Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-14661

Proposed Rule2021-14661

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Palo de Rosa From Endangered to Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 14, 2021

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service

Abstract

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon) from endangered to threatened (downlist) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed downlisting is based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the species' status has improved such that it is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but that it is still likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We also propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that provides for the conservation of palo de rosa.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37091-37113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14661]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE56

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification
of the Palo de Rosa From Endangered to Threatened With Section 4(d)
Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon) from endangered to
threatened (downlist) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The proposed downlisting is based on our evaluation of
the best available scientific and commercial information, which
indicates that the species' status has improved such that it is not
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, but that it is still likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. We also propose a rule under section 4(d) of the
Act that provides for the conservation of palo de rosa.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
September 13, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by August 30, 2021.

[[Page 37092]]

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W
(JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: This proposed rule, list of literature
cited, and supporting documents are available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; telephone (787) 851-
7297. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets
the definition of endangered (in danger of extinction). The palo de
rosa is listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify
(downlist) palo de rosa as threatened, because we have determined it is
not currently in danger of extinction. Downlisting a species as a
threatened species can only be accomplished by issuing a rulemaking.
What this document does. This rule proposes to reclassify palo de
rosa as a threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and to establish provisions under section 4(d) of the
Act that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
this species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on any
of the five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. In our August 2017 5-year status
review, we recommended downlisting this species from endangered to
threatened based on our evaluation of these factors. We may downlist a
species if the best available commercial and scientific data indicate
the species no longer meets the applicable definition in the Act. We
have determined that palo de rosa is no longer in danger of extinction
and, therefore, does not meet the definition of an endangered species.
However, the species meets the definition of a threatened species under
the Act because it is affected by the following current and ongoing
threats: Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from urban
development; agricultural practices and rights-of-way maintenance,
coupled with habitat intrusion by exotics; other natural or manmade
factors, such as hurricanes; and this tree's slow growth, limited
dispersal, and low recruitment.
The information used for our 2017 5-year review, and the best
currently available information, indicate that there are at least 1,144
known individuals (including adults and saplings) of palo de rosa.
These individuals are distributed in at least 66 subpopulations (which
include the 16 known localities identified at the time of the recovery
plan development) throughout Puerto Rico. About 25 (38 percent) of
those subpopulations show evidence of reproduction or natural
recruitment (USFWS 2017, p. 6, table 1). The increase in the number of
known individuals and new localities reflects increased survey efforts
but does not necessarily indicate that previously known populations are
naturally expanding their range. Approximately 70 percent of
individuals occur in areas managed under some conservation status or in
areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico. The remaining
individuals occur within areas severely encroached and vulnerable to
urban or infrastructure development.
The slow growth of this tree and its reproductive biology suggest
that palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may
remain under closed canopy until a natural disturbance induces
favorable conditions for their development. Although natural
disturbances (e.g., tropical storms or hurricanes) can promote the
recruitment of saplings into adulthood, the palo de rosa population
should be composed of different size classes in order to be able to
withstand such stochastic events.
Recovery actions such as propagation and planting have shown to be
feasible, and the species is currently being propagated by the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER), and
planted in the Sus[uacute]a and Guajataca Commonwealth Forests, as well
as on lands within Fort Buchanan, owned by the U.S. Army. We have
established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Fort Buchanan and
PRDNER to address the conservation of the species within Fort Buchanan
and to promote the propagation of palo de rosa for recovery purposes
(U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire).
We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule. We propose to
adopt the Act's section 9(a)(2) prohibitions as a means to provide
protective mechanisms to palo de rosa. We also propose specific
tailored exceptions to these prohibitions to allow certain activities
covered by a permit or by an approved cooperative agreement to carry
out conservation programs, which would facilitate the conservation and
recovery of the species.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not downlist palo de rosa as a
threatened species.
(2) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of palo de rosa.
(3) New information on the known and potential threats to palo de
rosa, including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; habitat
intrusion by exotics; hurricanes; and this tree's slow growth, limited
dispersal, and low recruitment.

