Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying Mitracarpus Polycladus From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule, 74890-74907 [2023-24059]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74890-74907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24059]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE53


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying 
Mitracarpus Polycladus From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 
4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
reclassifying Mitracarpus polycladus (a plant, no common name) from 
endangered to threatened (downlist) under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). This action 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 are also finalizing a rule issued under section 4(d) of the 
Act that provides for the conservation of the species.

DATES: This rule is effective December 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The proposed rule, this final rule, and supporting documents 
are available at https://www.fws.gov/office/caribbean-ecological-services/library and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058.

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; email:

[[Page 74891]]

[email protected]; telephone: (786) 244-0081. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets 
the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Mitracarpus 
polycladus is listed as endangered, and we are reclassifying M. 
polycladus as threatened (i.e., ``downlisting'' the species). We have 
determined M. polycladus does not meet the Act's definition of an 
endangered species, but it does meet the Act's definition of a 
threatened species (likely to become an endangered species throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable 
future). Reclassifying a species as a threatened species can be 
completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure 
Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule reclassifies Mitracarpus 
polycladus from an endangered to a threatened species on the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and establishes provisions 
under section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of this species (a ``4(d) rule'').
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or a threatened species because of any of 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. We may reclassify a species if the best available 
commercial and scientific data indicate the species no longer meets the 
applicable definition in the Act. Based on the status review, the 
current threats analysis, and evaluation of conservation measures 
discussed in this rule, we conclude that M. polycladus no longer meets 
the Act's definition of an endangered species, and should be 
reclassified to a threatened species. The species is no longer in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
    We have determined that Mitracarpus polycladus is a threatened 
species due to the following threats: habitat destruction and 
modification due to road and trail maintenance; trampling by humans; 
human-caused fires; nonnative, invasive species; urbanization and 
tourism development; grazing; and the effects of climate change.
    Because we are reclassifying Mitracarpus polycladus as a threatened 
species, we are also adopting a 4(d) rule to provide for the 
conservation of this species.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the June 23, 2022, proposed rule to reclassify 
Mitracarpus polycladus (87 FR 37476) for a detailed description of 
previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
opinions of the information contained in the June 23, 2022, proposed 
rule to downlist Mitracarpus polycladus (87 FR 37476). We sent the 
proposed rule to five independent peer reviewers and received one 
response. The peer review can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. 
In preparing the final rule, we incorporated the results of this 
review, as appropriate, into this final rule. A summary of the peer 
review comments and our responses can be found in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations, below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In the preamble of the June 23, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37476 at 
p. 37492), we describe our intention to propose to include all of the 
general exceptions to the prohibition against removing and reducing to 
possession, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.61, in the 4(d) rule for 
Mitracarpus polycladus. This approach provides our Territorial partners 
the ability to carry out conservation actions to benefit the species. 
However, we neglected to include the exceptions set forth at 50 CFR 
17.61(c)(2) and (3) in the regulatory text of our proposed rule. In 
this final rule, we correct that oversight by adding these exceptions 
to the regulatory text of the 4(d) rule for Mitracarpus polycladus. 
This improves the 4(d) rule's clarity and accuracy, and makes it 
consistent with our proposed rule's and this final rule's preamble 
text.
    In addition, in this final rule, we make minor, nonsubstantive 
editorial or stylistic changes and corrections to the June 23, 2022, 
proposed rule (87 FR 37476).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on June 23, 2022 (87 FR 37476), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by August 22, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices announcing the proposed rule and inviting general 
public comment were published in Spanish and English in the Primera 
Hora newspaper. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing or 
any public comments on the proposed rule.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from one 
peer reviewer on the proposed rule. We reviewed the peer reviewer's 
comments for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
information contained in the proposed rule. The peer reviewer generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional 
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. 
The peer reviewer's comments are incorporated into this final rule as 
appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional references and 
updated information and corrections about the Anegada Island population 
including the following:
     On Anegada Island, Mitracarpus polycladus occurs adjacent 
to an unpaved road on Copper Rock leading to the beach and adjacent to 
a road to Flash of Beauty, a popular tourist spot.
     On Anegada Island, the population estimate is not 
definitive, but described as decreased from historical. Where 
Mitracarpus polycladus occurs adjacent to both sides of an unpaved road 
in one locality, the reviewer concluded that more individuals likely 
occurred between the two current clusters before the road was 
constructed.

[[Page 74892]]

    Our response: We revised our description of the location of 
Mitracarpus polycladus on Anegada Island to reflect the occurrences 
adjacent to roads or trails, the threat of road and trail maintenance 
to those localities, and the impact of the road construction of the 
population trend. We have incorporated the provided information into 
our analysis in this final rule (see Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats and Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, below).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that grazing is a threat to 
Mitracarpus polycladus on Anegada Island and suggested the threat of 
grazing should be more strongly reflected in the rule.
    Our response: We describe the negative impact of grazing on the 
Anegada Island population in the proposed rule (87 FR 37476, June 23, 
2022, at p. 37485) and under Habitat Destruction and Modification, 
below. We agree that grazing on Anegada Island impacts the population, 
and we more clearly describe the influence of grazing on habitat 
destruction and modification in this final rule.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer provided information that several 
seed collections have been made from Anegada Island (most recently in 
June 2022), which demonstrates that the individuals are reproducing. 
The reviewer also noted that propagation efforts from plant material 
from Anegada Island were lost in Hurricane Irma and a February 2022 
germination trial was not successful.
    Our response: We are encouraged to learn of seed collection efforts 
and documented reproduction in the Anegada Island population. We have 
incorporated the information provided by the reviewer regarding the 
seed collection and propagation efforts into this final rule (see 
Background, below). Recovery efforts for the species, including 
propagation efforts, are ongoing and additional conservation actions 
including propagation and transplantation of M. polycladus will 
hopefully support recovery of the species in the future. We do 
recognize the challenges in propagation of Mitracarpus; thus, we did 
not rely on seed collection or propagation efforts in our status 
determination. Although the loss of propagated material and failure of 
the germination trial is unfortunate, the setback of this portion of 
the recovery effort does not change the species' rangewide condition or 
our determination that the species meets the definition of a threatened 
species and should be reclassified.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the catastrophic impact 
of storm surge as an effect of climate change on the Mitracarpus 
polycladus that occur near the coast.
    Our response: We describe the impact of sea level rise and the 
effects of climate change on the species in the proposed rule (87 FR 
37476, June 23, 2022, at pp. 37485-37486) and under Effects of Climate 
Change and Sea Level Rise, below. We expect the impact to the species 
from storm surge to be shorter-term compared to the effect of sea level 
rise as it relates to saltwater exposure. Mitracarpus polycladus occurs 
in areas affected by storm surge from past and recent hurricanes and, 
as an island species, does not appear to be negatively affected by 
short-term exposure to saltwater as a result of storm surge and 
hurricanes. Although some individuals in low-lying areas may be 
affected by increasing exposure to saltwater for more prolonged periods 
in the future, we have determined this threat does not affect 
Mitracarpus polycladus at the species level.

I. Reclassification Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of Mitracarpus polycladus was presented in the 5-year 
status reviews (Service 2011, entire; Service 2018a, entire) and the 
June 23, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37476). Below, we present a summary 
of the biological and distributional information for Mitracarpus 
polycladus. Please refer to the 5-year reviews and proposed rule for 
more detailed information.

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Mitracarpus polycladus is a small shrub in the Rubiaceae (coffee) 
family and the Spermacoce clade (Bremer 1996, p. 23). Mitracarpus 
polycladus was first collected in Puerto Rico in 1886, and was 
described in 1903 as a new species (Urban 1903, p. 389; Lioger 1997, p. 
124). The taxonomy of the species has not changed since first 
described. Individuals of this plant species may reach up to 45 
centimeters (cm) (17.7 inches (in)) in height, and its stems grow 
either erect or along the ground (Proctor 1991, p. 127; Lioger 1997, p. 
125). The leaves are smooth and narrow, and the inflorescence is made 
up of smaller white flowers. The seed capsule is very small (1.5 
millimeter (mm) (0.06 in) diameter) and contains black seeds (Proctor 
1991, p. 127).

Biology

    Mitracarpus polycladus colonizes exposed limestone where 
aggregations of sediment and water provide necessary conditions for 
seed germination and seedling rooting (Medina et al. 2012, p. 203). The 
phenology of M. polycladus is closely related to the dry and rainy 
seasons. Flower production occurs just after the peak of rainfall, 
which may start as early as May and end as late as December, and seed 
availability occurs during the dry season, which is December to March 
(Service 2018a, p. 8). The species shows a large reproductive output 
(high number of seedlings) after the rainy season followed by a low 
number of mature adults present during the next rainy season. Seed 
germination has been observed a few days after a rain event, producing 
numerous seedlings surrounding mature plants, denoting a clumped 
spatial distribution (Service 2018b, p. 6). The timing and spatial 
distribution of seedlings indicate the species produces viable seeds 
that stay in the soil seedbank until the next rain event (Service 
2018b, p. 6).
    Although a large number of seedlings (e.g., 1,500 and 13,680 in 
2011 and 2018, respectively) have been documented in Puerto Rico, 
seedling estimates are not included as part of the population abundance 
estimates because surveyors have been unable to determine seedling 
survival rates and effective recruitment (Service 2011, p. 24; Service 
2018b, p. 8). High mortality of seedlings is observed due to natural 
thinning of the seedlings and environmental variables (drought stress) 
(Service 2018b, p. 8). Experts conclude that seeds are dependent on 
water or wind as a dispersal mechanism, with seeds that are not 
dispersed by water or wind clumping near the mature plant (Buitrago-
Soto 2002, p. 25; Service 2018a, p. 9).
    Little information is available regarding Mitracarpus polycladus's 
pollinators. However, two insect groups (Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera) 
have been identified as visiting M. polycladus flowers and may act as 
effective pollinators of the species (Monsegur 2017, unpublished data). 
The observations of multiple insect groups visiting M. polycladus 
support our rationale for defining localities in the Gu[aacute]nica 
Commonwealth Forest (GCF) area as a single population, as available 
information indicates the species is cross-pollinated by insects. We 
expect insect-facilitated cross-pollination is taking place among GCF 
localities.

