovery
plan development) throughout Puerto Rico. About 25 (38 percent) of
those subpopulations show evidence of reproduction or natural
recruitment (USFWS 2017, p. 6, table 1). The increase in the number of
known individuals and new localities reflects increased survey efforts
but does not necessarily indicate that previously known populations are
naturally expanding their range. Approximately 70 percent of
individuals occur in areas managed under some conservation status or in
areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico. The remaining
individuals occur within areas severely encroached and vulnerable to
urban or infrastructure development.
The slow growth of this tree and its reproductive biology suggest
that palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may
remain under closed canopy until a natural disturbance induces
favorable conditions for their development. Although natural
disturbances (e.g., tropical storms or hurricanes) can promote the
recruitment of saplings into adulthood, the palo de rosa population
should be composed of different size classes in order to be able to
withstand such stochastic events.
Recovery actions such as propagation and planting have shown to be
feasible, and the species is currently being propagated by the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER), and
planted in the Sus[uacute]a and Guajataca Commonwealth Forests, as well
as on lands within Fort Buchanan, owned by the U.S. Army. We have
established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Fort Buchanan and
PRDNER to address the conservation of the species within Fort Buchanan
and to promote the propagation of palo de rosa for recovery purposes
(U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire).
We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule. We propose to
adopt the Act's section 9(a)(2) prohibitions as a means to provide
protective mechanisms to palo de rosa. We also propose specific
tailored exceptions to these prohibitions to allow certain activities
covered by a permit or by an approved cooperative agreement to carry
out conservation programs, which would facilitate the conservation and
recovery of the species.
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 effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not downlist palo de rosa as a
threatened species.
(2) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of palo de rosa.
(3) New information on the known and potential threats to palo de
rosa, including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; habitat
intrusion by exotics; hurricanes; and this tree's slow growth, limited
dispersal, and low recruitment.
[[Page 37093]]
(4) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat use of palo de rosa.
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
palo de rosa that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on the
species.
(6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of palo de rosa and that the Service can
consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species.
(7) Information concerning the extent to which we should include
any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether any other
activities should be excepted from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule
(to the extent permitted by Commonwealth law).
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, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or 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. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://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 at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain
listed as endangered instead of being reclassified as threatened, or we
may conclude that the species no longer warrants listing as either an
endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we may change
the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those
prohibitions if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and
new information received.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act 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 and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016,
Director's Memorandum ``Peer Review Process,'' we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding the scientific data and interpretations contained in this
proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We
will ensure that the opinions of peer reviewers are objective and
unbiased by following the guidelines set forth in the Director's Memo,
which updates and clarifies Service policy on peer review (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2016, entire). The purpose of such review is to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our final decision may differ
from this proposal.
Previous Federal Actions
On April 10, 1990, we published a final rule listing palo de rosa
as an endangered species in the Federal Register (55 FR 13488). The
final rule identified the following threats to palo de rosa: Loss of
habitat due to past deforestation and urban development; forest
management practices that do not take the species into consideration;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and the species'
vulnerability to natural disturbances such as flash flooding along
stream beds. On September 20, 1994, we completed the recovery plan for
this species (USFWS 1994, entire). We completed a 5-year status review
on August 9, 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). In that review, we recommended
that palo de rosa be downlisted to threatened because new occurrences
of the species have been located and a substantial number of
individuals have been documented (i.e., 963 adult individuals (not
considering seedlings or saplings) in 54 subpopulations). The 5-year
review is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0059.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see Recovery,
below. See https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK
for the species profile for this tree.
I. Proposed Reclassification Determination
Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the palo de rosa was presented in the 5-year
review (USFWS 2017, entire). Below, we present a summary of the
biological and distributional information discussed in the 5-year
review and new information published or obtained since.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Palo de rosa is a small evergreen tree that may reach up to 15
meters (m) (49 feet (ft)) in height and is a member of the Icacinaceae
family (USFWS 1994, p. 1). The branches are smooth and dark gray and
have conspicuous small lenticels (raised pores on the stem of a woody
plant that allows gas exchange with the atmosphere and internal
tissues) (Liogier 1994, p. 41). Leaves are ovate, are rounded or in
some cases elliptic, and occasionally have an acute apex and short (6-8
millimeters (mm) (0.2-0.3 inches (in)) petiolate; flowers are solitary
or grouped in a three to five flower cluster. The fruit is about 2.5
centimeters (cm) (0.98 in) long and up to 2.2 cm (0.86 in) wide and is
smooth and with a thin outer layer that turns dark purple when ripe.
The seed is about 2 cm (0.8 in) long (Liogier 1994, p. 41; Santiago
Valent[iacute]n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Palo de rosa may be
difficult to identify when sterile.
[[Page 37094]]
Reproductive Biology
When the palo de rosa recovery plan was written, information about
the flowering and fruiting pattern was limited due to the species not
being well-studied and the infrequent observation of reproductive
events, although flowering was observed in May and July 1993 (USFWS
1994, p. 5). A morphological description of the palo de rosa flower and
fruit was completed based on material collected from wild individuals,
cultivated material, and data from herbarium specimens (Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, entire). The species bears
hermaphrodite flowers, flowers for a short period at the beginning of
the rainy season and develops fruits subsequently until November
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; Santiago-Valent[iacute]n and
Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Few buds and flowers occurred from April
to May, with an explosive flowering in June, coinciding with the
beginning of the rainy season in May. Herbarium specimens demonstrated
flowering and fruiting between May and July, with an exception of one
specimen with flowers collected in December (Santiago-Valentin and
Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Flower and fruit production are documented
in individuals with diameters at breast high greater than 5 in (12.7
cm). Despite the high number of adult individuals reported, only a few
reach that stem size (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; USFWS 2009,
unpubl. data).
The cluster distribution of seedlings under the parent trees
indicates that seeds are dispersed by gravity. Subpopulations in
northern Puerto Rico are located on top of limestone hills indicating
that some disperser (e.g., animal vector) took them there in the past
(USFWS 2017, p. 12). Fruit-eating bats are a possible seed disperser
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15). However, camera monitoring of a
tree bearing mature fruits at the Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest
(GCF) showed that despite the high availability of mature fruits, bats
ignored them (Monsegur-Rivera 2004, pers. obs.). The Puerto Rican
flower bat (Phyllonycteris major) is an extirpated frugivorous bat
(Rodr[iacute]guez-Dur[aacute]n and Kunz 2001, p. 358), and could have
acted as a natural disperser of palo de rosa (Monsegur-Rivera 2004-
present, pers. obs.). Another hypothesis is that bats no longer
recognize palo de rosa fruit as a food source due to the small size of
the currently known subpopulations when compared to other food sources
(Monsegur-Rivera 2004-present, pers. obs.). Dispersal by water has been
hypothesized for the subpopulations in the southern coast, as these
subpopulations are located at the bottom of small drainages. However,
observations in GCF indicate that establishment of seedlings in these
drainages is low, because seeds are buried by sediments and small
plants are uprooted by high flows during storms (Monsegur-Rivera 2007,
pers. obs.).
Due to the infrequency of fruit production, germination experiments
have been limited. Attempts to germinate seeds from the Dorado (Mogotes
de Higuillar) population (northern Puerto Rico) have proven to be
difficult (10 percent success) as the majority of seeds were attacked
by insects (Coleoptera) (Ruiz Lebr[oacute]n 2002, p. 2). The species
also has been germinated by PRDNER and the University of Puerto Rico
(Caraballo 2009, pers. comm.). In February 2007, a preliminary
germination trial of palo de rosa obtained a 50 percent germination
success (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl. data). The germination starts with
the development of a long taproot, probably an adaptation to secure the
establishment of the seedlings under closed canopy conditions with a
thick bed of leaf litter. Despite damage to the apical meristem (tissue
in which new stem and root growth occurs) of the seedlings, seedlings
were able to regrow and produced a new stem (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl.
data). This finding indicates that propagation of the species is
feasible and may be used in palo de rosa recovery efforts. Palo de rosa
is not known to reproduce vegetatively, although multiple stems may
regrow from a tree that has been cut.
Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat
Palo de rosa was described by Ignatius Urban (1908) from material
collected by Leopold Krug near the municipality of Mayag[uuml]ez in
1876 (Liogier 1994, p. 42). Based on the description of the type
locality (area from where the species was originally collected and
described), the collection site may correspond to an area known as
Cerro Las Mesas. At the time of listing, palo de rosa was known from
nine individuals in three areas and considered endemic to Hispaniola
and Puerto Rico (55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990, p. 55 FR 13489).
Subpopulations and populations were not defined or identified at the
time of listing. The species was known from the limestone hills near
the municipality of Bayam[oacute]n in northern Puerto Rico, several
sites in the GCF in southwest Puerto Rico, and one individual on the
southern slopes of the Maricao Commonwealth Forest (MCF) (55 FR 13488,
April 10, 1990, p. 55 FR 13489).
At the time the recovery plan was written in 1994, there was little
information on the species' distribution, ecology, and reproductive
biology; therefore, in the recovery plan, species experts considered
each subpopulation or cluster of individuals as a population. The
recovery plan describes additional individuals observed as a result of
increased survey efforts in suitable habitat. In the 1994 recovery
plan, we estimated 200 palo de rosa individuals in 16 populations (now
defined as subpopulations and noted with ``(RP)'' in the table below).
An additional population (now considered a subpopulation) was reported
in 1996, increasing the total number of trees to 207 adult individuals
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4).
The current understanding of palo de rosa's biological and
ecological requirements has led us to define a population as a
geographical area with unique features (substrate or climate) and
continuous forested habitat that provides for genetic exchange among
subpopulations (i.e., cross-pollination) where the species occurs. We
further considered natural barriers (e.g., mountain ranges and river
valleys) and extensive gaps of forested habitat to discern the
boundaries of these broader populations because connectivity between
subpopulations is critical to support a functional population of palo
de rosa due to the cross-pollination requirement of the species.
Furthermore, the flowering of palo de rosa is sporadic and not
synchronized, thus prompting us to further define a population as
groups of subpopulations that show connectivity to secure cross-
pollination. Based on the above information, we have determined palo de
rosa to be distributed across Puerto Rico in 14 populations composed of
66 subpopulations containing 1,144 individuals (not including
seedlings). Following this approach, 8 of the 14 current populations
(containing 47 subpopulations with approximately 804 individuals) occur
in the geographical areas associated with the 16 populations (now
defined as subpopulations) included in the Service's 1994 recovery
plan. Since 1994, we have identified 6 additional populations (as
currently defined) composed of 19 subpopulations (342 individuals)
ranging in size from 5 to 124 individuals in areas associated with
remnants of forested habitat suitable for the species. Thus, these
additional occurrences are key in understanding the current condition
of the species.
[[Page 37095]]
Currently, the number of palo de rosa individuals has increased
from 9 individuals on protected lands at the time of listing to 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) currently occurring in areas managed for
conservation (e.g., Commonwealth Forest and Federal lands; see table,
below). An additional 396 individuals (38 percent of subpopulations)
occur in areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico (see table,
below). The remaining 30 percent of the subpopulations (containing
approximately 341 individuals) occur within areas severely encroached
and vulnerable to urban or infrastructure development (see table,
below). However, the resiliency of all subpopulations depends on
interaction (cross-pollination) with nearby subpopulations. Despite the
increase in the number of known subpopulations and individuals, there
are no records of recruited individuals reaching reproductive size in
the past three decades. We also do not have any records of recent
dispersal and range expansion of the species. The following discussion
provides the most updated information on these populations, and their
respective geographical areas.
Table of Currently Known Natural Populations, Subpopulations, and Number of Adult Individuals of Palo de Rosa in Puerto Rico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence of
Population Subpopulation name Municipality reproduction or Number of Development Source
recruitment adults threat \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest La Cobana (GCF) (RP) Yauco................ No.................. 7 2 Breckon and
(GCF). \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Hoya Honda (GCF) (RP) Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 16 2 Breckon and
\2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4; USFWS 2018,
unpubl. data;
Monsegur 591, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Ca[ntilde]on Los Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 5 2 Breckon and
Murci[eacute]lagos Kolterman 1993, p.
(GCF) (RP) \2\. 4.
Ca[ntilde]on Las Yauco................ No.................. 3 2 Monsegur-Rivera
Eugenias (GCF). 2009, pers. obs.
Ca[ntilde]on Las Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 49 2 Breckon and
Trichilias (GCF). Kolterman 2003, p.
4; USFWS 2018,
unpubl. data;
Monsegur 240, 252
and 880, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Breckon 7012, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Yauco Landfill....... Yauco................ Yes................. 40 2 Monsegur-Rivera
2015; Monsegur
1591, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Montes de Barinas................. Montes de Barinas.... Yauco................ No.................. 5 0 Morales 2011, pers.
comm.