[[Page 37093]]

(4) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat use of palo de rosa.
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
palo de rosa that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on the
species.
(6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of palo de rosa and that the Service can
consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species.
(7) Information concerning the extent to which we should include
any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether any other
activities should be excepted from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule
(to the extent permitted by Commonwealth law).
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation
used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public
inspection at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059 on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain
listed as endangered instead of being reclassified as threatened, or we
may conclude that the species no longer warrants listing as either an
endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we may change
the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those
prohibitions if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and
new information received.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016,
Director's Memorandum ``Peer Review Process,'' we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding the scientific data and interpretations contained in this
proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We
will ensure that the opinions of peer reviewers are objective and
unbiased by following the guidelines set forth in the Director's Memo,
which updates and clarifies Service policy on peer review (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2016, entire). The purpose of such review is to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our final decision may differ
from this proposal.

Previous Federal Actions

On April 10, 1990, we published a final rule listing palo de rosa
as an endangered species in the Federal Register (55 FR 13488). The
final rule identified the following threats to palo de rosa: Loss of
habitat due to past deforestation and urban development; forest
management practices that do not take the species into consideration;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and the species'
vulnerability to natural disturbances such as flash flooding along
stream beds. On September 20, 1994, we completed the recovery plan for
this species (USFWS 1994, entire). We completed a 5-year status review
on August 9, 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). In that review, we recommended
that palo de rosa be downlisted to threatened because new occurrences
of the species have been located and a substantial number of
individuals have been documented (i.e., 963 adult individuals (not
considering seedlings or saplings) in 54 subpopulations). The 5-year
review is available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0059.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see Recovery,
below. See <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK</a>
for the species profile for this tree.

I. Proposed Reclassification Determination

Species Information

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the palo de rosa was presented in the 5-year
review (USFWS 2017, entire). Below, we present a summary of the
biological and distributional information discussed in the 5-year
review and new information published or obtained since.

Taxonomy and Species Description

Palo de rosa is a small evergreen tree that may reach up to 15
meters (m) (49 feet (ft)) in height and is a member of the Icacinaceae
family (USFWS 1994, p. 1). The branches are smooth and dark gray and
have conspicuous small lenticels (raised pores on the stem of a woody
plant that allows gas exchange with the atmosphere and internal
tissues) (Liogier 1994, p. 41). Leaves are ovate, are rounded or in
some cases elliptic, and occasionally have an acute apex and short (6-8
millimeters (mm) (0.2-0.3 inches (in)) petiolate; flowers are solitary
or grouped in a three to five flower cluster. The fruit is about 2.5
centimeters (cm) (0.98 in) long and up to 2.2 cm (0.86 in) wide and is
smooth and with a thin outer layer that turns dark purple when ripe.
The seed is about 2 cm (0.8 in) long (Liogier 1994, p. 41; Santiago
Valent[iacute]n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Palo de rosa may be
difficult to identify when sterile.

[[Page 37094]]