[[Page 74893]]

Distribution and Abundance

    Mitracarpus polycladus was known to occur only in Puerto Rico and 
on Saba Island (a municipality of the Netherlands) in the Lesser 
Antilles at the time of listing (59 FR 46715; September 9, 1994). 
Although the species was discovered on Anegada Island (British Virgin 
Islands) in 1970, we were not aware of this occurrence at the time of 
listing (Service 2011, p. 9; Hamilton and B[aacute]rrios 2017, p. 1).
    When listed, Mitracarpus polycladus was known in Puerto Rico only 
from the Mesetas trail in the GCF (DNR 1976, pp. 56-58; 59 FR 46715, 
September 9, 1994). No abundance estimates were available for the 
species in Puerto Rico, and no information was available on the status 
of the species on Saba Island. When the 1998 recovery plan was 
finalized, there was little information on M. polycladus's historical 
and current abundance, distribution, ecology, and reproductive biology. 
At that time, we described M. polycladus occurrences in Puerto Rico and 
Saba Island as two populations (Proctor 1991, p. 2; Service 1998, p. 
2).
    At the time of listing and in the subsequent 5-year status reviews, 
occurrences of Mitracarpus polycladus in Puerto Rico were referred to 
as localities, and the occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands were 
referred to as populations due to their distant geographic location. 
This approach did not consider the species-specific characteristics of 
clumped spatial distribution, distance among localities, natural 
geographic barriers, or the species' life-history requirement for 
cross-pollination. We now have additional information about M. 
polycladus's geographic and spatial distribution and biological and 
ecological aspects of the species' life history (e.g., pollinators, 
seed dispersion, phenology). This information indicates the following 
natural physical barriers preclude cross-pollination among populations 
and localities: coastal plains; dense, extensive forest patches; and 
bays. We also determined that connectivity among localities is required 
to maximize the likelihood of cross-pollination and gene flow, and to 
increase fruit production, viable seeds, and natural recruitment to 
support M. polycladus populations.
    We now identify three natural populations of M. polycladus: (1) 
Gu[aacute]nica forest in south Puerto Rico (composed of at least 10 
localities within the GCF, which is managed for M. polycladus 
conservation, and adjacent lands that provide suitable habitat and 
connectivity); (2) Saba Island; and (3) Anegada Island. A separate 
locality, Cerro Toro, was established as a private translocation 
effort. This population is disjunct (no connectivity nor cross-
pollination) from the GCF population; thus, we determined it is a 
separate, introduced population.
    Since the time of listing and the recovery plan development, 
targeted surveys have provided new abundance and distribution 
information and incidental observations (see table 1, below) (Service 
2007 and 2017, unpublished data). The most recent survey information 
(see table 2, below) may underestimate population abundance and spatial 
extent as it did not include three natural localities due to time 
constraints. Because changes in the habitat have not been observed in 
the three localities not surveyed, we expect the abundance (number) and 
spatial extent (hectares (ha)) to be similar to the previous 
assessments. Therefore, the information from these three localities is 
unlikely to substantially change the estimates of abundance and extent 
of occupied area for the population. The increase in the number of 
localities recorded in Puerto Rico reflects additional survey efforts 
since the time of listing, while the increase in the number of 
individuals likely reflects the species' seasonal reproductive response 
to rain events and timing of surveys (Service 2018b, p. 3).

  Table 1--Abundance and Distribution Information for Mitracarpus Polycladus in the Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth
                                        Forest in Puerto Rico Since 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Abundance (#    Area occupied
                 Year                      Number of       of adult      in hectares/            Source
                                          localities        plants)          acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011..................................               7         * 1,400             n/a  Service 2011, pp. 8, 14.
2018..................................               9          12,472       0.42/1.02  Service 2018, p. 22.
2018..................................              10          17,637        0.44/1.1  Service 2018b, p. 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes only 4 localities.

    In the Puerto Rico population, we are aware of 10 natural 
localities and 1 introduced locality; 8 natural localities occur in the 
GCF, and 3 are on private properties (Ballena Beach, Cerro Toro, and 
Monte de la Ventana, which extends into the GCF) (see table 2, below). 
We have identified additional potentially suitable habitat for the 
species, including appropriate vegetation structure and presence of 
exposed limestone, in aerial images of the GCF. However, this habitat 
has not been quantified or surveyed, and it is unknown if the species 
occurs there (Service 2018b, p. 8).

    Table 2--Current Abundance and Areal Extent of Mitracarpus Polycladus at Known Localities in Puerto Rico
                                              [Service 2018b, p. 9]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Area occupied
           Locality name                 Abundance (# of adult plants)      in hectares/         Ownership
                                                                                acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ca[ntilde]a Gorda..................  Undetermined........................  ..............  Puerto Rico
                                                                                            Department of
                                                                                            Natural and
                                                                                            Environmental
                                                                                            Resources
                                                                                            (Department).
Jaboncillo.........................  Undetermined........................  ..............  Department.
Mesetas Trail......................  13,064..............................      0.255/0.63  Department.
Ballena Trail......................  1,048...............................      0.036/0.09

[[Page 74894]]

 
La Cueva...........................  310.................................      0.016/0.04
Hoya Honda.........................  246.................................      0.004/0.01
State road PR 333..................  653.................................      0.028/0.07
Las Picuas.........................  336.................................      0.024/0.06
Monte de la Ventana................  1,967...............................      0.077/0.19  Department and
                                                                                            Private.
Ballena Beach......................  Undetermined........................  ..............  Private.
Cerro Toro.........................  13..................................      0.004/0.01  Private.
                                    ------------------------------------------------------
    Total:.........................  17,637..............................        0.44/1.1  .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Saba Island, the best available information indicates the 
species occurs in several localities along the road between The Bottom 
and Windward Side towns in the southern section of the island (Rojer 
1997, p. 19). No current population estimate is available for Saba 
Island, and the 1997 assessment does not include a population estimate. 
On Anegada Island, surveys for Mitracarpus polycladus were conducted in 
2015, 2016, and 2017, with an estimated population of 2,500 individuals 
in the north-central region of the island between Windlass Point and 
Cooper Rock (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, pp. 3-4).

Habitat

    Throughout its range in Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus occurs 
only on exposed limestone with sediment and water accumulation in holes 
and crevices. The species is restricted to geographical areas with 
unique substrate and climate features in dry forest habitat types that 
serve as corridors for pollinators and facilitate cross-pollination 
among M. polycladus localities within contiguous habitats. The species 
occurs among three major types of plant communities: coastal shrub 
forest, cactus scrub forest, and coastal scrub on sandy soil (DNR 1976, 
p. 53; Lugo et al. 1978, p. 282; Service 2018b, p. 11). Although these 
three plant communities occur on approximately 15 percent of the GCF, 
known occurrences of M. polycladus occupy a small total area (0.44 ha 
(1.1 ac)) where habitat and microhabitat features (i.e., exposed 
limestone and aggregation of sediment and water) essential for the 
species are present (Service 2018b, p. 8; see table 2, above). However, 
surveys have not been conducted throughout the suitable forest types; 
thus, the species may occur elsewhere within this area. All known M. 
polycladus localities in Puerto Rico fall in the subtropical dry forest 
life zone. This life zone occupies an area of 121,640 ha (300,576 ac) 
(Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 9) and is the driest life zone in Puerto 
Rico. It receives a mean annual rainfall of 60-100 cm (24-40 in), 
experiences high temperatures, and has high evapotranspiration when 
sufficient water is available (Murphy and Lugo 1986, p. 90; 
C[aacute]ceres-Charneco 2018, p. 27). The climate in this region is 
seasonal, with most precipitation occurring in September and October 
(Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278) and another small peak of rainfall in May 
and June (Sloan et al. 2006, p. 196; C[aacute]ceres-Charneco 2018, p. 
28).
    On Saba Island, the best available information indicates the 
species occurs on Gile's cherty sandy loam soil found between The 
Bottom and Windward Side towns. This arid section of the island is 
located in the south portion of Saba Island (Rojer 1997, p. 19; Freitas 
et al. 2016, p. 10). On Anegada Island, Mitracarpus polycladus 
currently grows on limestone plain and coastal sandy habitats located 
in the north-central area of this island where the species is 
restricted to two localities situated between Windlass Point and Cooper 
Rock (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, p. 4). This area on Anegada 
Island has similar environmental conditions and soil characteristics to 
M. polycladus localities in Puerto Rico.