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas........ Guayanilla-CORCO (RP) Guayanilla........... Yes................. 53 0 Breckon and
\2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4; Monsegur-Rivera
2014, unpubl. data;
Breckon 4590 and
5201, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Monsegur 1586, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest Quebrada Peces-SCF Yauco................ No.................. 11 2 Breckon and
(SCF). (RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Quebrada Grande-SCF Yauco................ Yes................. 59 2 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
R[iacute]o Loco-SCF Yauco................ No.................. 25 2 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Cerro Las Mesas and Sierra Bermeja Sierra Bermeja (RP) Cabo Rojo-Lajas...... No.................. 2 2 Envirosurvey, Inc.
\2\. 2016; Monsegur
1583, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Guaniquilla-Buye (RP) Cabo Rojo............ No.................. 2 0 Monsegur-Rivera
\2\. 2009, pers. obs.
Aguadilla-Quebradillas............ Aguadilla Road PR-2.. Aguadilla............ No.................. 1 0 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Ramey Solar Aguadilla............ No.................. 1 1 Acevedo-
Observatory. Rodr[iacute]guez
2014; Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
15931, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Guajataca Isabela.............. No.................. 2 2 Monsegur-Rivera
Commonwealth Forest. 2009; Monsegur
1051, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
El Costillar- Isabela.............. Yes................. 14 1 Breckon and
R[iacute]o Guajataca Kolterman 1993, p.
(RP) \2\. 4; Monsegur 1578,
MAPR herbarium.\3\
R[iacute]o Guajataca Isabela.............. No.................. 1 1 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Cara del Indio- Isabela.............. No.................. 5 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
Guajataca. entire; Monsegur
1559, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
El T[uacute]nel- Isabela.............. Yes................. 24 1 Breckon and
Guajataca (RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Quebrada Columbiana.. Quebradillas......... No.................. 5 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Guajataca Gorge south Quebradillas......... No.................. 1 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Merendero-Guajataca.. Quebradillas......... No.................. 2 1 PRDNER 2009, entire;
Monsegur 1087, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
[[Page 37096]]
Quebrada Bellaca..... Quebradillas......... No.................. 3 1 Trejo 2441, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Arca de Noe.......... Quebradillas......... No.................. 4 0 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Piedra Gorda......... Camuy................ No.................. 1 1 Trejo 2533, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Quebradillas 481..... Quebradillas......... No.................. 8 0 PRDNER 2015, entire.
Camuy-Hatillo..................... R[iacute]o Camuy PR-2 Camuy................ Yes................. 10 1 USFWS 2017; Breckon
(RP) \2\. 8126, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
R. Ortiz and Sons Hatillo.............. No.................. 16 1 Sustache-Sustache
Quarry. 2010, entire.
R[iacute]o Camuy- Camuy................ No.................. 2 1 Monsegur-Rivera
Camino del 2015, entire.
R[iacute]o.
R[iacute]o Camuy Camuy................ Yes................. 33 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
oeste. entire.
R[iacute]o Camuy este Hatillo.............. No.................. 7 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Arecibo........................... Mata de Arecibo.............. No.................. 2 2 Trejo 2408, UPR
Pl[aacute]tano. herbarium.\6\
El Tallonal.......... Arecibo.............. No.................. 12 2 Trejo 2462, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Highway PR-10........ Arecibo.............. No.................. 1 2 Axelrod 8134, UPRRP
herbarium.\7\
Utuado-Ciales (R[iacute]o Las Abras............ Arecibo-Ciales....... Yes................. 32 1 Trejo 2222 and 2473,
Encantado). UPR herbarium.\6\
Ciales High School... Ciales............... No.................. 2 1 Sustache 685 and
688, SJ
herbarium.\8\
Senderos de Arecibo.............. No.................. 2 1 USFWS 2009, entire.
Miraflores.
Miraflores Ward...... Arecibo.............. No.................. 1 1 Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
11717, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Arecibo-Vega Baja................. Cambalache Arecibo.............. No.................. 15 2 Breckon and
Commonwealth Forest Kolterman 1993, p.
(RP) \2\. 4; Breckon 8325,
MAPR herbarium.\3\
Tortuguero Lagoon.... Manati............... No.................. 1 2 Breckon 8325, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Hacienda Esperanza... Manati............... Yes................. 51 2 Monsegur-Rivera
2009; Monsegur
1038, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Ciudad M[eacute]dica Manat[iacute]........ Yes................. 59 1 PRDNER 2013, entire.
del Caribe.
Highway PR-604....... Manat[iacute]........ No.................. 2 0 Breckon 8153, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Highway PR-22........ Vega Baja............ No.................. 7 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Highway PR-155....... Vega Baja............ Yes................. 31 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
12293, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Vega Serena.......... Vega Baja............ No.................. 3 0 Monsegur 1091, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Productora de Vega Baja............ No.................. 15 0 PRDNER 2009, entire.
Agregados.
V[iacute]a Verde..... Manat[iacute]........ No.................. 1 1 PREPA \9\ 2010,
entire.
Dorado............................ Hacienda Sabanera.... Dorado............... Yes................. 101 1 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Monsegur
1584, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Higuillar Avenue..... Dorado............... Yes................. 23 0 Monsegur-Rivera and
Sustache-Sustache
2011, entire.
La Virgencita..................... La Virgencita south.. Dorado............... Yes................. 41 0 PRDNER 2015; USFWS
2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 1648, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
La Virgencita north.. Dorado............... Yes................. 42 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
R[iacute]o Lajas..... Dorado............... No.................. 5 0 Trejo 2276, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Highway PR-142....... Dorado............... No.................. 2 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Mogotes de Nevares................ Mogotes de Nevares... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 30 0 PRDNER 2009, entire.
Mogotes de Nevares/ Toa Baja............. No.................. 8 0 Morales 2014,
Campanilla. entire.
Mogotes de Nevares/ Toa Baja............. No.................. 13 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
Holsum. data.
Primate Center....... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 4 1 Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and
Rojas-
V[aacute]zquez
2001, entire.
Sabana Seca.......... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 10 2 USFWS 2017, p. 8.
San Juan-Fajardo.................. Parque Monagas....... Bayamon.............. Yes................. 70 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Monsegur
1582, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Parque de las Bayam[oacute]n....... Yes................. 39 1 PRDNER 2013; Proctor
Ciencias. 50105, SJ
herbarium.\8\
Fort Buchanan (RP) Guaynabo............. Yes................. 25 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl
\2\. data;
Rodr[iacute]guez-
Cruz 2013, pers.
comm.; Monsegur
1576, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Mogotes de Caneja.... Guaynabo............. Yes................. 30 1 Breckon 5208, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Proctor 51111, SJ
herbarium.\8\
[[Page 37097]]
Monte Picao.......... Can[oacute]vanas..... Yes................. 46 0 PRDNER 2013, entire.
El Convento.......... Fajardo.............. No.................. 1 2 PRDNER 2009; Liogier
32299, UPR
herbarium.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................ 66 Subpopulations.... ..................... 26 Yes.............. 1,144 adults 20 Vulnerable.
40 No............... 25 Low.
21 Protected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Development Threats column, 0 = Vulnerable to development; 1 = Low vulnerability due to topography; and 2 = Protected.
\2\ (RP) indicates subpopulations known at the time the recovery plan was finalized (1994).
\3\ ``MAPR herbarium'' is the herbarium of the Department of Biology at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.
\4\ ``PRHTA'' is the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority.
\5\ ``U.S. herbarium'' is the United States National Herbarium.
\6\ ``UPR herbarium'' is the Botanical Garden of the University of Puerto Rico.
\7\ ``UPRRP herbarium'' is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras.
\8\ ``SJ herbarium'' is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at San Juan.
\9\ ``PREPA'' is the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority.
The distribution of palo de rosa extends along the southern coast
of Puerto Rico, from the municipality of Cabo Rojo east to the
municipality of Guayanilla, in five geographical areas or populations:
(1) Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest, (2) Montes de Barinas, (3)
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas, (4) Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest, and
(5) Cerro Las Mesas-Sierra Bermeja. In addition, palo de rosa extends
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico from the municipality of
Aguadilla east to the municipality of Fajardo in the following nine
areas or populations: (1) Aguadilla-Quebradillas, (2) Camuy-Hatillo,
(3) Arecibo, (4) Utuado-Ciales, (5) Arecibo-Vega Baja, (6) Dorado, (7)
La Virgencita, (8) Mogotes de Nevares, and (9) San Juan-Fajardo (USFWS
2017, p. 11).
The range of the species extends to Hispaniola (Dominican Republic
and Haiti) (Acevedo-Rodr[iacute]guez and Strong, 2012, p. 369; Axelrod
2011, p. 184); however, there is little information on the population
structure and status of palo de rosa in these countries, and
information is limited to scattered herbarium collections. In the
Dominican Republic, the species occurs in Provincia (Province) de La
Altagracia, Provincia de Saman[aacute], Provincia de Puerto Plata,
Provincia de Pedernales, and Provincia de San Cristobal (JBSD, unpubl.
data). On the northern coast of Haiti, palo de rosa has been recorded
at ``Massif du Nord'' along a dry river (JBSD, unpubl. data). However,
these herbarium specimens provide no data on the subpopulation or
population abundance or number of associated individuals. Palo de rosa
is categorized as critically endangered according to the Red List of
Vascular Flora in the Dominican Republic (Lista Roja de la Flora
Vascular en Rep[uacute]blica Dominicana), an assessment of the
conservation status of all vascular plants in the Dominican Republic as
determined by the Ministry of Higher Education Science and Technology
Ministry (Garcia et al. 2016, p. 4).
The following information summarizes the current abundance,
distribution, and habitat of palo de rosa populations in Puerto Rico.
Populations Along the Southern Coast of Puerto Rico
Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF): The GCF is a natural area
comprising one of the best remnants of subtropical dry forest
vegetation in Puerto Rico and still harbors remnants of pristine dry
limestone forest (primary vegetation) that is prime habitat for palo de
rosa (Monsegur-Rivera 2009, p. 3). The GCF has been managed for
conservation since 1930, following its designation as a public forest
in 1917 ([Aacute]lvarez et al. 1990, p. 3; Murphy and Lugo 1990, p.
15). The climate in this forest is seasonal, with most precipitation
occurring between September and October (Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278).
All known palo de rosa subpopulations found within the dry
limestone forests along the southern coast of Puerto Rico occur at the
bottom of forested ravines (areas that provide enough moisture for
seedling recruitment). These ravines are mesic (moist) habitats where
evidence of natural recruitment has been documented (Monsegur-Rivera
2003-2018, pers. obs.). Eighty palo de rosa individuals have been
documented in five subpopulations within the GCF (see table, above)
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2009-2018, pers.
obs.; USFWS 2018, unpubl. data). Fruit production has been recorded at
Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Hoya Honda, Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Los
Murci[eacute]lagos, and Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Las Trichilias (USFWS 2017,
pp. 7-8) (see table 1, above). Despite the overall dry habitat
conditions at the GCF, natural recruitment of this species has been
recorded at Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Hoya Honda and Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Las
Trichilias. The Yauco Landfill subpopulation provides connectivity with
the northernmost GCF subpopulation, bringing the GCF population to 120
(see table, above) (USFWS 2017, p. 7).
Montes de Barinas: The range of palo de rosa extends from the GCF
north to the Montes de Barinas hills (range of limestone hills along
the boundary of the municipalities of Yauco and Guayanilla) in habitat
similar to that of the GCF (Monsegur-Rivera 2009-2018, pers. obs.).
This is a tract of privately owned lands located primarily along Indios
Ward in the municipality of Guayanilla, and Cambalache Ward in the
municipality of Yauco. The forest was partially logged for charcoal
production and ranching; however, the prime habitat for native and
endemic plant species remains undisturbed due to its marginal
agricultural value (79 FR 53315, September 9, 2014, p. 79 FR 53326).
The number of palo de rosa individuals may be greater than the five
currently known, as this habitat has not been adequately surveyed
(Morales 2011, pers. comm.).
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas: The range of palo de rosa extends east
to Cedro Ward in the municipality of Guayanilla, where the species was
collected along a forested drainage (MAPR, unpubl. data). This
population is composed of at least 53 individuals, with some evidence
of natural recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 2014, unpubl. data), suggesting
the population is stable (USFWS 2017, p. 15) (see table, above).
Additional subpopulations may occur on undisturbed habitat remnants of
evergreen dry forest over limestone substrate in the municipality of
Pe[ntilde]uelas (north of the Pe[ntilde]uelas
[[Page 37098]]
Landfill) (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. obs.).
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest (SCF): The habitat of palo de rosa
includes moist drainages and rivers on serpentine soils within the
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest (SCF). Palo de rosa is known from 95
individuals (including saplings) in three subpopulations in the SCF
(see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; UPR, unpubl.
data). No seedlings have been recorded in surveys of the SCF population
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Hamilton 2018, p. 31).