Reproductive Biology

When the palo de rosa recovery plan was written, information about
the flowering and fruiting pattern was limited due to the species not
being well-studied and the infrequent observation of reproductive
events, although flowering was observed in May and July 1993 (USFWS
1994, p. 5). A morphological description of the palo de rosa flower and
fruit was completed based on material collected from wild individuals,
cultivated material, and data from herbarium specimens (Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, entire). The species bears
hermaphrodite flowers, flowers for a short period at the beginning of
the rainy season and develops fruits subsequently until November
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; Santiago-Valent[iacute]n and
Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Few buds and flowers occurred from April
to May, with an explosive flowering in June, coinciding with the
beginning of the rainy season in May. Herbarium specimens demonstrated
flowering and fruiting between May and July, with an exception of one
specimen with flowers collected in December (Santiago-Valentin and
Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Flower and fruit production are documented
in individuals with diameters at breast high greater than 5 in (12.7
cm). Despite the high number of adult individuals reported, only a few
reach that stem size (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; USFWS 2009,
unpubl. data).
The cluster distribution of seedlings under the parent trees
indicates that seeds are dispersed by gravity. Subpopulations in
northern Puerto Rico are located on top of limestone hills indicating
that some disperser (e.g., animal vector) took them there in the past
(USFWS 2017, p. 12). Fruit-eating bats are a possible seed disperser
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15). However, camera monitoring of a
tree bearing mature fruits at the Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest
(GCF) showed that despite the high availability of mature fruits, bats
ignored them (Monsegur-Rivera 2004, pers. obs.). The Puerto Rican
flower bat (Phyllonycteris major) is an extirpated frugivorous bat
(Rodr[iacute]guez-Dur[aacute]n and Kunz 2001, p. 358), and could have
acted as a natural disperser of palo de rosa (Monsegur-Rivera 2004-
present, pers. obs.). Another hypothesis is that bats no longer
recognize palo de rosa fruit as a food source due to the small size of
the currently known subpopulations when compared to other food sources
(Monsegur-Rivera 2004-present, pers. obs.). Dispersal by water has been
hypothesized for the subpopulations in the southern coast, as these
subpopulations are located at the bottom of small drainages. However,
observations in GCF indicate that establishment of seedlings in these
drainages is low, because seeds are buried by sediments and small
plants are uprooted by high flows during storms (Monsegur-Rivera 2007,
pers. obs.).
Due to the infrequency of fruit production, germination experiments
have been limited. Attempts to germinate seeds from the Dorado (Mogotes
de Higuillar) population (northern Puerto Rico) have proven to be
difficult (10 percent success) as the majority of seeds were attacked
by insects (Coleoptera) (Ruiz Lebr[oacute]n 2002, p. 2). The species
also has been germinated by PRDNER and the University of Puerto Rico
(Caraballo 2009, pers. comm.). In February 2007, a preliminary
germination trial of palo de rosa obtained a 50 percent germination
success (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl. data). The germination starts with
the development of a long taproot, probably an adaptation to secure the
establishment of the seedlings under closed canopy conditions with a
thick bed of leaf litter. Despite damage to the apical meristem (tissue
in which new stem and root growth occurs) of the seedlings, seedlings
were able to regrow and produced a new stem (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl.
data). This finding indicates that propagation of the species is
feasible and may be used in palo de rosa recovery efforts. Palo de rosa
is not known to reproduce vegetatively, although multiple stems may
regrow from a tree that has been cut.

Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat

Palo de rosa was described by Ignatius Urban (1908) from material
collected by Leopold Krug near the municipality of Mayag[uuml]ez in
1876 (Liogier 1994, p. 42). Based on the description of the type
locality (area from where the species was originally collected and
described), the collection site may correspond to an area known as
Cerro Las Mesas. At the time of listing, palo de rosa was known from
nine individuals in three areas and considered endemic to Hispaniola
and Puerto Rico (55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990, p. 55 FR 13489).
Subpopulations and populations were not defined or identified at the
time of listing. The species was known from the limestone hills near
the municipality of Bayam[oacute]n in northern Puerto Rico, several
sites in the GCF in southwest Puerto Rico, and one individual on the
southern slopes of the Maricao Commonwealth Forest (MCF) (55 FR 13488,
April 10, 1990, p. 55 FR 13489).
At the time the recovery plan was written in 1994, there was little
information on the species' distribution, ecology, and reproductive
biology; therefore, in the recovery plan, species experts considered
each subpopulation or cluster of individuals as a population. The
recovery plan describes additional individuals observed as a result of
increased survey efforts in suitable habitat. In the 1994 recovery
plan, we estimated 200 palo de rosa individuals in 16 populations (now
defined as subpopulations and noted with ``(RP)'' in the table below).
An additional population (now considered a subpopulation) was reported
in 1996, increasing the total number of trees to 207 adult individuals
(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4).
The current understanding of palo de rosa's biological and
ecological requirements has led us to define a population as a
geographical area with unique features (substrate or climate) and
continuous forested habitat that provides for genetic exchange among
subpopulations (i.e., cross-pollination) where the species occurs. We
further considered natural barriers (e.g., mountain ranges and river
valleys) and extensive gaps of forested habitat to discern the
boundaries of these broader populations because connectivity between
subpopulations is critical to support a functional population of palo
de rosa due to the cross-pollination requirement of the species.
Furthermore, the flowering of palo de rosa is sporadic and not
synchronized, thus prompting us to further define a population as
groups of subpopulations that show connectivity to secure cross-
pollination. Based on the above information, we have determined palo de
rosa to be distributed across Puerto Rico in 14 populations composed of
66 subpopulations containing 1,144 individuals (not including
seedlings). Following this approach, 8 of the 14 current populations
(containing 47 subpopulations with approximately 804 individuals) occur
in the geographical areas associated with the 16 populations (now
defined as subpopulations) included in the Service's 1994 recovery
plan. Since 1994, we have identified 6 additional populations (as
currently defined) composed of 19 subpopulations (342 individuals)
ranging in size from 5 to 124 individuals in areas associated with
remnants of forested habitat suitable for the species. Thus, these
additional occurrences are key in understanding the current condition
of the species.