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. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
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 Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    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 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 Act's definition of an endangered 
species or threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new 
recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. 
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

[[Page 74895]]

process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all 
of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The initial recovery plan does not provide delisting criteria; 
however, the revised recovery plan provides three criteria for 
delisting Mitracarpus polycladus (Service 1998, p. 8; Service 2019, p. 
4). The three delisting criteria outlined in the revised recovery plan 
are: (1) Threat reduction and management activities have been 
implemented to a degree that the species will remain viable into the 
foreseeable future; (2) existing natural populations of M. polycladus 
show a stable or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural recruitment 
and multiple age classes; and (3) within the historical range, at least 
three new populations of M. polycladus showing a stable or increasing 
trend have been established on lands protected by conservation 
measures, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age classes 
(Service 2019, entire). Based on the information gathered and analyzed, 
two of these criteria have been partially met and the third has been 
initiated. The following discussion provides an assessment of the 
delisting criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of M. 
polycladus.

Criterion 1 for Delisting

    Criterion 1 states that threat reduction and management activities 
have been implemented to a degree that the species will remain viable 
into the foreseeable future. Eighty-nine percent of the currently known 
Mitracarpus polycladus in Puerto Rico occur within the GCF, which is 
managed for conservation by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 
Environmental Resources (Department) (DNR 1976, p. 56). The management 
actions in the GCF protect M. polycladus from development activities 
and are compatible with the species' needs. The Department lists the 
species as critically endangered and reviews all proposed actions in 
the GCF that may impact M. polycladus or its habitat (DNRNA 2004, p. 
52). The species is also impacted by road maintenance activities 
(vegetation trimming) in 5 of the 11 localities where the species 
occurs in Puerto Rico (4 of these localities are within the GCF) 
(Service 2018b, p. 10). Each of the localities in the GCF has 
experienced habitat destruction or modification from one or more 
threats, including intense trail use, human-caused fires, nonnative and 
invasive species encroachment, and road maintenance. However, the 
threats have been reduced, and the protected and managed habitat in the 
GCF remains a stronghold for the species with the largest number of 
individuals and areal extent occurring along the Mesetas trail. Thus, 
although M. polycladus is legally protected in this forest, it is 
subject to actions that limit its abundance and distribution in 
impacted areas. Two localities on private lands are subject to 
potential development pressure as discussed under ``Urbanization and 
Development,'' below.
    Evidence of fire has been recorded on or adjacent to two 
Mitracarpus polycladus localities (Service 2018a, p. 27). The species 
does not colonize previously burned areas; therefore, fire can be a 
threat to species viability, as M. polycladus is endemic to dry 
limestone forest where vegetation did not evolve under a natural fire 
regime (Service 2018b, p. 12).
    These threats of fire, development, nonnative and invasive species, 
and road and trail maintenance, coupled with competition with other 
plant species for specific habitat requirements such as holes and 
cracks for seed germination, and observed lack of dispersal mechanisms, 
reduce the species' ability to colonize other areas. Therefore, we 
determined that, while threat reduction and management activities at 
GCF have been implemented and have improved the species' viability, 
they have not been implemented or improved viability to a degree that 
the species will maintain viability into the foreseeable future. Thus, 
we conclude that this criterion has been partially met.

Criterion 2 for Delisting

    Criterion 2 states that existing natural populations of Mitracarpus 
polycladus show a stable or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural 
recruitment and multiple age classes. Since the time of listing, the 
number of individuals and localities reported for M. polycladus have 
increased. Approximately 17,624 adult M. polycladus individuals are 
currently distributed in 10 natural localities in Puerto Rico occupying 
0.44 ha (1.1 ac), with documented recruitment as evidenced by numerous 
seedlings in close proximity to adult plants, particularly after rain 
events. However, existing data indicate that seedlings' survival is 
uncertain due to natural thinning and environmental stochasticity 
(drought stress). However, effective recruitment has occurred, and 
seedlings and saplings were noted in seven of eight localities with 
abundance, seedling, and sapling counts in Puerto Rico during the 2018 
assessment (Service 2018b, p. 9). Habitat modification caused by human-
caused fires and subsequent encroachment of nonnative grasses has 
resulted in the loss of some clusters of individuals within a locality. 
Habitat modification and other threats, discussed below under Summary 
of Biological Status and Threats, may preclude the expansion of the 
species within known suitable habitats in Puerto Rico. The population 
trend on Anegada Island has been described as decreasing due to the 
removal of some individuals in one locality from past road 
construction. Seed collections have occurred recently in the Anegada 
Island population, indicating reproduction, although the level of 
recruitment in that population is unknown (B[aacute]rrios 2023, pers. 
comm.). The status and trend of the M. polycladus population on Saba 
Island, including reproduction and recruitment, is currently unknown.
    Based on the uncertainty of population estimates and the lack of 
evidence of expansion into suitable habitat, we determined that a 
stable or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural recruitment and 
multiple age classes, has been met in Puerto Rico, but not on Saba or 
Anegada Islands. Thus, we conclude that this criterion has been 
partially met.

Criterion 3 for Delisting

    Criterion 3 states that at least three new populations of 
Mitracarpus polycladus showing a stable or increasing trend have been 
established within the historical range on lands protected by 
conservation, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age 
classes. In Cerro Toro, an undetermined number of M. polycladus 
individuals were translocated from the Monte de la Ventana locality by 
the landowner to establish a new population of the species physically 
separated from the GCF population. As of 2018, 13 of the planted 
individuals were still alive (Service 2018b, p. 9; see table 2, above), 
but no recruitment (seedlings or saplings) was observed. However, this 
recovery effort has not been expanded. The Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew), 
in collaboration with the National Park Trust of the Virgin Islands, 
has made effort to propagate material from M. polycladus on Anegada 
Island, but no planting efforts have been implemented. No further 
efforts of translocations or propagation and reintroduction are 
currently known. To increase the species' redundancy and long-term 
viability, additional populations should be established through 
translocation and/or propagation throughout the species' range. Thus, 
we conclude that this criterion has been initiated, but not met.

[[Page 74896]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    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.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response by 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 of the Interior 
(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.

Analytical Framework

    To assess Mitracarpus polycladus viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in the physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the 5-year 
reviews (Service 2011, entire; Service 2018a, entire) and our proposed 
rule (87 FR 37476; June 23, 2022) document our comprehensive biological 
status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species.
    The following is a summary of these status reviews and the best 
available information gathered since that time that have informed this 
decision. For additional information and details regarding the current, 
ongoing, and future threats to the species, see the June 23, 2022, 
proposed rule (87 FR 37476).

Habitat Destruction and Modification

    Habitat destruction and modification were identified as factors 
affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus

[[Page 74897]]