Similar habitat on serpentine soils extends northwest of the SCF to
the boundaries of the MCF. In this forest, palo de rosa is historically
known from a single individual in the upper watershed of the R[iacute]o
Cupeyes (Cupeyes River), on the edge of former State Road PR-362 (MAPR,
unpubl. data). The palo de rosa tree was apparently killed due to
lightning damage, although other individuals may occur in this
inaccessible area (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.).
Cerro Las Mesas (Mayag[uuml]ez) and Sierra Bermeja (Lajas and Cabo
Rojo): The type specimen collected in 1876 was likely collected between
Cerro Las Mesas in the municipality of Mayag[uuml]ez and the area north
of Poblado Rosario in the municipality of San German (Monsegur-Rivera
2018, pers. obs.). Cerro Las Mesas is the westernmost distribution of
the serpentine outcrops in Puerto Rico and lies within the subtropical
moist forest life zone (Ewel and Witmore 1973, p. 72). Palo de rosa was
misidentified in the Sierra Bermeja subpopulation, then discovered in
2015 at La Tinaja on the Laguna Cartegena National Wildlife Refuge
(LCNWR) and in 2016 on a property known as Finca Mar[iacute]a Luisa,
currently under a conservation easement managed by Para La Naturaleza,
Inc. (PLN), the operational unit of The Conservation Trust of Puerto
Rico (see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 6; PLN 2013,
entire; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 9; MAPR, unpubl. data). The Sierra
Bermeja subpopulation co-occurs with five other federally listed
plants, indicating high-quality habitat with potential for undetected
palo de rosa. The two individuals in the Guaniquilla-Buye subpopulation
occur in an area with small hills with limestone outcrops that is
located about 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) west-northwest of Sierra
Bermeja, adjacent to an area known as Punta Guaniquilla in the
municipality of Cabo Rojo (see table, above) (V[aacute]zquez and
Kolterman 1998, p. 277).
Populations Along the Northern Coast of Puerto Rico
Palo de rosa also occurs in the northern limestone belt in the
karst region of Puerto Rico. This area along the northern coast is
important to the conservation of palo de rosa (USFWS 2017, p.11).
Despite deforestation for agriculture in the 1930s, a west-to-east band
of continuous forested landscape extends from Aguadilla to San Juan,
and additional limestone outcrops extend to the northeast corner of
Puerto Rico in the municipalities of Lo[iacute]za and Fajardo (Lugo et
al. 2001, pp. 1-2; Miller and Lugo 2009, p. 95). The southern and
northern limestone belts differ in climate, with wet and moist life
zones (sensu Holdridge 1967) characterizing the environmental
conditions along the north coast of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p.
5). The karst area is characterized by a steep topography and a dense
concentration of haystack hills or mogotes, with valleys and sinkholes
between the hills (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 11). The steep topography and
low agricultural value provide refugia and serve as a seed source for
natural regeneration on adjacent forested lands following the
abandonment of agricultural lands.
Aguadilla-Quebradillas (including the R[iacute]o Guajataca):
Fourteen subpopulations make up the Aguadilla-Quebradillas population.
The westernmost subpopulation of palo de rosa occurs in the
municipality of Aguadilla (USFWS 2017, p. 7). The two subpopulations in
this municipality are single trees, with no evidence of recruitment
(see table, above) (Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; UPR unpubl.
data). Rare endemic plants along the cliff areas from Aguadilla to
Quebradillas highlight the good habitat quality; hence, more
individuals of palo de rosa may occur in this area and in suitable
habitat south and east of the municipality of Aguadilla, along an area
known as Cordillera Jaicoa, a rough karst region between the
municipalities of Moca and Isabela (Caraballo and Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n 2011, p. 2; Acevedo-Rodr[iacute]guez 2014, p. 7).
Cordillera Jaicoa extends east to the Guajataca Commonwealth Forest
(GuCF), which is in the municipality of Isabela and covers about 2,357
ac (953.8 ha) (PRDNER 2008, p. 1). Palo de rosa is known from one
subpopulation at the GuCF with no evidence of recruitment (USFWS 2017,
p. 7). Fifty-two individuals in seven subpopulations of palo de rosa
occur in or near the R[iacute]o Guajataca (Guajataca Gorge), with
natural recruitment recorded in the two largest subpopulations (see
table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2003-
2018, pers. obs.; PRHTA 2007, pp. 16-18; USFWS 2017, p. 7).
Four additional scattered subpopulations with 16 palo de rosa
individuals occur in the municipality of Quebradillas and Camuy (PRHTA
2007, pp. 16-18; PRDNER 2015, p. 16; UPR, unpubl. data), just east of
Lago Guajataca (Guajataca Reservoir). Thus, the current number of
individuals for the subpopulations in Aguadilla, the GuCF, the
Guajataca Gorge, and neighboring lands is at least 72 individuals
distributed along variable size classes, and with evidence of
recruitment in at least two subpopulations (see table, above).
Camuy-Hatillo (R[iacute]o Camuy): Another population of palo de
rosa occurs along the margins of the R[iacute]o Camuy, between the
municipalities of Camuy and Hatillo. Five subpopulations have been
discovered since 2006 (see table, above) (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7;
Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; MAPR, unpubl. data). Two
subpopulations have seedlings and evidence of recruitment (see table,
above) (PRHTA 2007, p. 19; Morales 2014, unpubl. data; USFWS 2017, p.
8). One subpopulation was recorded during the evaluation for a proposed
quarry expansion and noted in association with other endemic trees
(e.g., Manilkara pleeana (mameyuelo) and Polygala cowellii
([aacute]rbol de violeta)) (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7). As the
Guajataca Gorge and the R[iacute]o Camuy areas remain relatively
unexplored, we expect additional individuals of palo de rosa may occur
there. The current estimated number of palo de rosa individuals in the
Camuy-Hatillo population is 68 adults (see table, above).
Arecibo (including R[iacute]o Tanam[aacute] and R[iacute]o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest): Farther east, three palo de rosa subpopulations
occur in the Arecibo municipality. Two of the three subpopulations
occur in the 159-ha (392-ac) natural areas of El Tallonal and Mata de
Pl[aacute]tano with an approved Private Forest Stewardship Management
Plan (PRDNER 2005, entire). Available information indicates that at
least 15 individuals occur on El Tallonal, Mata de Pl[aacute]tano, and
the R[iacute]o Abajo Commonwealth Forest (RACF) (see table, above).
Additional subpopulations may occur along the margins of the R[iacute]o
Tanam[aacute] (Tanam[aacute] River) and the steep cliff areas in the
RACF. The forested corridor of the R[iacute]o Tanam[aacute] connects
Mata de Pl[aacute]tano and El Tallonal to the RACF between the
municipalities of Arecibo and Utuado, where palo de rosa also occurs.
[[Page 37099]]
Although palo de rosa is known only from one individual in the RACF
collected in 1994, suitable habitat occurs within the RACF and the
species may be found within the forest boundaries (Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez and Axelrod 1999, p. 277).
Utuado-Ciales (R[iacute]o Encantado): Palo de rosa subpopulations
extend east of Lago Dos Bocas (Dos Bocas Reservoir) from Finca Opiola
east to the town of Ciales (R[iacute]o Encantado), in habitat similar
to the RACF. The general area is known as the R[iacute]o Encantado
Natural Protected Area, a mosaic of forested habitat among the
municipalities of Florida, Manat[iacute], and Ciales, occupying 736 ha
(1,818 ac) managed by PLN (PLN 2011b, p. 5). At least 37 palo de rosa
individuals occur in four subpopulations, with one subpopulation (Las
Abras) showing some evidence of recruitment. The R[iacute]o Encantado
area remains botanically unexplored due to the remoteness and steepness
of the terrain; thus, we anticipate that additional palo de rosa
subpopulations may occur in the R[iacute]o Encantado area. Additional
subpopulations of this species extend north to a low (west to east)
chain of mogotes at Miraflores Ward, in Arecibo.
Arecibo-Vega Baja (including Cambalache Commonwealth Forest (CCF),
Laguna Tortuguero Natural Reserve (LTNR), and Hacienda La Esperanza
Natural Reserve): The Arecibo-Vega Baja population includes 10
subpopulations, 3 of which show evidence of recruitment (see table,
above). Subpopulations occur within the protected areas of the CCF, the
LTNR between the municipalities of Manat[iacute] and Vega Alta, and at
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve in the municipality of
Manat[iacute] (see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; PLN
2011a, p. 3). Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve is managed by PLN,
and covers an area of approximately 925 ha (2,286 ac) between the CCF
and the LTNR, including a coastal valley with cemented sand dunes and a
series of mogotes that provide habitat for palo de rosa (PLN 2011a, p.
3). Additional palo de rosa individuals may occur in this subpopulation
as the entire area with suitable habitat has not been surveyed. Five
additional subpopulations of the species occur on private lands in the
municipalities of Manat[iacute] and Vega Baja (see table, above). Thus,
the current number of individuals for the region between the CCF,
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve, LTNR, and neighboring private
lands is at least 185 plants (see table, above). An historical specimen
from Islote Ward in Arecibo indicates the species' habitat extended to
the sand dunes in the past (UPR, unpubl. data). However, this specimen
is from the 1940s, and the area of Islote has been almost entirely
deforested for agriculture and urban development, we have determined
this subpopulation is extirpated (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.).
Dorado (Mogotes de Higuillar): The area of Mogotes de Higuillar
represents high-quality habitat for palo de rosa as evidenced by the
two subpopulations with strong recruitment. The Hacienda Sabanera
subpopulation (formerly known as Hacienda San Mart[iacute]n) was
assessed pre- and post-hurricane and showed no loss of individuals (84
and 101, respectively) and had different size classes represented (see
table, above) (USFWS 2017, p. 8; USFWS 2018, p. 12). The higher number
of palo de rosa individuals recorded during 2018 does not mean a
population increase compared to previous surveys as neither assessment
covered the entire area of suitable habitat. The subpopulation
discovered in 2011 just south of the Hacienda Sabanera subpopulation
shows strong evidence of recruitment as well with adult trees,
saplings, and hundreds of seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera and Sustache 2011,
p. 3; USFWS 2017, p. 8). Thus, the number of palo de rosa individuals
for the area comprising Mogotes de Higuillar and neighboring lands is
at least 124, with evidence of natural recruitment that includes
seedlings and saplings (see table, above).
La Virgencita: The distribution of palo de rosa extends south of
Highway PR-22, to the area known as Cruce La Virgencita where the
species was recorded in 2014. Of the four subpopulations, the La
Virgencita south subpopulation habitat is highlighted by the presence
of multiple endemic species and species with narrow distribution
(PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15). The four subpopulations in La Virgencita and
adjacent mogotes are made up of at least 90 trees, with evidence of
saplings and seedlings in the two La Virgencita subpopulations (see
table, above). The presence of other rare species in adjacent mogotes
is an indicator of potentially suitable palo de rosa habitat with
little disturbance and highlights the possible occurrence of additional
individuals.
Mogotes de Nevares and Sabana Seca: The range of palo de Rosa
extends west of R[iacute]o La Plata (La Plata River) to an area known
as Mogotes de Nevares and north to the former Sabana Seca Naval Station
in the municipality of Toa Baja. There are scattered records of the
species from the area of Mogotes de Nevares, but early collections do
not estimate abundance. The five subpopulations in Mogotes de Nevares
include three subpopulations (Mogotes de Navares, Primate Center, and
Sabana Seca) with evidence of recruitment (see table, above). A
subpopulation occurs on the former Sabana Seca Naval Station and a
second on an adjacent area near the Primate Research Center (Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and Rojas V[aacute]zquez 2001, p. 57; Monsegur-Rivera
2006, pers. obs.). The best available information and recent survey
data in the area of Mogotes de Nevares account for at least 65
individuals of different size classes, including seedlings (see table,
above). Due to the good quality of the habitat and the presence of
remnants of native vegetation, it is very likely additional, undetected
subpopulations of palo de rosa occur along these mogotes.