[[Page 37095]]

Currently, the number of palo de rosa individuals has increased
from 9 individuals on protected lands at the time of listing to 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) currently occurring in areas managed for
conservation (e.g., Commonwealth Forest and Federal lands; see table,
below). An additional 396 individuals (38 percent of subpopulations)
occur in areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico (see table,
below). The remaining 30 percent of the subpopulations (containing
approximately 341 individuals) occur within areas severely encroached
and vulnerable to urban or infrastructure development (see table,
below). However, the resiliency of all subpopulations depends on
interaction (cross-pollination) with nearby subpopulations. Despite the
increase in the number of known subpopulations and individuals, there
are no records of recruited individuals reaching reproductive size in
the past three decades. We also do not have any records of recent
dispersal and range expansion of the species. The following discussion
provides the most updated information on these populations, and their
respective geographical areas.

Table of Currently Known Natural Populations, Subpopulations, and Number of Adult Individuals of Palo de Rosa in Puerto Rico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence of
Population Subpopulation name Municipality reproduction or Number of Development Source
recruitment adults threat \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest La Cobana (GCF) (RP) Yauco................ No.................. 7 2 Breckon and
(GCF). \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Hoya Honda (GCF) (RP) Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 16 2 Breckon and
\2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4; USFWS 2018,
unpubl. data;
Monsegur 591, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Ca[ntilde]on Los Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 5 2 Breckon and
Murci[eacute]lagos Kolterman 1993, p.
(GCF) (RP) \2\. 4.
Ca[ntilde]on Las Yauco................ No.................. 3 2 Monsegur-Rivera
Eugenias (GCF). 2009, pers. obs.
Ca[ntilde]on Las Gu[aacute]nica....... Yes................. 49 2 Breckon and
Trichilias (GCF). Kolterman 2003, p.
4; USFWS 2018,
unpubl. data;
Monsegur 240, 252
and 880, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Breckon 7012, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Yauco Landfill....... Yauco................ Yes................. 40 2 Monsegur-Rivera
2015; Monsegur
1591, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Montes de Barinas................. Montes de Barinas.... Yauco................ No.................. 5 0 Morales 2011, pers.
comm.
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas........ Guayanilla-CORCO (RP) Guayanilla........... Yes................. 53 0 Breckon and
\2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4; Monsegur-Rivera
2014, unpubl. data;
Breckon 4590 and
5201, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Monsegur 1586, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest Quebrada Peces-SCF Yauco................ No.................. 11 2 Breckon and
(SCF). (RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Quebrada Grande-SCF Yauco................ Yes................. 59 2 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
R[iacute]o Loco-SCF Yauco................ No.................. 25 2 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Cerro Las Mesas and Sierra Bermeja Sierra Bermeja (RP) Cabo Rojo-Lajas...... No.................. 2 2 Envirosurvey, Inc.
\2\. 2016; Monsegur
1583, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Guaniquilla-Buye (RP) Cabo Rojo............ No.................. 2 0 Monsegur-Rivera
\2\. 2009, pers. obs.
Aguadilla-Quebradillas............ Aguadilla Road PR-2.. Aguadilla............ No.................. 1 0 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Ramey Solar Aguadilla............ No.................. 1 1 Acevedo-
Observatory. Rodr[iacute]guez
2014; Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
15931, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Guajataca Isabela.............. No.................. 2 2 Monsegur-Rivera
Commonwealth Forest. 2009; Monsegur
1051, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
El Costillar- Isabela.............. Yes................. 14 1 Breckon and
R[iacute]o Guajataca Kolterman 1993, p.
(RP) \2\. 4; Monsegur 1578,
MAPR herbarium.\3\
R[iacute]o Guajataca Isabela.............. No.................. 1 1 Breckon and
(RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Cara del Indio- Isabela.............. No.................. 5 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
Guajataca. entire; Monsegur
1559, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
El T[uacute]nel- Isabela.............. Yes................. 24 1 Breckon and
Guajataca (RP) \2\. Kolterman 1993, p.
4.
Quebrada Columbiana.. Quebradillas......... No.................. 5 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Guajataca Gorge south Quebradillas......... No.................. 1 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Merendero-Guajataca.. Quebradillas......... No.................. 2 1 PRDNER 2009, entire;
Monsegur 1087, MAPR
herbarium.\3\