polycladus at the time of listing (59 FR 46715; September 9, 1994). 
Road and trail maintenance, human-caused fire, nonnative and invasive 
species, urbanization and tourism development, and grazing continue to 
contribute to the destruction and modification of M. polycladus habitat 
and are summarized below. Although changes to habitat conditions may 
affect pollinator abundance and distribution, available information 
does not indicate that a loss of pollinators is occurring in M. 
polycladus habitat, and we expect that sufficient pollinators are 
present to cross-pollinate within the pollinator's flight distance.
Roads and Trails Maintenance
    Currently, in Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus occurs adjacent 
to or along paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, and trails that 
provide access to recreational areas in seven localities in the dry 
southern section of the GCF (Service 2018b, p. 5). These roads and 
trails are managed by the Department as scenic trails and natural 
areas. However, management and maintenance activities, primarily 
vegetation trimming, have affected M. polycladus individuals in these 
areas (Service 2018b, p. 10). Similarly, the Puerto Rico Department of 
Transportation and Public Works right-of-way maintenance causes impacts 
to individuals and habitat in the State Road PR 333 locality (Service 
2018b, p. 10). Right-of-way maintenance activities have resulted in 
mortality of reproductive M. polycladus individuals in three localities 
and may reduce production of seeds and potential seedlings in these 
localities if the plants do not recover sufficiently to reproduce when 
conditions are suitable (Service 2018b, p. 10).
    The largest known Mitracarpus polycladus cluster occurs adjacent to 
the heavily used Mesetas trail in GCF with 13,064 individuals occupying 
an area of 0.255 ha (0.63 ac). Approximately 25 to 30 percent of M. 
polycladus along the trail in this locality are exposed to damage 
caused by trail maintenance and human trampling (Service 2018b, pp. 10-
11). Physical impacts to M. polycladus and its habitat are caused by 
the frequent use of the scenic trails and adjacent habitat in the GCF 
by residents and tourists for recreational activities (i.e., hiking, 
running, and mountain biking) throughout the year (Service 2018a, p. 
12).
    Nonnative grass encroachment along trails follows a similar pattern 
to encroachment following fire and is described below. The Anegada 
Island population occurs adjacent to two trails or roads, and the 
species occurs along roads and trails in Puerto Rico. However, we 
expect that the effects of road and trail maintenance on the M. 
polycladus populations are limited to a small number of individuals 
closest to the road or trail edge. Although over half of localities and 
several thousand individuals are exposed to the threat of road and 
trail maintenance, available information indicates that this threat 
does not have a population-level or species-level impact.
Human-Caused Fire
    Fires are not a natural event in the subtropical dry forests in 
Puerto Rico, and the native vegetation in the Caribbean is not adapted 
to this type of disturbance (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557; 
Santiago-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2008, p. 604). Human-caused fires were 
identified as a threat to the species when listed (59 FR 46715; 
September 9, 1994) and continue to occur throughout Mitracarpus 
polycladus habitat in Puerto Rico (Service 2018a, p. 27). Currently, 6 
of 10 natural localities of M. polycladus occur in areas vulnerable to 
or at high risk of human-caused fires, particularly during the dry 
season (Service 2018b, p. 10). Although the Department implements a 
fire prevention and management program in the GCF during the dry 
season, fires still occur and impact M. polycladus and its habitat 
(Service 2018b, p. 11).
    Fire affects Mitracarpus polycladus survival through impacts of 
heat and encroachment of nonnative, invasive plant species. Nonnative 
plant species outcompete M. polycladus and serve as fuel for fires 
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, pp. 19, 33; Service 2018a, p. 27). The 
interaction of fire and nonnative species is described under 
``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below. Moreover, M. polycladus does 
not grow in areas with visible evidence of past fires (Service 2018b, 
p. 11). This is likely due to destruction or loss of the seedbank, 
precluding species germination and recolonization of an area from the 
seedbank after a fire.
    Fires destroy or reduce native vegetation through direct impacts to 
individuals and to the seedbank (which is not fire-adapted) (Wolfe 
2009, p. 28). Fires reduce or eliminate Mitracarpus polycladus seeds in 
the seedbank and promote favorable conditions for the establishment of 
nonnative, invasive plant species. These species, such as guinea grass 
(Megathyrsus maximus), paj[oacute]n grass (Dichanthium annulatum), and 
buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris), are adapted to a natural fire regime 
and serve as fuel for fires, thus promoting conditions for a more 
frequent fire regime that precludes the establishment of native 
vegetation, including M. polycladus (Thaxton et al. 2012, p. 9). This 
pattern occurs in M. polycladus habitat in the GCF, where nonnative 
grasses are present and M. polycladus is not observed (Garc[iacute]a-
Cancel 2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Other factors such as seed 
predation, seed intrinsic viability, and seedling survival also affect 
forest recovery after fire. In M. polycladus habitat, fires promote 
habitat fragmentation, return habitat to an earlier successional state, 
and slow forest recovery processes (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557; 
Meddens et al. 2008, p. 569).
    Fire negatively impacts Mitracarpus polycladus and its habitat, and 
the capacity of the species to recover from catastrophic fire events is 
unknown. Moreover, M. polycladus occurs in areas with high 
vulnerability to fires, exacerbating the potential effects of fire on 
individuals and populations. The effects of climate change and 
nonnative, invasive species may alter conditions in M. polycladus 
habitat to promote increased susceptibility to fire (as described under 
``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below). Therefore, even with the 
Department's current fire prevention and management program efforts 
during the dry season, human-caused fires occur every year within the 
species' range. Fires in M. polycladus localities affect the survival 
and recruitment of individuals, population resiliency, and, 
potentially, the species' viability (Service 2018b, p. 11). Information 
regarding the threat of fire to the Anegada and Saba Island populations 
is less extensive than the information for Puerto Rico; however, we 
expect the threat of human-caused fire is similar since the Anegada and 
Saba Island populations also occur along roadsides.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
    Caribbean dry forests generally have seedbanks with low numbers and 
variety of species, and forest regeneration in areas disturbed through 
mechanical vegetation removal or through burning is largely dependent 
on propagules or seeds from nearby habitats (Wolfe 2009, p. 28). 
Nonnative species typically become established more quickly and may 
have less specific habitat or life-history requirements than native 
species. When nonnative species become established in a disturbed 
habitat, they outcompete native species for resources, including space, 
nutrients, water, and sunlight. The impacts of nonnative, invasive 
species are second only to habitat destruction and modification and are 
among the greatest threats to the persistence of

[[Page 74898]]

native rare species and their habitats in Puerto Rico (Thomson 2005, p. 
615; Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire). Nonnative species like guinea 
grass, buffel grass, paj[oacute]n grass, and African grass (Heteropogon 
contortus) aggressively colonize and compete with native species for 
sunlight, nutrients, water, and ground cover (space), suppressing 
native vegetation (Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; Rojas-Sandoval 
and Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2016, p. 156; Service 2018b, p. 12). In 
addition, M. polycladus does not occur in areas occupied (or dominated) 
by nonnative grasses at localities in the GCF (Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 
2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Nonnative trees (e.g., lead tree 
(Leucaena leucocephala)) also colonize M. polycladus habitat, 
particularly after fire events, and suppress the growth of native 
vegetation (Wolfe and Van Bloem 2012, entire).
    In areas where Mitracarpus polycladus is established, nonnative 
species do not appear to reduce habitat directly by displacing existing 
M. polycladus individuals, but primarily impact populations by 
preventing or reducing colonization by the species when the area is 
disturbed. In summary, nonnative invasive species outcompete M. 
polycladus for required resources, promote increased frequency and 
intensity of fire, and prevent establishment of seedlings, thus 
impacting M. polycladus at the individual, population, and, 
potentially, species levels.
Urbanization and Development
    One Mitracarpus polycladus locality occurs within the project area 
of a proposed wind generation project (San Francisco Wind Farm) in 
Monte de la Ventana. This project occupies 79 ha (195 ac) of dry forest 
habitat with 1,967 M. polycladus individuals in the project area 
(Service 2018b, pp. 1, 11). Ninety-six percent of M. polycladus 
individuals on the site occur on and adjacent to now-abandoned roads 
accessing the site. The wind farm construction project is covered by an 
incidental take permit under a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that 
includes conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to listed 
species in the project area (Service 2013, p. 3). Although a 
substantial portion of this property is identified as a conservation 
area under the HCP, the conservation areas do not include habitat for 
M. polycladus (Service 2013, p. 3). The species grows in open areas 
(e.g., dirt roads and wind turbine pads in the project area) where it 
is vulnerable to effects from the project's operations, including 
impacts from maintenance activities, vehicle traffic, and habitat 
encroachment by nonnative, invasive plants. To date, this wind farm 
project has not been constructed, but we have no indication that the 
project is abandoned.
    The Ballena beach locality has been subject to development pressure 
in the past with proposals for the development of a hotel in that area. 
Although this hotel development project has not been constructed, it 
may be pursued in the future.
    Mitracarpus polycladus occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands are 
also threatened by development. On Anegada Island, in the British 
Virgin Islands, the potential for island-wide development exists, with 
local community support and road improvement works underway (Hamilton 
2016, p. 185). Anegada Island has been recognized by its government as 
an undeveloped island with high potential for tourism development due 
to the beauty of its natural resources (sandy beaches and coral reefs). 
In 2007, the Government of Anegada developed a land use plan (Plan) 
designating areas for commercial and residential purposes, hotel 
development, agriculture, community parks and recreational areas, a 
business district, protection and conservation, and government offices 
and related facilities (Island Resources Foundation (IRF) 2013, p. 24). 
The Plan proposes to set aside some areas for conservation (IRF 2013, 
p. 25); however, the proposed areas do not contain M. polycladus or its 
habitat. If the Plan is enacted fully, we expect M. polycladus and its 
habitat to be reduced or eliminated by the proposed development of the 
island. Although urbanization and development plans for Saba Island (a 
municipality of the Netherlands) are unknown, the potential for 
urbanization and tourism development is present.
Grazing
    On Anegada and Saba Islands, Mitracarpus polycladus habitat has 
been degraded by the grazing of feral livestock, such as goats and 
donkeys (Freitas et al. 2016, p. 21; B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, 
p. 5; Hamilton 2020, pers. comm.). Livestock presence and grazing leads 
to an increase in soil erosion while foraging, as observed on Saba 
Island (Freitas et al. 2016, p. 21). These animals also trample M. 
polycladus individuals, reduce its abundance, and affect the population 
structure. The best available information indicates feral livestock 
grazing may currently impact the Anegada and Saba Island populations.
    In summary, impacts associated with habitat destruction and 
modification due to vegetation clearance for maintenance and 
improvement activities of roads and trails, urbanization and tourism 
development, human-caused fires, and encroachment of nonnative plant 
species have been documented as current and ongoing threats to 
Mitracarpus polycladus throughout its range. In Puerto Rico, although 
about 89 percent of M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, the 
species and its habitat are impacted by the rangewide threats, although 
development is less likely in the GCF compared to lands in private 
ownership. Human-caused fires have been documented in M. polycladus 
habitat even when fire management practices are implemented during the 
dry season. The remaining 11 percent of the individuals on Puerto Rico 
occur on private lands not managed for conservation, where habitat 
destruction and modification resulting from road clearing and wind farm 
development and operation may impact individuals and localities. All M. 
polycladus individuals on Saba Island and Anegada Island occur on 
private lands and are not purposefully managed for conservation. 
Occurrences on Saba Island are subject to threats of grazing and human-
induced fire, and potentially to the threat of urbanization and 
development. Mitracarpus polycladus on Anegada Island are at risk due 
to grazing, urbanization and development, and human-induced fire.