San Juan Metropolitan Area (including neighboring municipalities of
Bayam[oacute]n and Guaynabo, and east to Fajardo): In the metropolitan
area of San Juan, palo de rosa occurs at four subpopulations in the
municipalities of Bayam[oacute]n (2) and Guaynabo (2) (see table,
above). Five of the subpopulations in the San Juan-Fajardo population
show evidence of recruitment; only the El Convento subpopulation does
not. The Parque Monagas subpopulation occurs in a small, forested area
managed for recreation and shows evidence of recruitment post-Hurricane
Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, p. 21). The palo de rosa subpopulation in
Fort Buchanan is noted in the 1994 recovery plan, and saplings and new
seedlings were noted in a post-Hurricane Mar[iacute]a assessment (USFWS
2018, p. 25). The Fort Buchanan and Mogotes de Caneja subpopulations
are part of a larger chain of mogotes known as Mogotes de Caneja that
were fragmented due to the construction of Highway PR-22. Two
subpopulations (Monte Picao and El Convento) occur east of the
municipality of San Juan in small limestone outcrops (see table,
above). Based on the available information, the palo de rosa
subpopulations at Parque de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort
Buchanan (including the entire area of Mogotes de Caneja), and the
scattered subpopulations along northeast Puerto Rico, are estimated at
least 211 individuals, including saplings, and with evidence of
seedling recruitment (see table, above).
Palo de rosa occurs in variable habitats but is dependent on the
specific microhabitat conditions. On dry limestone forest like the GCF,
the species occurs at the bottom of drainages that provide moisture,
whereas at the SCF, palo de rosa occurs
[[Page 37100]]
along the borders of rivers. The subpopulations along the northern
karst of Puerto Rico are found on the top of limestone hills, possibly
because those areas have no agricultural value, and so were not
impacted by conversion to agricultural lands. Such variability in
habitats indicates the species' current fragmented distribution and
lack of connectivity between populations are the result of earlier
land-clearing and habitat modification. Information from specimens
deposited at multiple herbaria (i.e., New York Botanical Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, UPR, UPRRP, and MAPR) suggests palo de rosa
was originally more common and widespread throughout Puerto Rico.
Recruitment and Population Structure
At least 25 subpopulations of the 66 subpopulations show evidence
of fruit production and seedling or sapling recruitment (see table,
above) (USFWS 2017, pp. 8, 11-12). Fruit production and seed
germination have been documented in several subpopulations (Monsegur-
Rivera 2016, pers. obs.). However, individual palo de rosa trees grow
extremely slowly and the growth of the saplings is also quite slow,
with an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) after 20 years
growth. Therefore, it is estimated that, under natural conditions,
individuals of palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size, and the currently known subpopulations are
experiencing slow recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). In
addition, seeds of this species are not dispersed by any discernible
method other than gravity. Thus, recruitment is limited to the
proximity of the parental tree, limiting the species' potential to
colonize further suitable habitat, and limiting the survival of
clustered seedlings due to closed canopy conditions and competition
with the parental tree.
Palo de rosa is a late successional species and requires several
decades to reach a reproductive size under natural conditions. Evidence
from herbarium specimens suggests that palo de rosa once extended to
the coastal lowlands of Puerto Rico, including dune ecosystems.
Population dynamics and survey assessments support the hypothesis that
palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may remain
dormant under closed canopy conditions, until there is some natural
disturbance that provides favorable conditions for the development of
the saplings. Thus, the species may require an open canopy to promote
seedling growth and is adapted to natural disturbances such as
hurricanes (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under this scenario, the
natural populations show a slow natural recruitment that requires
stable habitat conditions with a regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering and fruiting) have been
associated with bigger trees as observed in four subpopulations, where
tree diameters reach 13-20.5 cm (5.1-8.1 in) and canopies are higher
(at least 10 m) (32.8 ft) (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8; USFWS
2009, p. 4). For example, one large tree in the El Costillar-R[iacute]o
Guajataca (subpopulation had an estimated 1,000 seedlings under one
tree with an almost 90 percent survivorship of 156 monitored seedlings
after 18 months (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8). Further visits to
this subpopulation indicate the survival of seedlings and saplings
remains high, with evidence of additional recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera
2007, 2012, and 2014, pers. obs.).
Recruitment may be intermittent in some subpopulations. For
example, a subpopulation with no seedling survival following a fruiting
event in 2004 was noted to contain about 30 small saplings in the post-
Hurricane Mar[iacute]a assessment in 2018, suggesting the subpopulation
is slowly recruiting (USFWS 2018, p. 25). Since 2009, hundreds of
seedlings have been recorded in the Fort Buchanan subpopulation
(Monsegur-Rivera 2009-present, pers. obs.). In 2018, at least 12
saplings ranging from 0.3-1.0 m (0.9-3.3 ft) were observed. Saplings
this size can withstand seasonal drought stress, and individuals are
likely to persist in the long term if the habitat remains unaltered.
Cross-pollination between subpopulation maximizes the likelihood of
fruit production and contributes to recruitment, which underscores the
importance of conserving the species through a landscape approach.
Of the 26 subpopulations currently showing evidence of natural
recruitment, 9 of the 26 occur in areas that are managed for
conservation. The 9 subpopulations constitute 36 percent of
subpopulations showing natural recruitment and contain nearly 300
individuals in total. There is no evidence of natural recruitment at
this time for the remaining 40 subpopulations, although the species'
life history implies that recruitment may still occur in these
populations when a canopy opening is created and suitable conditions
for recruitment are present. Forest cover in Puerto Rico has increased
since the widespread deforestation in the 1930s-1950s (Marcano-Vega et
al. 2015, p. 67), but the availability of suitable habitat prior to
deforestation and habitat fragmentation implies palo de rosa may have
had greater abundance and wider distribution. Although current
information on population structure indicates the species requires some
open canopy areas to promote recruitment, widespread deforestation
fragments habitat and creates edges (habitat transition zones). The
possible long-term negative effects of habitat fragmentation and edge
effect on subpopulations with recruitment adjacent to habitat
disturbance are still unknown. Current observations from the 2018 post-
hurricane assessment suggest subpopulations encroached by development
or agriculture were negatively affected by weedy vegetation invading
the habitat following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (e.g., Cayaponia americana
(bejuco de torero), Dioscorea alata ([ntilde]ame), and Thunbergia
grandiflora (pompeya). However, the extent of such impact remains
uncertain and further monitoring is needed. Such information highlights
the effect of habitat fragmentation on the natural recruitment of palo
de rosa.
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans must, to the
maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria
which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed
from the list.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For
example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
[[Page 37101]]
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new
recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery. Parties
seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of
methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new
information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The
new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are
appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or
may not, fully follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the recovery
criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of the
taxon. The recovery plan for this species does not provide downlisting
criteria (USFWS 1994, entire). The recovery plan for palo de rosa
indicates the species could be considered for delisting when the
following criteria are met: (1) Populations known to occur on privately
owned land are placed under protective status; (2) an agreement between
the Service and the U.S. Army concerning the protection of the species
on their land (Fort Buchanan) has been prepared and implemented; and
(3) mechanisms for the protection of palo de rosa have been
incorporated into management plans for Maricao, Gu[aacute]nica,
Sus[uacute]a, and Cambalache Commonwealth Forests. Also, the plan notes
that given the discovery of additional populations, priority should be
given to enhancement and protection of existing populations in
protected areas and the protection of palo de rosa on privately owned
land (USFWS 1994, p. 13). At the time the recovery plan was written,
only 200 individuals in 16 populations (currently defined as
subpopulations) were known. In addition, the lack of recruitment in
palo de rosa populations was not known to be a concern; therefore,
recovery criteria primarily address protection of palo de rosa habitat.
We apply our current understanding of the species' range, biology, and
threats to these delisting criteria to support our rationale for why
downlisting is appropriate.
Delisting criterion 1 has been partially met. At the time the
recovery plan was written, 4 of 16 populations (now defined as
subpopulations) occurred on private lands. Currently, of the 66 known
palo de rosa subpopulations, 45 are located within private lands. From
those 45, 3 subpopulations (i.e., 7 percent of subpopulations, or 65
individuals) are under protective status (e.g., Hacienda Esperanza, El
Tallonal, and Mata de Pl[aacute]tano) (see table, above). The
subpopulations on the private natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata
de Pl[aacute]tano are protected from habitat modification, and each has
an approved private forest stewardship management plan that includes
measures for the protection of listed species within the property
(PRDNER 2005, entire). The palo de rosa individuals found at Hacienda
La Esperanza Natural Reserve are protected, as this reserve also is
managed for conservation by PLN, and the management plan considers palo
de rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67).
Additional conservation efforts have been implemented throughout
coordination among the Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and PRDNER resulting in the protection in perpetuity of
approximately 257 acres of private forested habitat adjacent to the
northern boundary of the GCF, which will benefit the Yauco Landfill
palo de rosa subpopulation (PRDNER 2015, p. 1). This conservation
effort maintains the connectivity between subpopulations and maximizes
the species' viability. In addition, the PRDNER acquired private lands
that included suitable habitat for palo de rosa and incorporated them
into the GCF, increasing the protected area from the approximately
4,016 ha (9,923 ac) in 1996, to at least 4,400 ha (10,872 ac) (Monsegur
2009, p. 8).
While this criterion has only been partially met, with the
identification of additional individuals, populations, and
subpopulations, of the 1,144 palo de rosa individuals known, only 341
(29 percent) occur on private lands with no protection. Currently, 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) occur in areas managed for conservation.
Together with our partners, we have met delisting criterion 2. In
2015, the Service signed an MOU with the U.S. Army and PRDNER for the
protection, management, and recovery of palo de rosa at Fort Buchanan
(U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire). As a result, the mogote where
palo de rosa is found at the military base is managed for conservation,
propagation and planting of palo de rosa has taken place, and the
species is frequently monitored (USACE 2014, p. 3). Nonetheless, the
viability of the Fort Buchanan subpopulation is influenced by
interaction with other individuals in neighboring private lands and
areas subject to development.
Lastly, we determine delisting criterion 3 to be obsolete. Although
species-specific management plans do not exist for Commonwealth
forests, the natural reserves are managed for conservation by PRDNER as
recommended by the Master Plan for the Commonwealth Forests of Puerto
Rico (DNR 1976, entire). These management efforts prevent adverse
impacts to plants and animals, particularly listed species such as palo
de rosa, and their habitats. Forest management protects palo de rosa
along the southern coast of Puerto Rico where the GCF and SCF
subpopulations (175 individuals) are located within the boundaries of
these forests. The development of effective conservation mechanisms for
the species outside Commonwealth forests also protects palo de rosa, as
components of the resiliency of populations (e.g., effective cross-
pollination, fruit set, and natural recruitment) depend on the
interactions among neighboring subpopulations. Thus, we continue
working with PRDNER and other partners to monitor and survey suitable
unexplored habitat for palo de rosa, to develop sound conservation
strategies, and to proactively identify priority areas for
conservation. Such conservation measures may include the maintenance
and enhancement of effective forested buffer areas and corridors to
provide connectivity between palo de rosa subpopulations, and to secure
the microhabitat conditions necessary to promote the species'
recruitment.
In conclusion, the implementation of recovery actions, in addition
to the identification of numerous additional individuals and
subpopulations, have reduced the risk of extinction for palo de rosa.
Of the 1,144 adult palo de rosa individuals known, only 341 (29
percent) occur on private lands with no protection. Currently, 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) occur in areas managed for conservation. Although
many individuals occur on protected lands, we have identified 20
subpopulations throughout Puerto Rico where habitat modification and
fragmentation can still occur. Puerto Rico's laws and regulations
protect palo de rosa on both public and private lands, and other
protection mechanisms (i.e., conservation easements) have been
implemented, but impacts to palo de rosa subpopulations may occur due
to lack of enforcement, misidentification of the species, agricultural
practices, and unregulated activities (see Summary of
[[Page 37102]]
Biological Status and Threats, below). Based on the biology of palo de
rosa and its dependence on cross-pollination, impacts that reduce
connectivity between subpopulations may affect the breeding capacity of
the species, and thus its long-term recruitment and viability. The
recovery of palo de rosa will include collaboration and partnership
efforts with PRDNER and private landowners to develop conservation
strategies and recommendations when evaluating urban and infrastructure
development projects that could affect these subpopulations. Recovery
efforts should be directed towards landscape planning and management
strategies that would ensure abundance and distribution of palo de rosa
subpopulations to allow cross-pollination and recruitment and
contribute to the long-term recovery of palo de rosa.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
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 is an ``endangered species'' or a ``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:
(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 consider these same five
factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened or
delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e)).
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 expected response by the species,
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 now and in
the foreseeable future.
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. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
We consider 50 years to be the foreseeable future within which we
can reasonably determine the threats, the magnitude of those threats,
and the species' response to those threats. The foreseeable future for
the individual factors and threats vary. However, based on the
available information from ongoing monitoring of populations known at
the time of listing, it is estimated that under natural conditions,
individuals of palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size, and the reproductive ecology of palo de rosa is
consistent with late successional species. Within 50 years, an
individual plant of palo de rosa would reach a reproductive size and
effectively contribute to the next generation. Therefore, this
timeframe accounts for maturation, the probability of flowering,
effective cross-pollination, setting viable fruits, seed germination,
and early seedling survival and establishment, taking into account
environmental stochastic events such as drought periods. Some palo de
rosa life stages are more sensitive to a particular threat (e.g.,
seedling and sapling susceptibility to drought conditions); therefore,
the species' response to threats in all life stages and the effects of
these responses can be reasonably determined within the foreseeable
future (50 years). We can also reasonably predict development and
habitat fragmentation and modification within this timeframe based on
current trends. Furthermore, the established timeframe for the
foreseeable future provides for the design and implementation of
conservation strategies to protect and enhance currently known
populations.
In terms of climate, we recognize that modelled projections for
Puerto Rico are characterized by some divergence and uncertainty later
in the century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). However, we have
reasonable confidence in projections within a 50-year timeframe
representing the foreseeable future for palo de rosa because
uncertainty is reduced within this timeframe. We assessed the climate
changes expected in the year 2070 and determined that
[[Page 37103]]
downscaled future climate change scenarios indicate that Puerto Rico is
predicted to experience changes in climate that will affect palo de
rosa (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). Thus, using a 50-year timeframe
for the foreseeable future allows us to account for the effects of
projected changes in temperature, the shifting of life zones, and an
increase in droughts in the habitat.
Analytical Framework
The 5-year review (USFWS 2017, entire) documents the results of our
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a
summary of the key results and conclusions from the 5-year review and
the best available information gathered since that time. The 5-year
review can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0059.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Below, 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.
Habitat Destruction and Modification
Habitat destruction and modification, including forest management
practices, were identified as factors affecting the continued existence
of palo de rosa when it was listed in 1990 (55 FR 13488; April 10,
1990). At present, forest management practices within Commonwealth
forests are not considered a threat to palo de rosa because of existing
regulatory mechanisms and lack of evidence of direct impacts to the
species due to forest management practices. For example, although there
is evidence of palo de rosa individuals with multiple stems due to
historical deforestation and harvesting for charcoal production in the
GCF, selective harvesting and deforestation is no longer a threat to
the GCF population. Similar to the GCF, the palo de rosa SCF population
(i.e., Quebrada Peces, Quebrada Grande, and R[iacute]o Loco
subpopulations) is also entirely under conservation, and we have no
evidence of adverse impacts to the species due to forest management
practices.
However, that is not necessarily the case on private lands; the
subpopulations of Montes de Barinas and Guayanilla-CORCO remain
vulnerable to deforestation and habitat modification. In Montes de
Barinas, palo de rosa occurs on private properties subject to urban
development, resulting in encroachment of native dry forest areas, and
thus in the isolation of palo de rosa (see 79 FR 53307, September 9,
2014, with reference to threats in the same area). These areas also are
threatened by deforestation for cattle grazing and the extraction of
timber for fence posts (Rom[aacute]n-Guzman 2006, p. 40; see 79 FR
53307, September 9, 2014). In fact, active extraction of timber for
fence posts has been reported adjacent to the Montes de Barinas
subpopulation and on a neighboring property with other endemic species,
with palo de rosa individuals in the Montes de Barinas population
likely to be cut if harvesting continued (Monsegur-Rivera 2003-2006,
pers. obs.; Morales 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, the area of Montes
de Barinas showed evidence of bulldozing and subdivision for urban
development (Rom[aacute]n-Guzman 2006, p. 40).
The habitat at the Guayanilla-CORCO population is impacted on a
regular basis by the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority (PREPA) for
the maintenance of power lines and associated rights-of-way (USFWS
2017, p. 16). Impacts to the species' habitat have been reported in
that area as a result of construction of access roads to PREPA towers
(Monsegur-Rivera 2014-2020, pers. obs.). Such habitat disturbance and
modification affect the integrity of palo de rosa habitat and likely
results in direct and indirect impacts to individuals. In fact, some
access roads go through drainages that provide good habitat for palo de
rosa and could affect microhabitat conditions necessary for seedling
germination and recruitment. In addition, these dirt access roads
provide corridors for the establishment of exotic plant species like
guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and zarcilla (Leucaena
leucocephala), which outcompete the native vegetation (including palo
de rosa) and promote favorable conditions for human-induced fires
(USFWS 2017, p. 16). Moreover, these dirt roads are used to access the
forested habitat for harvesting of timber for fence posts (Monsegur-
Rivera 2014, pers. obs.). Similarly, the habitat in the municipalities
of Pe[ntilde]uelas and Ponce (i.e., Punta Cucharas) near the
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas population has been severely fragmented by
urban development (e.g., housing development, hotels, a jail, a
landfill, rock quarries, and highway PR-2) (see 79 FR 53307, September
9, 2014), and due to maintenance of PREPA power lines (Monsegur-Rivera
2020, pers. obs.).
In Sierra Bermeja and Cerro las Mesas, private forested lands also
have been impacted through deforestation, mainly for agricultural
practices (i.e., grazing by cattle and goats, and associated conversion
of forested habitat to grasslands) and some urban development (i.e.,
construction of houses and roads) (Cede[ntilde]o-Maldonado and Breckon
1996, p. 349; USFWS 1998, p. 6; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 6). Most of
the Sierra Bermeja mountain range was zoned with specific restrictions
on development activities to protect the natural resources of the area
(JPPR 2009, pp. 151-153). This zoning allows for agricultural
activities and construction of residential homes with the
implementation of best management practices and some limitations (JPPR
2009, p. 151; JPPR 2015, pp. 118-129). Nonetheless, landowners continue
impacting the habitat through activities like cutting new access roads
on their properties and conversion of forested land to pasture (Pacheco
and Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). The palo de rosa population in
Sierra Bermeja is limited to two isolated individuals on protected
lands (LCNWR and PLN conservation easement), with no evidence of
natural recruitment. Similarly, the other two palo de rosa individuals
in Guaniquilla-Buye, also in southwest Puerto Rico, are found within
private lands subject to urban and tourist development, although these
plants are not yet impacted.
Core subpopulations of palo de rosa occur in the northern karst
belt of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 1), where approximately 80
percent of the known sites for palo de rosa occur on private lands not
managed for conservation. These private lands are encroached upon by
development and subject to habitat modification activities (e.g., urban
development) detrimental to palo de rosa. The palo de rosa
subpopulation at GuCF is the westernmost record of the species in
northern Puerto Rico that lies within an area managed for conservation.
As previously discussed, the GuCF subpopulations extend to private
lands along the Guajataca Gorge. Although the steep terrain and low
agricultural value of this area has protected the subpopulations from
habitat modification, some remain vulnerable to infrastructure
development (e.g., possible expansion of Highway PR-22 between the
municipalities of Hatillo and Aguadilla). For example, three previously
unknown subpopulations (including one showing recruitment) were located
during the biological
[[Page 37104]]
assessments for the proposed expansion of Highway PR-22 (PRHTA 2007, p.
19).
Another subpopulation vulnerable to habitat modification is the
Merendero-Guajataca; this area is managed for recreation, and the
habitat remains threatened by vegetation management activities (e.g.,
maintenance of green areas and vegetation clearing along trails).
Habitat modification can also have implications beyond the direct
impacts to a subpopulation. Although the palo de rosa in the Merendero-
Guajataca subpopulation have produced flowers, there are no records of
fruit production or seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera 2009-present, pers.
obs.); this is likely due to habitat modification at the site.
Nonetheless, this subpopulation may interact through cross-pollination
with the nearby El T[uacute]nel-Guajataca subpopulation and, thus,
contribute to observed recruitment in other Guajataca Gorge
subpopulations. A palo de rosa subpopulation was located during a
biological assessment for the proposed expansion of an existing quarry
adjacent to the R[iacute]o Camuy (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7). We
expect impacts to this subpopulation from the quarry activities will
interfere with the natural recruitment of the species along the
R[iacute]o Camuy.
Habitat encroachment is evident on private lands surrounding the
CCF, Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve, and Tortuguero Lagoon
Natural Preserve, where at least six known subpopulations occur within
private lands adjacent to areas subject to development or
infrastructure projects. The subpopulations at Hacienda Esperanza
extend to private lands on their southern boundary, where development
projects have been proposed (e.g., Ciudad M[eacute]dica del Caribe;
PRDNER 2011, pp. 24-25). Habitat modification in those areas can result
in direct impacts to palo de rosa individuals and can interrupt the
connectivity between subpopulations (e.g., cross-pollination). In
addition, the analysis of aerial images indicates four additional
subpopulations occurring on private lands in the proximity of Hacienda
Esperanza are encroached upon by urban development, rock quarries, and
agricultural areas (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.).
The palo de rosa subpopulations at Hacienda Sabanera in Dorado have
been encroached upon by development. We prepared a biological opinion
during the consultation process for the construction of Hacienda
Sabanera and its associated impacts on palo de rosa (USFWS 1999,
entire). The biological opinion indicates that approximately 83 of the
200 acres (including forested mogote habitat) would be impacted, and 6
adults, 12 saplings, and 35 seedlings of palo de rosa would be directly
affected by the proposed project (USFWS 1999, p. 6). Although we
concluded that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence
of palo de rosa (USFWS 1999, p. 7), the project resulted in substantial
loss of forested habitat, promoting edge habitat favorable for
intrusion of weedy species. In addition, a series of mogotes along
Higuillar Avenue, south of Hacienda Sabanera, are expected to be
impacted by proposed road construction (PRDNER 2013, pp. 22-24), and we
have no information that plans for the road have been discarded.
Encroachment conditions similar to those in Hacienda Sabanera also
occur in the areas of La Virgencita (north and south), Mogotes de
Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort
Buchanan. For example, at La Virgencita, the population of palo de rosa
is bisected by Highway PR-2 and could be further impacted if the road
is widened in the future. Landslides have occurred in this area in the
past and road maintenance in this vulnerable area may trigger slide
events (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15). In addition, palo de rosa individuals
are found within the PREPA power line rights-of-way (Power Line 41500),
and there is evidence the overall decrease or absence of saplings or
juveniles in the La Virgencita south population may be the result of
habitat modification and resulting edge habitat due to the maintenance
of the PREPA power line rights-of-way (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15; USFWS
2018, p. 33). In addition, the westernmost subpopulation of palo de
rosa occurs in the municipality of Aguadilla in an area identified by
the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) as part of
the proposed expansion of highway PR-22 (USFWS 2017, p. 7).
The Mogotes de Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque
Monagas, and Fort Buchanan subpopulations are also severely fragmented
by urban development and a rock quarry (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Such
fragmentation compromises the connectivity between subpopulations. Some
of these areas are vulnerable to landslides due to changes in the
contour of the terrain associated with a high density of urban
development, encroachment, and quarry operations (e.g., Parque Monagas
and Fort Buchanan) (U.S. Army 2014, p. 3). Although Fort Buchanan
habitat is set aside for conservation, landslides have occurred within
and near Fort Buchanan and the subpopulation remains threatened due to
potential landslides. Fort Buchanan is evaluating a possible slope
stabilization project for the site (U.S. Army 2014, pp. 4, 9-11).
Palo de rosa occurs within several National Parks on Hispaniola
(Dominican Republic and Haiti) (e.g., Parque Nacional del Este, Parque
Nacional Los Haitises, and Parque Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco). Despite
the occurrence of the species within areas managed for conservation
(e.g., Parque del Este and Sierra de Bahoruco), these areas continue to
be affected by illegal deforestation for agriculture and charcoal
production, and enforcement of existing regulations is limited
(Jim[eacute]nez 2019, pers. comm.). The dependence of the human
population of Haiti on wood-based cooking fuels (e.g., charcoal and
firewood) has resulted in substantial deforestation and forest
conversion to marginal habitat in both Haiti and adjacent regions of
the Dominican Republic (e.g., Sierra de Bahoruco), and the expected
increases in the human population in Haiti will result in an increase
in the demand for such fuel resources (USFWS 2018, p. 4). In fact,
there has recently been increasing amounts of deforestation and habitat
degradation in the Sierra de Bahoruco and the surrounding region (Grupo
Jaragua 2011, entire; Goetz et al. 2012, p. 5; Simons et al. 2013, p.
31). In 2013, an estimated 80 square kilometers (19,768.4 acres) of
forest in the area was lost primarily due to illegal clearing of
forested habitat for agricultural activities (Gallagher 2015, entire).
Vast areas (including suitable habitat for palo de rosa) along the
border between Haiti and Dominican Republic (including within National
Parks) are being cleared and converted to avocado plantations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). Such deforestation extends to other
National Parks, such as Parque Nacional del Este and Isla Saona, where
illegal vegetation clearing for agriculture and tourism development
continue to occur (Monsegur-Rivera 2011, pers. obs.). For example,
analysis of aerial images from Isla Saona (Parque Nacional del Este)
show extensive deforestation and conversion of forested habitat to
agricultural lands during the last decade (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers.
obs.). Impacts to palo de rosa populations due to development and
habitat destruction and modification in Hispaniola are not described in
the final listing rule for the species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990),
but current information indicates that palo de rosa and its habitat are
being affected by deforestation for agricultural practices and
extraction for fuel
[[Page 37105]]
resources. To summarize, forest management practices within
Commonwealth Forests are no longer considered a threat to palo de rosa.