Limited Distribution and Small Population Size

    At the time of listing, we identified the species' limited 
distribution (i.e., two isolated populations: one in Puerto Rico and 
one on Saba Island) coupled with an undetermined but presumably low 
number of individuals (i.e., no abundance information was available) as 
the primary threats to the species. Since listing, our knowledge 
concerning Mitracarpus polycladus's abundance and distribution has 
improved, and we are aware of increased individuals and localities 
throughout the southern section of the GCF (Service 2018a, p. 22). 
Currently, there are three known natural populations (Puerto Rico, Saba 
Island, Anegada Island) and one introduced population occurring on 
three Caribbean islands across the species' historical range. The 
species is restricted to small clusters on exposed limestone, occupying 
a total area of 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in southern Puerto Rico (no areal 
extent is estimated for the populations on Anegada and Saba Islands). 
The limited distribution of the four populations makes M. polycladus 
vulnerable to catastrophic events (e.g.,

[[Page 74899]]

widespread and severe drought and large-scale fires).
    Small population size can exacerbate other threats acting on the 
species. Populations that are small, isolated by habitat loss or 
fragmentation, or impacted by other factors are more vulnerable to 
extirpation by natural, randomly occurring events (such as predation or 
stochastic weather events), and to genetic effects that plague small 
populations, collectively known as small population effects (Purvis et 
al. 2000, p. 1947). These effects can include genetic drift, founder 
effects (over time, an increasing percentage of the population 
inheriting a narrow range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading 
to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent negative 
effects on adaptive capacity and reproductive success (Keller and 
Waller 2002, p. 235).
    Nine natural localities on Puerto Rico are smaller localities with 
varying degrees of connectivity and cross-pollination between 
localities; in contrast, only one natural locality, the Mesetas trail 
locality in GCF, has a high number of individuals and connectivity. The 
best available information for Anegada and Saba Islands indicates that 
these populations are currently small (2,500 on Anegada Island and 
unknown abundance on Saba Island) and in a few localities with limited 
distribution.

Effects of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, 
pp. 2, 40). Observed effects associated with climate change include 
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, increased extreme weather 
events including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, more 
intense tropical cyclones, and an increase in sea level (IPCC 2014, pp. 
40-44). Rather than assessing climate change as a single threat in and 
of itself, we examined the potential consequences to the species and 
its habitat that arise from changes in environmental conditions 
associated with various aspects of climate change (temperature, 
precipitation, and sea level rise). Vulnerability to climate change 
impacts can be defined as a function of sensitivity, exposure, and 
adaptive capacity of the species to those changes (IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 
21; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19).
    The IPCC-modelled scenarios for the Caribbean islands predict 
precipitation declines, sea level rise, stronger and more frequent 
extreme weather events, and temperature increases by 2050 (Penn 2010, 
p. 45; Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 265; Gould et al. 2018, p. 813; Strauss 
and Kulp 2018, p. 3; U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2018, 
p. 136). We examined a downscaled model for Puerto Rico and the British 
Virgin Islands based on global emissions scenarios from the Climate 
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) dataset. The more current CMIP5 
dataset was not available for the species' range at the time of 
analysis. The Special Report on Emissions (SRES) scenarios using the 
CMIP3 dataset are generally comparable to the more recent 
representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios from RCP4.5 (SRES 
B1) to RCP8.5 (SRES A2) (Lorde 2011, entire; IPCC 2014, p. 57; Khalyani 
et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279-280). Under both scenarios, emissions 
increase, precipitation declines, and temperature and total dry days 
increase, resulting in extreme drought conditions that convert 
subtropical dry forest into dry and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 
2016, p. 280).
    Modeling shows dramatic changes to Puerto Rico through 2100; 
however, the divergence in these projections increases after mid-
century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). By 2050, Puerto Rico is 
predicted to be subject to a decrease in rainfall, along with increased 
drought intensity (Khalyani et al. 2016 p. 265; USGCRP 2018, p. 136). 
As precipitation decreases, influenced by warming, it will tend to 
accelerate the hydrological cycles, resulting in wet and dry extremes 
(Cashman et al. 2010, pp. 1, 51, 53; Jennings et al. 2014, pp. 1, 5-6). 
A reduction in precipitation in the subtropical dry forests, where rain 
events are already limited, will affect Mitracarpus polycladus 
viability through reduced seed viability and result in increased 
seedling mortality. Droughts compromise seedling recruitment as 
evidenced following dry periods, when seedling and adult mortality is 
the highest and other individuals show partial die-off (Service 2018b, 
p. 8). In fact, under experimental conditions, the germination and 
survival of seedlings of the closely related M. maxwelliae were 
negatively affected by reduced soil moisture (Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 
25). There are indications that the southern region of Puerto Rico, 
where M. polycladus occurs, has experienced negative trends in annual 
rainfall. Between 2000 and 2016, Puerto Rico had seven drought episodes 
concentrated around the south, east, and southeastern regions of the 
island. The most severe drought occurred between 2014 and 2016, when 
Puerto Rico experienced 80 consecutive weeks of moderate drought, 48 
weeks of severe drought, and 33 weeks of extreme drought conditions 
(Alvarez-Berr[iacute]os et al. 2018, p. 1). Prolonged dry seasons may 
represent a bottleneck for seedlings and promote changes in the 
composition of recruits of plant species (Allen et al. 2017, p. 6). 
Additionally, prolonged droughts and associated changes in soil 
conditions (i.e., temperature and soil humidity) would result in 
conditions promoting fire throughout M. polycladus's range, impacting 
individuals and reducing seed viability, and therefore species' 
recruitment. Moreover, the absence of forest canopy on the exposed 
limestone substrate where M. polycladus occurs reduces suitable habitat 
conditions (i.e., hydrology and moisture retention) that buffer the 
severity of stress resulting from environmental perturbations, such as 
droughts.
    The IPCC global models and scenarios analyzed for the downscaled 
models apply to the Caribbean islands. Downscaled general circulation 
models predict dramatic shifts in the life zones of Puerto Rico with 
potential loss of subtropical rain, moist, and wet forest, and with the 
appearance of tropical dry and very dry forests anticipated (Khalyani 
et al. 2016, p. 275). Some species may move to higher elevations in 
response to this shift in life zones; however, the extent of a species' 
ability to redistribute will depend on its dispersal capability and 
forest connectivity (Khalyani et al. 2019, p. 11). Due to Mitracarpus 
polycladus's low dispersal capability, clumped spatial distribution, 
and habitat requirements (exposed limestone), as well as the limited 
availability of its required habitat, a shift from dry to very dry 
forest is expected to affect species' viability because of a lack of 
suitable habitat and the species' inability to move to suitable 
habitat. Based on the similarity of habitat and geographic proximity, 
the effects of climate change on Anegada and Saba Islands are expected 
to be similar to Puerto Rico as emissions increase, precipitation 
declines, and temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in 
extreme drought conditions that convert subtropical dry forest into dry 
and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). In the subtropical 
dry forest habitat where M. polycladus occurs, climate change may 
impact the species through declines in natural recruitment and 
population expansion.
    Sea level rise is another expected effect of climate change that 
may affect coastal communities and habitat in the Caribbean islands 
(Penn 2010, entire; Lorde 2011, entire; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 1). 
Integrated sea level rise projection and flood risk analysis

[[Page 74900]]