The palo de rosa populations at the CCF, GCF, GuCF, RACF, and SCF are
protected, as these forest reserves are protected by Commonwealth laws
and managed for conservation. Nonetheless, populations extending onto
private lands in southern Puerto Rico are vulnerable to impacts from
urban development, agricultural practices (e.g., harvesting fence
posts), and maintenance of power lines and rights-of-way (Monsegur-
Rivera 2019, pers. obs.). In addition, the majority of the
subpopulations along the northern karst of Puerto Rico occur on private
lands, where habitat encroachment occurs and creates edge habitat
conditions (habitat intrusion by exotics that precludes seedling
establishment) and affects connectivity and natural recruitment. For
example, despite the abundance of individuals at the palo de rosa
subpopulation adjacent to the former CORCO in Guayanilla-
Pe[ntilde]uelas, recruitment is limited due to the multiple stressors,
including maintenance of power line rights-of-way, fence post harvest,
and intrusion of exotic plants species, as well as the changes in
microhabitat conditions at these sites, which preclude seedling
establishment. Furthermore, habitat fragmentation along the northern
coast may affect cross-pollination among subpopulations, resulting in
the lack of fruit production at isolated subpopulations with a smaller
number of individuals (e.g., Merendero-Guajataca).
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
In the final listing rule (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), we
identified the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as one of
the factors affecting the continued existence of palo de rosa. At that
time, the species had no legal protection, because it had not been
included in Puerto Rico's list of protected species. Once palo de rosa
was federally listed, legal protection was extended by virtue of an
existing cooperative agreement (under section 6 of the Act) with the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Federal listing assured the addition of
palo de rosa to the Commonwealth's list of protected species, and the
Commonwealth designated palo de rosa as endangered in 2004 (DRNA 2004,
p. 52).
In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved Law No. 241, also
known as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico (Nueva Ley de Vida
Silvestre de Puerto Rico), and palo de rosa is legally protected under
this law. The purpose of this law is to protect, conserve, and enhance
both native and migratory wildlife species, and to declare as property
of Puerto Rico all wildlife species within its jurisdiction, to
regulate permits, to regulate hunting activities, and to regulate
exotic species, among other activities. This law also has provisions to
protect habitat for all wildlife species, including plants. In 2004,
the PRDNER approved Regulation 6766 or Regulations to Govern the
Management of Species Vulnerable and Danger of Extinction in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las
Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado
Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of Regulation 6766
prohibits, among other activities, collecting, cutting, and removing of
listed plant individuals within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico (DRNA
2004, p. 11). The provisions of Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766
extend to private lands. However, the protection of listed species on
private lands is challenging, as landowners may be unaware that species
are protected and may damage those species (e.g., by cutting, pruning,
or mowing) (USFWS 2017, p. 23), which might be the case if palo de rosa
is cut for fence posts.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law No. 133 (1975, as amended in 2000),
also known as Puerto Rico Forests' Law (Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico),
protects the areas of the GCF, SCF, GuCF, RACF, and CCF, and, by
extension, the palo de rosa individuals on them. Section 8(a) of this
law prohibits cutting, killing, destroying, uprooting, extracting, or
in any way hurting any tree or vegetation within a Commonwealth forest.
The PRDNER also identified these Commonwealth forests as ``critical
wildlife areas.'' This designation constitutes a special recognition
with the purpose of providing information to Commonwealth and Federal
agencies about the conservation needs of these areas, and to assist
permitting agencies in precluding adverse impacts as a result of
project endorsements or permit approvals (PRDNER 2005, pp. 211-216). In
addition, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law No. 292 (1999), also known as
Puerto Rico Karst Physiographic Protection and Conservation Law (Ley
para la Protecci[oacute]n y Conservaci[oacute]n de la
Fisiograf[iacute]a C[aacute]rsica de Puerto Rico), regulates the
extraction of rock and gravel for commercial purposes, and prohibits
the cutting of native and endemic vegetation in violation of other laws
(e.g., Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766). Law No. 292-1999 applies
to karst habitat in both southern and northern Puerto Rico.
On the LCNWR, habitat is managed in accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-
668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]), and collection of plants within refuge
lands is prohibited by title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at Sec. 27.51. The LCNWR has a comprehensive conservation plan
that includes measures for the protection and recovery of endangered
and threatened plant species (USFWS 2011a, p. 35). Furthermore, the
Puerto Rico Planning Board (Junta de Planificaci[oacute]n de Puerto
Rico) classified most of the mountain range of Sierra Bermeja as a
District of Conservation of Resources (Distrito de Conservaci[oacute]n
de Suelos) (JPPR 2009, p. 151). This conservation category identifies
lands with particular characteristics that need to be maintained or
enhanced (e.g., provide habitat for species of concern), and
establishes specific restrictions for development (JPPR 2009, p. 151).
Also, in 2015, the Puerto Rico Planning Board approved the Land Use
Plan for Puerto Rico, and categorized most of the Sierra Bermeja
Mountains, including the LCNWR, as Rustic Soil Specially Protected
(Suelo Rustico Especialmente Protegido) where no urban development is
considered due to location, topography, aesthetic value, archaeological
value, or ecological value of land (Puerto Rico Planning Board
Interactive Map 2020).
The palo de rosa individuals found at Hacienda La Esperanza Natural
Reserve are protected, as this reserve also is managed for conservation
by PLN, and the management plan considers palo de rosa in its
activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67). The PLN also manages the R[iacute]o
Encantado Natural Protected Area, a mosaic of at least 1,818 ac (736
ha) of forested habitat (including extensive areas of suitable habitat
for palo de rosa) in the municipalities of Florida, Manat[iacute], and
Ciales, and PLN plans to continue acquiring habitat at this
geographical area (PLN 2011b, p. 5). Also, palo de rosa is protected
and managed under an MOU among the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Buchanan,
the Service, and PRDNER (U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire). This
palo de rosa subpopulation is found in a mogote designated for
conservation (USACE 2014, p. 3).
In addition, the private natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata
de
[[Page 37106]]
Pl[aacute]tano, which contain subpopulations of palo de rosa in the
municipality of Arecibo, are protected from habitat modification and
have approved private forest stewardship management plans that include
measures for the protection of listed species within the properties
(PRDNER 2005, 47 pp.). We have an extended history of collaboration
with these two reserves, providing financial and technical assistance
for the implementation of recovery actions to benefit listed species.
In addition to protections provided by the Act, the species is
protected from collection and provided management considerations by the
Improvement Act within one national wildlife refuge (LCNWR). In
addition, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally protects palo de
rosa, including protections to its habitat, through Commonwealth Law
No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766, which prohibit, among other actions,
collecting, cutting, and removing listed plants. If we downlist this
species, we do not expect this species to be removed from legal
protection by the Commonwealth. Although these protections extend to
both public and private lands, as discussed above, protection of this
species on private land is challenging. Habitat that occurs on private
land is subject to pressures from agricultural practices (e.g.,
grazing, harvesting fence posts) and development. Accidental damage or
extirpation of individuals has occurred because private landowners or
other parties on the property may not be able to identify the species
or may not be aware that palo de rosa is a protected species. Habitat
modifications and fragmentation continue to occur on private lands,
which can increase the likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic plants
and human-induced fires and reduce connectivity between populations and
the availability of suitable habitat for the species' recruitment. In
short, this plant is now more abundant and widely distributed,
including within conservation land, so the threat due to inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms has been reduced. However, the occurrences of
palo de rosa on private lands continue to need enforcement of existing
prohibitions, as well as increased attention and associated outreach to
highlight the species' conservation and importance.
Recruitment
Here, we summarize the continuing threat of low recruitment on palo
de rosa populations, and we describe this influence on palo de rosa
viability in greater detail under Recruitment and Population Structure,
above. Characteristics of palo de rosa's life history may contribute to
the slow or lack of recruitment observed in current subpopulations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). Individual palo de rosa trees grow
extremely slowly, and the growth of the saplings is also quite slow,
with an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) after 20 years of
growth. It is estimated that, under natural conditions, individuals of
palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a reproductive
size. In addition, seeds of this species are not dispersed by any
discernible method other than gravity and concentrate under the
parental tree. Thus, recruitment is limited to the proximity of the
parental tree, limiting the species' potential to colonize further
suitable habitat, and limiting the survival of clustered seedlings due
to closed canopy conditions and competition with the parental tree.
Population dynamics and survey assessments support the conclusion
that palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may
remain dormant under closed canopy conditions, until there is some
natural disturbance that provides favorable conditions for the
development of the saplings. Thus, the species requires an open canopy
to promote seedling growth and is adapted to natural disturbances such
as hurricanes (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under this scenario, the
natural populations show a slow natural recruitment that requires
stable habitat conditions with a regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering and fruiting) have been
associated with larger, more mature trees (Breckon and Kolterman 1992,
p. 8; USFWS 2009, p. 4). Cross-pollination between or among
subpopulations maximizes the likelihood of fruit production and
contributes to recruitment, which underscores the importance of
conserving the species through a landscape approach to promote natural
recruitment. Although current information on population structure
indicates the species requires some open canopy areas to promote
recruitment, widespread deforestation fragments habitat and creates
edges (habitat transition zones).
There is no evidence of natural recruitment at this time for 40 of
the 66 known subpopulations, although the species' life history implies
that recruitment may still occur in these populations when a canopy
opening is created and suitable conditions for recruitment are present.
Forest cover in Puerto Rico has increased since the widespread
deforestation in the 1930s (Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but the
species was likely more widespread prior to deforestation and habitat
fragmentation. A life history requirement for a closed canopy forest
for adult individuals with canopy openings to promote seedling and
sapling recruitment was likely more sustainable in populations with
greater abundance and distribution than the species currently exhibits.
Smaller and more isolated subpopulations are less able to provide
closed canopy conditions with small pockets of openings; thus, inherent
palo de rosa life history characteristics have an effect on
recruitment, and this effect is expected to continue in the future.
Hurricanes and Related Threats
At the time of listing, we considered individuals of palo de rosa
vulnerable to flash flood events (see 55 FR 13490, April 10, 1990).
Flash floods remain a moderate threat and may compromise the natural
recruitment of seedlings, particularly on subpopulations along the
southern coast of Puerto Rico where the species occurs at the bottom of
drainages (USFWS 2017, p. 17). Below, we describe these threats and
other natural and human-caused factors affecting the continued
existence of palo de rosa.
As an endemic species to the Caribbean, palo de rosa is expected to
be well adapted to tropical storms and associated disturbances such as
flash floods. Under natural conditions, healthy populations with robust
numbers of individuals and recruitment should withstand tropical
storms, and these weather and climatic events may be beneficial for the
population dynamics of palo de rosa by creating small openings in the
closed canopy to allow seedling and sapling growth. The islands of the
Caribbean are frequently affected by hurricanes. Puerto Rico has been
directly affected by four major hurricanes since 1989. Successional
responses to hurricanes can influence the structure and composition of
plant communities in the Caribbean islands (Lugo 2000, p. 245; Van
Bloem et al. 2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 572; Van Bloem et
al. 2006, p. 517). Examples of the visible effects of hurricanes on the
ecosystem includes massive defoliation, snapped and wind-thrown trees,
large debris accumulations, landslides, debris flows, and altered
stream channels, among others (Lugo 2008, p. 368). Hurricanes can
produce sudden and massive tree mortality, which varies among species
but averages about 41.5 percent (Lugo 2000, p. 245). Hence, small
populations
[[Page 37107]]
of palo de rosa may be severely impacted by hurricanes, resulting in
loss of individuals or extirpation. The impact of catastrophic
hurricanes is exacerbated in small populations.
There is evidence of damage to individuals of palo de rosa due to
previous hurricane events (e.g., Hurricane Georges in 1998) at the
Hacienda Sabanera and Hacienda Esperanza subpopulations (USFWS 2017, p.
17). A post-hurricane assessment of selected populations of palo de
rosa was conducted to address the impact of Hurricane Mar[iacute]a
(USFWS 2018, entire). Even though Hurricane Mar[iacute]a did not
directly hit the GCF, evidence of damage to palo de rosa trees was
recorded at Ca[ntilde]on Las Trichilias (e.g., uprooted trees and main
trunk broken) (USFWS 2018, p. 3). Additional evidence of direct impacts
(including mortality) due to Hurricane Mar[iacute]a were recorded in
the Hacienda Esperanza, Hacienda Sabanera, Parque Monagas, and La
Virgencita subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire). An analysis of high-
resolution aerial images from these sites following Hurricane
Mar[iacute]a shows extensive damage and modification to the forest
structure, with subpopulations in southern Puerto Rico exposed to less
wind damage (Hu and Smith 2018, pp. 1, 17). When comparing affected
subpopulation abundance, the evidence of direct impacts to individuals
of palo de rosa due to Hurricane Mar[iacute]a appear to be
discountable. However, this post-hurricane assessment focused on
previously surveyed robust subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire).