predict that floods reaching 0.5 meter (m) (1.64 feet (ft)) above 
current high tide levels will become common events throughout most of 
the Caribbean by 2050 (Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 2). Other scenarios 
using RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 forecast that by mid-century, sea level is 
expected to increase by 0.24 m (0.8 ft) to 0.85 m (2.8 ft) (Church et 
al. 2013, p. 1182; Sweet et al. 2017, p. 75; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 
14). Based on these sea level rise projections, coastal floods will 
negatively affect Mitracarpus polycladus habitat at or below the 1.0 m 
(3.3 ft) sea level near the coast or in areas with high coastal erosion 
through the effects of saltwater inundation. In Puerto Rico, M. 
polycladus occurs at elevations ranging from 1.5 m (5 ft) to 52 m (172 
ft) from current sea level (Service 2018b, p. 5). On Saba Island, M. 
polycladus occurs at an elevation ranging from 12 m (40 ft) to 335 m 
(1,100 ft) (Rojer 1997, p. 19; Freitas et al. 2016, p. 10). On Anegada 
Island, M. polycladus occurs at elevations ranging from 1 m (3.2 ft) to 
8 m (26 ft) from current sea level (B[aacute]rrios 2021, pers. comm.; 
Hamilton 2021, pers. comm.). Across the range, the only known locality 
in an area with potential to be affected by flooding and sea level rise 
is the Windlass site on Anegada Island (approximately 200 M. polycladus 
individuals). The Windlass site is located in the sandy and rocky areas 
on the northern coast of the island where the habitat is subjected to 
high energy wave and coastal erosion (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, 
p. 5). Mitracarpus polycladus individuals occur in elevations higher 
than those we expect to be impacted by sea level rise on Puerto Rico, 
Saba Island, and other localities on Anegada Island. Based on predicted 
sea level rise and the elevation where most individuals occur, we 
determined sea level rise does not pose a threat to the species in the 
foreseeable future. Nevertheless, sea level rise may indirectly impact 
the species, particularly on Anegada Island, through development 
associated with displacement of the human population from coastal areas 
to inland and urban areas where individuals of M. polycladus occur 
(Penn 2010, pp. 21, 249; Hamilton 2016, p. 101). We do not expect 
significant effects to M. polycladus from sea level rise, although one 
coastal locality on Anegada Island has the potential to be affected.
    In summary, other natural and human-caused factors, such as the 
limited distribution of the three known natural populations and the 
effects of climate change (i.e., decreased rainfall, severe droughts, 
and shift in life zones), are current threats to Mitracarpus 
polycladus. The threats to the species will be exacerbated by the 
expected changes in climatic conditions by 2050. We expect the 
projected changes in habitat and microhabitat conditions of temperature 
and rainfall will have negative effects on M. polycladus. The ecology 
of M. polycladus appears closely linked to specific current climatic 
conditions of rain seasonality and drought periods. By 2050, sea level 
rise is expected to affect the Caribbean islands, including Puerto 
Rico, Anegada Island, and Saba Island. Overall, the effects of a 
changing climate on M. polycladus will be exacerbated by the relatively 
low number of populations and habitat degradation and fragmentation, 
which can affect the future viability of the species.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the final listing rule (59 FR 46715; September 9, 1994), we 
identified the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as one of 
the factors affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus 
polycladus. Outside of the protections provided by the Act, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally protects M. polycladus as an 
endangered species, including protections to its habitat, through 
Commonwealth Law No. 241-1999 (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto Rico at 
sections 107-107u) and Regulation 6766 (To govern the management of 
threatened and endangered species in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), 
which prohibit collecting, cutting, and removal, among other actions, 
of listed plants (DRNA 2004, p. 11). These protections are described 
further in our June 23, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37476). Although 
there are legal mechanisms in place (e.g., laws or regulations) for the 
protection of M. polycladus, the enforcement of such mechanisms on 
private and public land is sometimes challenging. Land managers, 
landowners, and law enforcement officers are not always aware of the 
localities occupied by the species throughout its range or may have 
difficulty correctly identifying the plant (Service 2018b, p. 10). 
Therefore, limited public awareness of the species and its status 
exacerbates the challenge of implementation of existing laws and 
regulations and affects conservation of M. polycladus and its habitat.
    On Anegada Island, various conservation and education efforts are 
taking place for the protection of rare plant and animal species 
(Gardner et al. 2008, entire; IRF 2013, p. 29). However, we are unaware 
of any formal regulatory mechanism that protects Mitracarpus polycladus 
on Anegada Island or Saba Island (Geelhoed et al. 2013, p. 12).
    We do not expect this species to be removed from legal protection 
by the Commonwealth when it is reclassified as a threatened species 
under the Act. This plant is now more abundant, is widely distributed, 
and largely occurs within conserved lands. Despite the existing 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts, the threats discussed 
above are still affecting the species to the extent that it does not 
meet the criteria for delisting. However, additional opportunities 
exist to engage the public and provide information about M. polycladus 
and support the enforcement of existing protective mechanisms.

Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats that are currently 
impacting and expected to impact Mitracarpus polycladus in developing 
this rule. Limited distribution and a low number of individuals were 
considered a threat to M. polycladus when we listed the species (59 FR 
46715; September 9, 1994). Recent information indicates the species is 
more abundant and widely distributed than was known at the time of 
listing, and most individuals occur in protected lands where threats 
are reduced, although threats are still present. We determined that 
habitat destruction and modification (e.g., vegetation clearance with 
trail and road maintenance activities, human-caused fires, encroachment 
by nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism 
development, and grazing), as well as other natural or manmade factors 
such as limited distribution and the effects of climate change, will 
continue to pose threats to M. polycladus in the foreseeable future.
    We evaluated the biological status of this species, both currently 
and into the future, considering the species' viability as 
characterized by its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. 
Mitracarpus polycladus has demonstrated some level of resiliency to 
natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the past. Adult individuals 
have overcome disturbances such as droughts and habitat modification, 
road and trail maintenance, and fires. However, seedlings are 
susceptible to the effects of drought and to the invasion of nonnative 
plant species after fire or other disturbance events. The lack of or 
reduced seedling recruitment affects

[[Page 74901]]

population demographics and the long-term viability of the species.
    For Mitracarpus polycladus to maintain viability, populations, or 
some portion thereof, must be sufficiently resilient. Resiliency 
describes the ability of a population to withstand stochastic events 
(arising random factors). We can measure resiliency based on metrics of 
population health: for example, birth versus death rates and population 
size. For this rule, our classification of resiliency relies heavily on 
the biology of the species and habitat characteristics in the absence 
of highly certain population size or trend estimates.
    We broadly defined categories of resiliency for Mitracarpus 
polycladus populations by assessing demographic and habitat parameters 
and anchored these categories in the species' needs and life-history 
characteristics (see table 3, below). Important species' 
characteristics center on the species' seasonality, seedling mortality 
after drought, dispersal capability, and competition with nonnative 
grasses for space and resources. The demographic metrics we evaluated 
include abundance at localities and evidence of reproduction or 
recruitment. We assessed habitat characteristics, including the degree 
of habitat protection (or, conversely, development risk), extent of 
suitable habitat, connectivity to other localities, and vulnerability 
to threats. A population may not exhibit each characteristic of the 
category as defined, but most parameters known for the population fall 
into the resilience category. For example, a population that is 
described as highly resilient may have high abundance, high number of 
localities, good distribution of localities, and recruitment at most 
localities even if suitable habitat and connectivity is limited.

  Table 3--Definitions for Mitracarpus polycladus Population Resiliency
                               Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            High                    Moderate                 Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Abundance is high;.   Abundance     Abundance
                               is moderate;.         is low.
 Number of             Number of     Number of
 localities is high, and       localities is         localities is
 they occupy a greater         moderate, and they    limited to one, and
 spatial extent within         occupy a limited      it occupies a very
 suitable habitat;             spatial extent        restricted spatial
                               within suitable       extent.
                               habitat;
 Reproduction and                    No
 recruitment are such that     Reproduction and/or   reproduction or
 the population remains        recruitment is        recruitment is
 stable or increases;          occurring at some     occurring.
 Abundant suitable     localities;           Mortality
 habitat occurs outside        Recruitment   exceeds recruitment
 known localities; and.        and mortality are     such that the
 Connectivity occurs   equal such that the   population is
 among most localities..       population does not   declining.
                               grow, or the          Limited or
                               population trend is   no suitable habitat
                               unknown;.             occurs outside
                               Some          known locality; and
                               suitable habitat      There is no
                               occurs outside        connectivity
                               known localities;     between localities
                               and.                  (single locality
                                             population).
                               Connectivity occurs
                               between at least
                               two localities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, three Mitracarpus polycladus natural populations are 
known from three islands in the Caribbean (i.e., Puerto Rico, Anegada 
Island, and Saba Island). In Puerto Rico, many M. polycladus adult 
individuals occur in small clusters, and seedlings have been 
documented, particularly after rain events. Information from Anegada 
Island and Saba Island is very limited, making it difficult to 
determine the level of population resiliency. However, both of those 
populations of M. polycladus demonstrate some level of resiliency as 
populations remain on the landscape on both islands and have presumably 
overcome historical disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, 
including habitat modification.
    The short time it takes Mitracarpus polycladus to reach 
reproductive size and the extent of seed production facilitates 
population-level resiliency. However, resiliency is limited by the 
small size of clusters of individuals, species' seasonality, low 
dispersal capacity, and high seedling mortality. We have no evidence 
that known M. polycladus clusters are expanding or colonizing suitable 
habitat away from roads and trails. The lack of expansion and 
colonization results in isolated clusters with an increased chance of 
reduced genetic variation due to genetic drift, potentially resulting 
in inbreeding depression and lower resiliency. In addition, M. 
polycladus has been displaced by nonnative, invasive species after 
habitat disturbance by fire, which further precludes the effective 
recruitment of the species. The M. polycladus population in Puerto Rico 
occurs on 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) of habitat in 10 naturally occurring and 1 
introduced locality. Suitable habitat connects some, but not all, 
localities. Increased connectivity between scattered localities in 
Puerto Rico is expected to improve population resiliency. The Saba and 
Anegada Islands populations occur in limited areas as well. We do not 
have information about the population trend and areal extent of these 
localities. Overall, the limited areal extent of M. polycladus 
contributes to its susceptibility to stochastic and catastrophic 
events. Based on these factors, we determined that the Puerto Rico 
population currently exhibits moderate resiliency while the Anegada and 
Saba Islands populations exhibit unknown or low resiliency.
    The species' viability is also affected by its ability to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions. We have no information on the 
genetic variability of Mitracarpus polycladus nor information on 
variation in adaptive life-history traits, and, therefore, we evaluated 
the species' ability to adapt based on its likelihood of maintaining 
the breadth of genetic diversity and gene flow. This species occurs in 
small patches of suitable habitat within subtropical dry forest on 
three islands of the Caribbean with little variation in habitat 
conditions between populations. Historically, genetic diversity may 
have contributed to the species' ability to adapt to changing 
conditions, and the species likely has maintained underlying genetic 
diversity. Rangewide, all populations are vulnerable to the threats 
that could result in the extirpation of clusters of individuals or 
localities and the loss of genetic representation.
    The ability of the species to adapt is also a function of the level 
of gene flow among populations. The three Mitracarpus polycladus 
populations are disconnected; thus, gene flow is limited to individuals 
within populations due to the lack of connectivity that would allow 
cross-pollination among populations. As described above in Limited 
Distribution and Small Population Size, small, isolated populations are 
susceptible to genetic effects; however, the best available information 
indicates that species