Overall, the subpopulations along the northern coast of Puerto Rico
suffered severe defoliation, with trees showing mortality of the crown
apex, but some trees showing regrowth 6 months post-hurricane (USFWS
2018, entire).
However, hurricane damage extends beyond the direct impacts to
individual palo de rosa trees. As mentioned above, the subpopulations
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico are severely fragmented due to
prior land-use history. Disturbance and edge effects associated with
urban development and infrastructure corridors may promote the
establishment and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species, and
lianas (woody vines) typical of early or intermediate successional
stages, which may result in rare and endemic plant species being
outcompeted (Hansen and Clevenger 2005, p. 249; Madeira et al. 2009, p.
291). Hurricanes may not introduce nonnative species to the forest
structure, but they can promote favorable conditions for these species
and therefore increase the relative abundance of nonnatives.
Habitat intrusion by exotics is positively correlated to the
distance of the disturbance gap (Hansen and Clevenger 2005, p. 249).
Thus, the adverse effects from human-induced habitat disturbance (e.g.,
deforestation and urban development) can be exacerbated by hurricanes
by creating or increasing this disturbance gap. A post-hurricane
assessment provided evidence that all palo de rosa subpopulations along
the north coast of Puerto Rico showed habitat intrusion by weedy vines
(e.g., Dioscorea alata ([ntilde]ame), Thunbergia grandiflora (pompeya),
Cissus erosa (caro de tres hojas), and Cayaponia americana (bejuco de
torero)) following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, entire). In the
same assessment, weedy vegetation and vines densely covered an area in
the Hacienda Esperanza subpopulation, where palo de rosa occurs at a
low-elevation mogote, and Hacienda Sabanera, where the habitat that
harbors the palo de rosa population was cut to the edge of the
population of the species due to urban development (USFWS 2018, pp. 8-
18). Examination of aerial images of the habitat shows a flattened
forest structure indicative of hurricane damage, with standing trees
missing main branches and canopy. Competition with nonnative species
and weedy vines for necessary resources (space, light, water,
nutrients) may reduce the natural recruitment by inhibiting germination
and outcompeting seedlings of native species (Rojas-Sandoval and
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2013, p. 11; Thomson 2005, p. 615). Palo de
rosa seedlings at Hacienda Esperanza were covered (and outcompeted) by
weedy vines following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, p. 8). At
Fort Buchanan, 6 months after Hurricane Mar[iacute]a, the vegetation at
the base of the mogote on that property was overgrown and dominated by
weedy species. However, weedy vegetation had not reached palo de rosa
individuals at the top of the mogote, and there was little evidence of
adverse impacts to seedlings and saplings due to competition with
exotics (USFWS 2018, p. 8).
The GCF subpopulations of palo de rosa are surrounded by a large
tract of intact native forest, providing a buffer zone that precludes
habitat invasion by exotics. Despite the overall evidence of canopy
opening and some impacts to individuals of palo de rosa due to
Hurricane Mar[iacute]a, there was no evidence of habitat intrusion by
exotics at Ca[ntilde]on Las Trichilias and Ca[ntilde]on Hoya Honda
(USFWS 2018 pp. 3-8), which highlights the importance of maintaining
native forested habitat that provides a buffer for palo de rosa
subpopulations.
The above discussion indicates that the potential adverse impacts
due to hurricanes and the associated habitat intrusion by exotic plant
species are variable, depending on habitat fragmentation, topography,
distance to disturbance, and the size of the subpopulation. It further
highlights the importance of having healthy populations with robust
numbers of individuals and a stratified population structure (i.e.,
seedlings, saplings, and adults) to allow for recovery following
hurricanes and associated habitat disturbance.
Climate Change
Regarding the effects of climate change, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the climate
system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Observed effects associated
with climate change include widespread changes in precipitation amounts
and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation,
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4).
Rather than assessing climate change as a single threat in and of
itself, we examined the potential effects to the species and its
habitat that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change.
We examined a downscaled model for Puerto Rico based on three IPCC
global emissions scenarios from the CMIP3 data set--mid-high (A2), mid-
low (A1B), and low (B1)--as the CMIP5 data set was not available for
Puerto Rico at that time (Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279-280).
These scenarios are generally comparable and span the more recent
representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios from RCP 4.5 (B1)
to RCP 8.5 (A2) (IPCC 2014, p. 57). The B1 and A2 scenarios encompass
the projections and effects of the A1B scenario; we will describe our
analyses for the B1 (RCP 4.5) and A2 (RCP 8.5) scenarios and recognize
the A1B (RCP 6.0) projections and effects fall into this range.
The modelling of climate projections expected in Puerto Rico used
in our analysis extends to 2100. We acknowledge inherent divergence in
climate projections based on the model chosen, with uncertainty
increasing later in the century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275).
However, we assessed the climate changes expected in the year 2070, a
50-year timeframe representing the foreseeable future for palo de rosa
(as described in Regulatory Framework,
[[Page 37108]]
above). Under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, precipitation declines
while temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in extreme
drought conditions that would result in the conversion of subtropical
dry forest into dry and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280).
Downscaled future climate change scenarios indicate that by 2070,
Puerto Rico is predicted to experience a decrease in rainfall, along
with increased drought intensity under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 (Khalyani et al.
2016, p. 265; Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 133; U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) 2018, 20:820). The western region of Puerto Rico has
already experienced negative trends in annual rainfall (PRCC 2013, p.
7). Temperatures are also expected to rise between 2020 and 2070. Under
RCP 4.5, a mean temperature increase of 4.6-5.4 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (40.3-41.7 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) is projected, and an
increase of 7.5-9 [deg]C (45.5-48.2 [deg]F) is projected under RCP 8.5
(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). As precipitation decreases influenced
by warming, it will tend to accelerate the hydrological cycles,
resulting in wet and dry extremes (Jennings et al. 2014, p. 4; Cashman
et al. 2010, p. 1). Downscaled general circulation models predict
dramatic shifts in the life zones of Puerto Rico with potential loss of
subtropical rain, moist, and wet forests, and the appearance of
tropical dry and very dry forests are anticipated under both RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). Nonetheless, such
predicted changes in life zones may not severely affect palo de rosa
due to its distribution throughout Puerto Rico, which includes
different life zones and habitat types.
Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a function of
sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes, and adaptive
capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19). As described
earlier, palo de rosa is a species with low recruitment and seed
dispersal limited to gravity, limiting its potential to reach areas
with suitable microhabitat conditions for its establishment. Despite
the evidence of multiple reproductive events (fruit production) in one
subpopulation, low recruitment of saplings and a population structure
dominated by adult trees could be the result of mortality and thinning
of individuals at the seedling stage due to drought stress. The
projected prolonged droughts expected with climate change may affect
the phenology of palo de rosa, resulting in the loss of developing
flowers and fruits, or reduce the viability of the few produced seeds,
reducing the likelihood of natural recruitment. In addition, hurricanes
followed by extended periods of drought caused by climate change may
result in microclimate alterations that could allow other plants
(native or nonnative) to become established and become invasive (Lugo
2000, p. 246), which would preclude the recruitment of palo rosa
seedlings.
Based the distribution of palo de rosa and its habitat, we have
determined that conditions associated with climate change could impact
this species. Climate change is almost certain to affect terrestrial
habitats and palo de rosa; however, the future extent and timing of
those effects beyond the foreseeable future is uncertain. Some
terrestrial plant populations are able to adapt and respond to changing
climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire), but the ability of
palo de rosa to do so is unknown. A sound, long-term monitoring of
known palo de rosa populations is needed to understand the effects on
the species' viability.
In summary, other natural and manmade factors, such as hurricanes
and related threats due to habitat fragmentation, edge habitat, habitat
intrusion by exotic plant species, and the low recruitment and limited
dispersal of palo de rosa, are current threats to the species.
Hurricanes and post-hurricane habitat encroachment and nonnative plant
invasion have affected subpopulations along the northern coast of
Puerto Rico (USFWS 2018, entire). Invasive species can preclude the
establishment of new palo de rosa individuals through competition for
sunlight, nutrients, water, and space to grow. Although climate change
is almost certain to affect terrestrial habitats, there is uncertainty
about how predicted future changes in temperature, precipitation, and
other factors will influence palo de rosa.
Small Population Size
At the time of listing (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), we considered
small population size as a threat affecting the continued survival of
palo de rosa, based on the species' limited distribution and low number
of individuals (i.e., only 9 individuals throughout the species' range
in Puerto Rico). Based on this information, we considered the risk of
extinction of palo de rosa very high. New distribution and abundance
information available since the species was listed reflects that palo
de rosa is more abundant and widely distributed than previously thought
(USFWS 2017, entire); thus, we no longer consider limited distribution
as an imminent threat to this species. However, at least 37 (56
percent) of the known subpopulations are composed of 10 or fewer
individuals. The effect of small population size exacerbates other
threats and makes these subpopulations vulnerable to extirpation by
stochastic and catastrophic events.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by palo de rosa in
developing this proposed rule. Limited distribution and a low number of
individuals were considered a threat to palo de rosa when we listed the
species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), but recent information indicates
the species is more abundant and widely distributed than known at the
time of listing. However, other threats are still affecting palo de
rosa. Based on the analysis above, although we no longer consider
limited distribution as an imminent threat to this species, we conclude
that habitat destruction and modification on privately owned lands
(particularly along the northern coast of Puerto Rico), and other
natural or manmade factors (e.g., hurricanes, habitat fragmentation
resulting in lack of connectivity between individuals, and habitat
encroachment by invasive species) have been greatly reduced but
continue to threaten palo de rosa populations. In addition, low
recruitment related to sporadic flowering and fruit production, and the
slow growth of seedlings under close canopy conditions (e.g., species
reproductive biology and ecology), coupled with the threats discussed
above, are expected to remain threats to palo de rosa. It is also
expected that palo de rosa will be affected by climate change within
the foreseeable future, particularly by generalized changes in
precipitation and drought conditions. Climate change is expected to
result in more intense hurricanes and extended periods of drought.
Increased hurricanes are expected to cause direct mortality of adult
trees downed due to high winds, whereas more intense drought conditions
are expected to reduce the species' reproductive output (reduced
flowering and fruiting events) and also preclude seedling and sapling
recruitment. However, based on the best available data, we do not
consider climate change to represent a current or an imminent threat to
this species across its range.
Species viability, or the species' ability to sustain populations
over time, is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic
population- and species-level events (redundancy), to adapt to novel
changes in its biological
[[Page 37109]]
and physical environment (representation), and to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity and disturbances
(resiliency). The viability of a species is also dependent on the
likelihood of new stressors or continued threats, now and in the
future, that act to reduce a species' redundancy, representation, and
resiliency. A highly resilient palo de rosa population should be
characterized by sufficient abundance and connectivity between
reproductive individuals to allow for reproductive events and cross-
pollination, an age class structure representative of recruitment
greater than mortality, multiple subpopulations within the population,
and the availability of high-quality habitat to allow for recruitment.
High representation for the species is characterized by multiple
populations occurring within a wide range of environmental conditions
(e.g., substrate and precipitation) that allow for sufficient genetic
variability. Multiple resilient populations across the range of the
species characterize high redundancy for palo de rosa.
We evaluated the biological status of palo de rosa both currently
and into the future, considering the species' viability as
characterized by its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Based
on the analysis of available herbarium specimens, we have determined
the species' distribution and abundance was once more common and
widespread, and was likely a dominant late successional species of
coastal to middle elevation (500 m (1,640 ft)) habitats, and even
extended to coastal valleys and sand dunes (see table, above)
(Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. obs.). The current known palo de rosa
subpopulations are remnants of the species' historical distribution,
persisting on areas of low agricultural value (e.g., top of the
mogotes) that were affected by deforestation for charcoal production,
as evidenced by individuals with multiple trunks of palo de rosa
sprouting from the same base. Based on the available information on
palo de rosa's natural distribution at the time of listing, and
considering that 40 of the known 66 subpopulations currently show no
recruitment and no subpopulations appear to be expanding due to natural
dispersal, palo de rosa populations exhibit reduced resiliency. No
subpopulations appear to be dispersing, and no populations are highly
resilient. None of the currently known subpopulations of palo de rosa
are considered a recent colonization event or natural expansion of the
species within its habitat. The species persisted through the almost
entire deforestation of Puerto Rico with less than 6 percent of
remaining forested habitat across the island by the 1930s (Franco et
al. 1997, p. 3), when the low elevation coastal valleys habitat of palo
de rosa was extensively deforested for agricultural practices (e.g.,
sugar cane and tobacco plantations). There are broad accounts regarding
the extensive deforestation and habitat modification that occurred in
Puerto Rico until the 1950s (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), which resulted
in changes in forest structure and diversity, pollinators' assemblages,
seed dispersers, and the prevailing microhabitat conditions in which
palo de rosa evolved. Despite the return from such deforestation, known
subpopulations show a clustered and patchy distribution, and are
characterized by a population structure dominated by adults. Moreover,
the species faces a low recruitment rate and slow growth, resulting in
few saplings reaching a reproductive size; in addition, the species
shows minimal or no dispersal (limited to gravity). Based on our
observations, it has taken about 60 years from the peak of
deforestation (1930s) for palo de rosa to show some initial evidence of
recruitment.