[[Page 74902]]

viability is not affected by genetic issues at present. As 
fragmentation increases, gene flow will be reduced further, and the 
populations will become more vulnerable to genetic drift and 
inbreeding, thereby reducing the species' adaptive capacity. We 
determined M. polycladus representation is likely reduced from 
historical representation due to reduced or fragmented habitat 
conditions, but the species maintains moderate adaptive capacity.
    Lastly, the species' viability depends on its ability to withstand 
catastrophic events, which is a function of the resiliency, number, and 
distribution of Mitracarpus polycladus populations. The more 
sufficiently resilient populations, and the wider the distribution of 
those populations, the more redundancy the species will exhibit. The 
primary catastrophic risks to M. polycladus include widespread, 
prolonged drought and fire. These threats are expected to increase in 
the future as the subtropical dry forest where the species occurs 
shifts to very dry forest habitat. The species' largest population 
(Puerto Rico) is moderately resilient and now occurs in a wider 
rangewide distribution than was known historically. We have determined 
M. polycladus currently exhibits moderate species redundancy.
    In summary, the current abundance of Mitracarpus polycladus has 
increased and some of the identified threats have decreased since its 
listing in 1994. However, our analysis indicates that threats and 
stressors continue to affect the species. We based our analyses on 
biological factors, expert judgment regarding the consequences of 
interacting stressors to the species' viability, and our assessment of 
likely future habitat conditions.

Determination of Mitracarpus polycladus's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or 
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 a species meets the definition of endangered 
species or threatened species based on one or more of the following 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we have determined that Mitracarpus polycladus's current 
viability is higher than was known at the time of listing (current 
abundance estimate of more than 20,000 adult individuals in three 
populations) and most individuals occur on protected lands where 
threats are reduced. At the time of listing, the known range of M. 
polycladus consisted of an undetermined number of individuals located 
in a single population in southern Puerto Rico and from one record on 
Saba Island. The primary threats were habitat destruction and 
modification, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and limited 
distribution (see 59 FR 46715, September 9, 1994, pp. 46716-46717). 
Currently, M. polycladus is known to occur in 11 localities within an 
areal extent of 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in southern Puerto Rico and several 
localities on Saba Island and Anegada Island. In Puerto Rico, about 89 
percent of the known M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, a 
forest managed for conservation by the Department in a manner 
compatible with M. polycladus's needs and protected by Commonwealth 
regulations.
    The remaining 11 percent of individuals on Puerto Rico and 
individuals on Saba and Anegada Islands occur on private lands and are 
at risk due to habitat destruction and modification from wind farm 
projects, urbanization, and tourism development. Information from 
Puerto Rico also indicates that threats from human-caused fires, human 
trampling, and nonnative and invasive species impact Mitracarpus 
polycladus on both public and private lands. These threats may be more 
severe for the populations on private lands, since fire management 
prevention practices and other management actions implemented on public 
lands are not required on private lands. On Saba and Anegada Islands, 
the species also faces threats due to residential and commercial 
development and degradation due to grazing of feral livestock. 
Information from Anegada Island and Saba Island is very limited, making 
it difficult to determine the level of population resiliency; however, 
both populations demonstrate some level of resiliency as we have 
longstanding records from the same localities that have presumably 
overcome historical disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, 
including habitat modification. Thus, we determined the Puerto Rico 
population currently exhibits moderate resiliency and the resiliency of 
the Anegada and Saba Islands populations is unknown or low.
    The species' distribution is wider than known at the time of 
listing, and the species' listing by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
provides some level of protection to Mitracarpus polycladus. However, 
remaining threats are ongoing and projected to impact the species in 
the future. These include the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (e.g., maintenance 
of existing roads and trails, human trampling, human-caused fires, 
encroachment of nonnative and invasive species after fires and other 
habitat modification activities, and urbanization and tourism 
development) (Factor A); and other natural or manmade factors affecting 
the continued existence of M. polycladus throughout its range (e.g., 
limited distribution and the effects of climate change) (Factor E). The 
best available information does not indicate that overutilization or 
diseases are affecting the species or feral livestock are specifically 
targeting this species and consuming it. Despite the identification of 
these threats that currently, and are expected to continue to, impact 
the species, we conclude that the populations exhibit sufficient 
resiliency and species-level representation and redundancy.
    In summary, Mitracarpus polycladus is distributed across a narrow 
range, but the number of localities within populations and 
environmental conditions have improved since the time of listing. Thus, 
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that M. 
polycladus is not in danger of extinction now throughout all of its 
range. We therefore proceed with determining whether M. polycladus is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range.
    Based on biological factors and stressors to the species' 
viability, we determined 25 years to be the foreseeable future within 
which we can reasonably project threats and the species' response to 
those threats. The foreseeable future for the individual

[[Page 74903]]

factors and threats varies. We reviewed available information including 
forest management plans, proposed development projects, and fire 
history within the range of the species, to inform our assessment of 
likely future levels for each threat. Projections for 2050 predict 
increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation (Khalyani et 
al. 2016, pp. 274-275). However, divergence in temperature and 
precipitation projections increase dramatically after mid-century among 
climate change scenarios, making late-century projections more 
uncertain and reducing our ability to reliably predict stressors 
associated with climate change (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). In 
addition, observation of threats and the effects of those threats on 
the species since it was listed in 1994 (more than 25 years ago) have 
given us a baseline to understand how threats may impact the species. 
We have observed the effects of habitat destruction and modification 
(such as vegetation clearance for maintaining or improving trails and 
access roads, human trampling, human-caused fires, invasive species, 
and urban and tourist development) and climate change (predicted 
changes in temperature, increased droughts, and life zones shifting) on 
the species since its listing and incorporated these observations to 
reliably predict the species' response to these threats.
    The 25-year period includes multiple generations of the species and 
allowed adequate time for impacts from conservation efforts or changes 
in threats to be observed through population responses. This timeframe 
accounts for the species' reproductive biology, and thus the time 
required by multiple generations of Mitracarpus polycladus to reach a 
reproductive size and effectively contribute to the viability of the 
species. It accounts for reaching maturity, flowering, setting viable 
fruits and seeds, seed germination, and seedling survival and 
establishment, and it allows environmental stochastic events such as 
severe drought periods to affect the species. Furthermore, the 
established timeframe provides an opportunity to analyze the 
implications of the Department's forest management actions, and 
existing laws and regulations to protect currently known populations.
    Although population numbers and abundance of Mitracarpus polycladus 
have increased and the species' occurrences appear stable, threats 
remain in magnitude, scope, and impact over time. Habitat destruction 
and modification, such as vegetation clearance for maintaining or 
improving trails and access roads, human trampling, human-caused fires, 
invasive species, and urban and tourist development (Factor A), and 
other natural or manmade factors such as the effects of climate change 
(Factor E) may limit the species' abundance and distribution of 
occurrences. Gene flow will continue to be limited to individuals 
within populations due to the lack of connectivity that would allow 
cross-pollination among populations; populations may become more 
vulnerable to genetic drift and inbreeding, thereby reducing the 
species' ability to adapt to changing conditions. Although much of the 
Puerto Rico population occurs in the GCF, which is managed for 
conservation, actions that benefit the species will not eliminate the 
threats of trail maintenance, trampling, nonnative and invasive 
species, and human-caused fires, and these threats are expected to 
continue to affect the species in the foreseeable future. Proposed 
urbanization and tourism development projects may be completed in the 
foreseeable future. Furthermore, under climate change projections, the 
risk of catastrophic drought and fire is expected to increase with the 
subtropical dry forest shifting to very dry forest habitat within the 
foreseeable future.
    The magnitude of effects associated with habitat destruction and 
modification along with climate change are expected to continue and 
potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Despite the existing 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts, the threats discussed 
above are still affecting the species to the extent that it does not 
meet the criteria for delisting. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that M. polycladus is not currently 
in danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within 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, 435 
F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 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'' (hereafter ``Final Policy''; 79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that if the Service determines that 
a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Service will 
not analyze whether a species is endangered in a significant portion 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 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 Everson, 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 Mitracarpus polycladus, we choose to 
address the status question first by considering information pertaining 
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that 
the species faces to determine whether there are any portions of the 
range where the species is endangered.
    We evaluated the range of Mitracarpus polycladus to determine if 
the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range. 
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an 
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the 
species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered 
species. For M. polycladus, we considered whether the threats or their 
effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful 
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the 
species is now in danger of extinction in that portion.
    We examined the following threats: habitat loss and modification 
due to vegetation maintenance or trimming along roads and trails, human 
trampling, and urbanization and tourism development; human-caused 
fires; nonnative, invasive plant species; and the effects of climate 
change (prolonged droughts, expected shifts of life zones, and sea 
level rise), including cumulative effects. We also considered whether 
these threats may be exacerbated by small population size and limited 
connectivity between