We consider that palo de rosa has limited redundancy, as it is
known from multiple subpopulations (66) throughout its geographical
range, representing 14 natural populations distributed throughout the
southern and northern coasts of Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, about 37 (56
percent) of the known subpopulations are composed of 10 or fewer
individuals and show little or no recruitment and, thus, reduced
resiliency (see table, above). As described above, the species faces a
low recruitment rate, slow growth and limited dispersal, and patchy and
small subpopulations, resulting in an increased vulnerability to
extirpation of these subpopulations. All these characteristics are
limiting factors and make the species vulnerable to catastrophic and
stochastic events, such as hurricanes and droughts, that can cause
local extirpations. The best available information indicates that palo
de rosa is not naturally expanding into or colonizing habitats outside
the areas where it is known to occur.
In terms of the representation of palo de rosa, we have no data on
its genetic variability. Although the species occurs in a wide range of
habitats and environmental conditions, it has a fragmented
distribution, scattered (sporadic) flowering events, and a low
recruitment rate. Thus, little or no genetic exchange is thought to
occur between extant subpopulations, likely resulting in outbreeding
depression, which may explain the lack of effective reproduction and
recruitment (Frankham et al. 2011, p. 466). The low recruitment rate
results in little transfer of genetic variability into future
generations, limits the expansion of the species outside its current
locations, and limits its ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions. For example, the loss or reduction of connectivity between
subpopulations in areas like Arecibo-Vega Baja, Dorado, La Virgencita,
Mogotes de Nevares, and San Juan-Fajardo can be detrimental to the
long-term viability of the species as it affects cross-pollination and,
therefore, gene flow. In fact, the only populations that occur entirely
within native forest areas managed for conservation are GCF and SCF.
This continued protected habitat provides for an effective cross-
pollination (gene flow) that can secure the long-term viability of the
species. However, the overall representation of palo de rosa is
reduced, as the GCF and SCF populations are restricted to the southern
coast and the genetic representation of palo de rosa in the northern
karst area, a different ecological environment, is vulnerable because
that habitat is threatened by destruction or modification.
Determination of Palo de Rosa'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 ``endangered species'' or
``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 within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. For a more detailed
discussion on the factors considered when determining whether a species
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' and our analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future
in making these decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical
Framework, above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have determined that palo de rosa's current viability is higher than
was known at the time of listing (population current estimate of 1,144
individuals in 66 subpopulations) based on the best available
information.
[[Page 37110]]
Currently, the number of palo de rosa individuals has changed from 9
individuals in protected lands at the time of listing to 407
individuals (32 percent of subpopulations) currently occurring in areas
managed for conservation (e.g., Commonwealth Forest and Federal lands).
Furthermore, 396 individuals (38 percent of subpopulations) occur in
areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico. The remaining
30 percent of the subpopulations (containing approximately 341
individuals) occur within areas severely encroached and vulnerable to
urban or infrastructure development. Nonetheless, habitat destruction
and modification on privately owned lands (particularly along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico) and other natural or manmade factors
(such as hurricanes, habitat fragmentation, lack of connectivity
between populations, habitat intrusion by invasive species, and the
species' reproductive biology) continue to threaten the viability of
palo de rosa. Although population numbers and abundance of palo de rosa
have increased, and some identified threats have decreased, our
analysis indicates that threats remain. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that palo de rosa no longer meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species throughout all of its
range. We therefore proceed with determining whether palo de rosa meets
the Act's definition of a threatened species (i.e., is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future) throughout all of its range.
In terms of habitat destruction and modification, we can reasonably
determine that 70 percent of subpopulations (71 percent of individuals)
are not expected to be substantially affected by habitat destruction
and modification in the foreseeable future. This majority occurs within
protected lands managed for conservation (36 percent of the known
individuals or 32 percent of subpopulations) or on private lands with
low probability of modification due to steep topography (35 percent of
the known individuals or 38 percent of subpopulations). However, for
the 30 percent of subpopulations occurring in areas severely encroached
and vulnerable to urban or infrastructure development now and into the
future (30 percent of the known individuals), we are reasonably certain
these subpopulations will continue to have a lower resiliency (due to
reduced connectivity (cross-pollination) and lack of recruitment), and,
in some cases, may experience the loss of individuals or subpopulations
adjacent to critical infrastructure such as highways or other
development within the foreseeable future (e.g., Hacienda Sabanera, PR-
2 and PR-22 maintenance and expansion, Islote Ward extirpation).
We have evidence that some populations are showing signs of
reproduction and recruitment. However, due to the slow growth of the
species it may take several decades to ensure these recruitment events
effectively contribute to a population's resiliency (new individuals
reach a reproductive size). Despite no longer considering limited
distribution as an imminent threat to this species, we have identified
factors associated with habitat modification and other natural or
manmade factors that still have some impacts on palo de rosa and affect
the species' viability and effective natural recruitment. The species
still faces dispersal problems, and the recruitment is still limited to
the proximity of parent trees; we have no evidence of a population of
palo de rosa that is the result of a recent colonization event or a
significant population expansion. This renders the known subpopulations
vulnerable to adverse effects related to habitat fragmentation and lack
of connectivity, which may preclude future recruitment and the
population's resiliency.
In addition, despite the presence of regulations protecting the
species both on public and private lands, the protection of palo de
rosa on private lands remains challenging. Habitat modifications and
fragmentation continue to occur on private lands, which can increase
the likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic plants and human-induced
fires, and reduce connectivity between populations (affecting cross-
pollinations) and the availability of suitable habitat for the natural
recruitment of the species. Still, none of these is an imminent threat
to the species at a magnitude such that the taxon warrants endangered
status across its range. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that palo de rosa is not currently in danger
of extinction, but it is likely to become in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Services
do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for palo de rosa, we choose
to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is may be endangered. Kinds of threats and levels of
threats are more likely to vary across a species' range if the species
has a large range rather than a very small natural range, such as the
palo de rosa. Species with limited ranges are more likely to experience
the same kinds and generally the same levels of threats in all parts of
their range.
For palo de rosa, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale in the context of its small natural
range. We examined the following threats: Habitat destruction,
fragmentation, and modification; invasive species; hurricanes; and the
effects of climate change, including cumulative effects. We have
identified that habitat destruction and modification is threatening
known populations in three of the five areas
[[Page 37111]]
along the southern coast of Puerto Rico and eight of nine populations
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico, particularly on privately
owned lands throughout the range of the species. In addition, habitat
destruction and modification are occurring within the species' range in
Hispaniola. Habitat encroachment by invasive plant species and habitat
fragmentation caused by harvesting of timber for fence posts and
maintaining rights-of-way are also considered to be further stressors
to the viability of palo de rosa across the species' range. Changes in
climatic conditions are expected to result in more intense hurricanes
and extended periods of drought under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, but the effect
of these changes on palo de rosa is unknown. The expected changes in
climatic conditions will affect all populations of palo de rosa
uniformly across the range of the species. Lastly, palo de rosa
populations across the range experience low recruitment rates, slow
growth, and limited dispersal.
We found no concentration of threats in any portion of palo de
rosa's range at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no
portions of the species' range where the species has a different status
from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portion of the species' range
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that
the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that palo de rosa meets the Act's definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we propose to reclassify palo de rosa as
a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. We are proposing to reclassify palo de
rosa as a threatened species, and if we adopt this rule as proposed,
the prohibitions in section 9 would no longer apply directly to the
palo de rosa. We are therefore proposing below a set of regulations to
provide for the conservation of the species in accordance with section
4(d) of the Act, which also authorizes us to apply any of the
prohibitions in section 9 of the Act to a threatened species. The
proposal, which includes a description of the kinds of activities that
would or would not constitute a violation, complies with this policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary of the Interior shall issue such regulations
as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that
statutory language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a
large degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S.
592 (1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the
second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary
may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any
act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife,
or 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9 of the Act.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D.
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity,
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address palo de rosa's specific
threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not require
us to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the
adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this
rule as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to
issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of palo de rosa. As discussed above under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that palo de rosa is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future primarily due
to habitat destruction and modification, particularly by urban
development, right-of-way maintenance, rock quarries, and grazing.
Additionally, other natural or manmade factors like hurricanes,
invasive species, and landslides still threaten the species. The
provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote conservation of
palo de rosa by encouraging conservation programs for the species and
its habitat and promoting additional research to inform future habitat
management and recovery actions for the species. The provisions of this
proposed rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote the
conservation of palo de rosa. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only
if and when we make final the reclassification of palo de rosa as a
threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of palo
de rosa by prohibiting the following activities, except as otherwise
authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; certain acts related
to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving,
transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial
[[Page 37112]]
activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the species' habitat or range (specifically, urban development,
maintenance of power lines and associated rights-of-way, infrastructure
development, rock quarries, grazing by cattle, and extraction of fence
posts), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural
or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence
(specifically, hurricanes, invasive plant species, landslides, and
habitat fragmentation and lack of connectivity between subpopulations)
are affecting the status of palo de rosa. A range of activities have
the potential to impact this plant, including recreational and
commercial activities. Regulating these activities will help preserve
the species' remaining populations, slow their rate of potential
decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
stressors. As a whole, the regulation would help in the efforts to
recover the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other purposes consistent
with the purposes and policy of the Act. Additional statutory
exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 10 of the
Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State and
Territorial natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State and Territorial agencies often
possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of
wildlife and plants. State and Territorial agencies, because of their
authorities and their close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist the
Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard,
section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
Territorial conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative
agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act,
who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able
to conduct activities designed to conserve palo de rosa that may result
in otherwise prohibited activities for plants without additional
authorization.
We also recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of
activities with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the
propagation of the species, and therefore would satisfy permit
requirements under the Act. We intend to monitor the interstate and
foreign commerce and import and export of these specimens in a manner
that will not inhibit such activities, providing the activities do not
represent a threat to the survival of the species in the wild. In this
regard, seeds of cultivated specimens would not be regulated provided a
statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the
seeds or their container.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of palo de
rosa. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined
through planned programmatic consultations for the species between us
and other Federal agencies, where appropriate. We ask the public,
particularly State and Territorial agencies and other interested
stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide
comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that
the Service could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested,
above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the 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:
(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
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection
with determining a species' listing status under the Endangered Species
Act. In an October 25, 1983, notice in the Federal Register (48 FR
49244), we outlined our reasons for this determination, which included
a compelling recommendation from the Council on Environmental Quality
that we cease preparing environmental assessments or environmental
impact statements for listing decisions.
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. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We have determined that there are no
Tribal lands affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059 and upon
request form the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
[[Page 37113]]
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entry ``Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon......... Palo de rosa....... Wherever found.... T 55 FR 13488, 4/10/1990;
[Federal Register
citation of final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.73(g).4d
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Add Sec. 17.73 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.73 Special rules--flowering plants.
(a) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de rosa).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered plants also apply to Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de rosa).
Except as provided under paragraph (g)(2) of this section, it is
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this
species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(b) for endangered
plants.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal
jurisdiction, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(c)(1).
(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy the species on any areas under
Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the
species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation
of the Territory or in the course of any violation of a Territorial
criminal trespass law, as set forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(d) for endangered plants.
(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(e) for
endangered plants.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon (palo de rosa):
(i) The prohibitions described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section
do not apply to activities conducted as authorized by a permit issued
in accordance with Sec. 17.72.
(ii) Any employee or agent of the Service or of a Territorial
conservation agency that is operating under a conservation program
pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by that
agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official
duties, remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal
jurisdiction members of palo de rosa that are covered by an approved
cooperative agreement to carry out conservation programs.
(iii) You may engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (g)(1)
of this section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a
statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the
seeds or their container.
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-14661 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