[[Page 74904]]

populations. For detailed description of each threat, see Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats, above.
    Habitat modification poses a threat to most of the 11 Mitracarpus 
polycladus localities in Puerto Rico, as well as the populations on 
Saba and Anegada Islands. The M. polycladus populations on Puerto Rico, 
Anegada Island, and Saba Island experience threats of habitat 
degradation and modification due to vegetation clearance for 
maintenance and improvement of roads and trails, urbanization and 
tourism development, human-caused fires, and the subsequent 
encroachment of nonnative and invasive species. In addition, 
approximately 11 percent of M. polycladus individuals in Puerto Rico 
occur on private lands that are exposed to the threat of development 
more so than individuals on protected lands. Moreover, the species' 
localities in each population are distributed across a limited 
geographic area. Although climate change is expected to affect M. 
polycladus populations in the foreseeable future, we determined that 
climate change does not represent a current threat to the species; 
therefore, our assessment of the threat of climate change as a future 
threat is consistent with our ``threatened'' status determination for 
the species.
    Small population size can exacerbate other threats on the species. 
The information regarding Mitracarpus polycladus populations on Anegada 
and Saba Islands is more limited than that regarding the Puerto Rico 
population. Based on the best available information for Anegada and 
Saba Islands, these populations are currently small or assumed to be 
small (2,500 on Anegada Island and unknown abundance on Saba Island) 
and in a few localities with limited distribution. Ten of the 11 
species' localities on Puerto Rico also occur in clusters with low 
numbers of individuals that are isolated from other clusters, but the 
species is represented by a wider distribution on Puerto Rico than on 
Anegada and Saba Islands. Despite the rarity of M. polycladus on 
Anegada and Saba Islands, the species has demonstrated continued 
presence for decades in some localities. Although species' persistence 
does not equate with high resiliency or viability of a population or 
species, we expect M. polycladus populations to maintain resiliency in 
the future, despite ongoing threats. Therefore, small population size 
and low abundance in these localities, even when considered in the 
context of other threats, do not represent a concentration of threats 
at a biologically meaningful scale such that the species may be in 
danger of extinction in this portion. Based on our review of 
information and the synergistic effects of threats on Anegada and Saba 
Islands, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis 
for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a 
significant portion of its range.
    Overall, we found that threats likely are impacting individuals or 
populations similarly across the species' range. 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 M. polycladus. Species with limited ranges are more likely to 
experience the same types and generally the same levels of threats in 
all parts of their range. These threats are certain to occur, and 
populations are facing the same extent of threats, even though certain 
populations may have fewer occurrences.
    We found no portion of Mitracarpus polycladus's range where threats 
are impacting individuals differently than elsewhere in its range to 
the extent that the status of the species in one portion differs from 
any other portion of its range.
    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 in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' 
holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. 
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, 
in reaching this conclusion, we did not need apply the aspects of the 
Final Policy, including the definition of ``significant,'' that those 
court decisions held were invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that Mitracarpus polycladus meets the Act's 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are reclassifying M. 
polycladus as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) 
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may promulgate 
protective regulations for threatened species. Because we are 
reclassifying this species as a threatened species, the prohibitions in 
section 9 will not apply directly. We are, therefore, promulgating 
below a set of regulations to provide for the conservation of the 
species in accordance with the Act's section 4(d), which also 
authorizes us to apply any of the prohibitions in section 9 to a 
threatened species. The discussion below regarding protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy, as 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1995 (59 FR 34272), to 
identify to the maximum extent practical at the time a species is 
listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation 
of section 9 of the Act.

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as ``threatened.'' The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that 
statutory language similar to the language in section 4(d) of the Act 
authorizing the Secretary to take action that she ``deems necessary and 
advisable'' affords 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 section 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 
a threatened species. The second sentence grants particularly broad 
discretion to us when adopting prohibitions under section 9.
    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, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that 
included limited prohibition against takings (see Alsea Valley Alliance 
v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do 
not

[[Page 74905]]

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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those 
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of 
such species, or [she] 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).
    The provisions of this 4(d) rule promote conservation of 
Mitracarpus polycladus by encouraging management of the habitat in ways 
that facilitate conservation for the species. The provisions of this 
rule are one of many tools that we use to promote the conservation of 
M. polycladus. As explained below, we are adopting a species-specific 
rule that sets out all of the protections and prohibitions applicable 
to M. polycladus.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    These requirements are the same for a threatened species with a 
species-specific 4(d) rule. For example, as with an endangered species, 
if a Federal agency determines that an action is ``not likely to 
adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action will require formal 
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 
402.14(a)).

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a species-specific rule that is designed to address 
Mitracarpus polycladus's conservation needs. As discussed previously in 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that 
Mitracarpus polycladus is likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future primarily due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (specifically, road and trail maintenance, human-caused fires, 
nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism development; 
and grazing); and other natural or manmade factors (specifically, the 
effects of climate change). Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to 
issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide 
for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the 
Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the 
prohibitions that section 9(a)(2) of the Act prescribes for endangered 
species. We find that the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in 
this species-specific rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in 
section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of M. polycladus.
    The protective regulations we are finalizing for Mitracarpus 
polycladus incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(2) of the Act to 
address threats to the species. Section 9(a)(2) prohibits the following 
activities for endangered plants: importing or exporting; certain acts 
related to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving, 
carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce 
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce. These protective regulations include 
all of these prohibitions for M. polycladus because the species is at 
risk of extinction within the foreseeable future and putting these 
prohibitions in place will help to protect the species' existing 
populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, 
negative effects from other threats.
    The exceptions to the prohibitions include all of the general 
exceptions to the prohibitions for endangered plants against removing 
and reducing to possession, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.61(c), and 
certain other specific activities that we except, as described below. 
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may under 
certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise-
prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations 
that govern permits for threatened plants state that the Director may 
issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with 
regard to threatened species (50 CFR 17.72). Those regulations also 
state that the permit shall be governed by the provisions of Sec.  
17.72 unless a special rule applicable to the plant is provided in 
Sec. Sec.  17.73 to 17.78. Therefore, permits for threatened species 
are governed by the provisions of Sec.  17.72 unless a species-specific 
4(d) rule provides otherwise. However, under our recent revisions to 
Sec.  17.71, the prohibitions in Sec.  17.71(a) do not apply to any 
plant listed as a threatened species after September 26, 2019. As a 
result, for threatened plant species listed after that date, any 
protections must be contained in a species-specific 4(d) rule. We did 
not intend for those revisions to limit or alter the applicability of 
the permitting provisions in Sec.  17.72, or to require that every 
species-specific 4(d) rule spell out any permitting provisions that 
apply to that species and species-specific 4(d) rule. To the contrary, 
we anticipate that permitting provisions will generally be similar or 
identical for most species, so applying the provisions of Sec.  17.72 
unless a species-specific 4(d) rule provides otherwise will likely 
avoid substantial duplication. Under 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 activities consistent with the 
purposes and policy of the Act. Additional statutory exceptions from 
the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    We recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of activities 
with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the 
propagation of the species and, therefore, will 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 species' survival in the wild. In this 
regard, seeds of cultivated specimens will not be subject to the 
prohibitions above, provided that a statement that the seeds are of 
``cultivated origin'' accompanies the

[[Page 74906]]

seeds or their container (e.g., the seeds could be moved across State 
lines or between territories for purposes of seed banking or use for 
outplanting without additional regulations) (50 CFR 17.71(a)).
    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 us in 
implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the 
Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable 
with the States and Territories in carrying out programs authorized by 
the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State or 
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, will be able 
to conduct activities designed to conserve Mitracarpus polycladus that 
may result in otherwise prohibited activities without additional 
authorization.
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule will 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 Mitracarpus 
polycladus. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined 
through planned programmatic consultations for the species between 
Federal agencies and the Service.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g., 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical 
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) 
rule)).

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 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's 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. There are no federally recognized 
Tribes in the range of Mitracarpus polycladus.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby 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. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by revising the entry for ``Mitracarpus polycladus'' 
under FLOWERING 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
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Mitracarpus polycladus..........  No common name.....  Wherever found....            T   59 FR 46715, 9/9/1994;
                                                                                          88 FR [Insert Federal
                                                                                          Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          11/1/2023; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.73(i).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



0
3. Amend Sec.  17.73 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.73  Special rules--flowering plants.

* * * * *
    (i) Mitracarpus polycladus (no common name).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered plants also apply to Mitracarpus polycladus. Except as 
provided under paragraph (i)(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

[[Page 74907]]

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 the species from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy the species on any 
such area; 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.
    (iii) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(d) for endangered plants.
    (iv) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(e) for 
endangered plants.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by permit under Sec.  17.72.
    (ii) Remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy on areas not under 
Federal jurisdiction if you are a qualified employee or agent of the 
Service or Territorial conservation agency which is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, and you have been designated by that agency for such 
purposes, when acting in the course of official duties.
    (iii)(A) Any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal 
land management agency, or a Territorial conservation agency, who is 
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the 
course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession Mitracarpus 
polycladus from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a permit if 
such action is necessary to:
    (1) Care for a damaged or diseased specimen;
    (2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
    (3) Salvage a dead specimen which may be useful for scientific 
study.
    (B) Any removal and reduction to possession pursuant to this 
paragraph must be reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service within 5 days. The specimen may only be retained, disposed of, 
or salvaged in accordance with written directions from the Service.
    (iv) Engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (i)(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,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24059 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P