[[Page 37096]]

Quebrada Bellaca..... Quebradillas......... No.................. 3 1 Trejo 2441, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Arca de Noe.......... Quebradillas......... No.................. 4 0 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Piedra Gorda......... Camuy................ No.................. 1 1 Trejo 2533, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Quebradillas 481..... Quebradillas......... No.................. 8 0 PRDNER 2015, entire.
Camuy-Hatillo..................... R[iacute]o Camuy PR-2 Camuy................ Yes................. 10 1 USFWS 2017; Breckon
(RP) \2\. 8126, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
R. Ortiz and Sons Hatillo.............. No.................. 16 1 Sustache-Sustache
Quarry. 2010, entire.
R[iacute]o Camuy- Camuy................ No.................. 2 1 Monsegur-Rivera
Camino del 2015, entire.
R[iacute]o.
R[iacute]o Camuy Camuy................ Yes................. 33 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
oeste. entire.
R[iacute]o Camuy este Hatillo.............. No.................. 7 1 PRHTA \4\ 2007,
entire.
Arecibo........................... Mata de Arecibo.............. No.................. 2 2 Trejo 2408, UPR
Pl[aacute]tano. herbarium.\6\
El Tallonal.......... Arecibo.............. No.................. 12 2 Trejo 2462, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Highway PR-10........ Arecibo.............. No.................. 1 2 Axelrod 8134, UPRRP
herbarium.\7\
Utuado-Ciales (R[iacute]o Las Abras............ Arecibo-Ciales....... Yes................. 32 1 Trejo 2222 and 2473,
Encantado). UPR herbarium.\6\
Ciales High School... Ciales............... No.................. 2 1 Sustache 685 and
688, SJ
herbarium.\8\
Senderos de Arecibo.............. No.................. 2 1 USFWS 2009, entire.
Miraflores.
Miraflores Ward...... Arecibo.............. No.................. 1 1 Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
11717, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Arecibo-Vega Baja................. Cambalache Arecibo.............. No.................. 15 2 Breckon and
Commonwealth Forest Kolterman 1993, p.
(RP) \2\. 4; Breckon 8325,
MAPR herbarium.\3\
Tortuguero Lagoon.... Manati............... No.................. 1 2 Breckon 8325, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Hacienda Esperanza... Manati............... Yes................. 51 2 Monsegur-Rivera
2009; Monsegur
1038, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Ciudad M[eacute]dica Manat[iacute]........ Yes................. 59 1 PRDNER 2013, entire.
del Caribe.
Highway PR-604....... Manat[iacute]........ No.................. 2 0 Breckon 8153, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Highway PR-22........ Vega Baja............ No.................. 7 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Highway PR-155....... Vega Baja............ Yes................. 31 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez
12293, U.S.
herbarium.\5\
Vega Serena.......... Vega Baja............ No.................. 3 0 Monsegur 1091, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Productora de Vega Baja............ No.................. 15 0 PRDNER 2009, entire.
Agregados.
V[iacute]a Verde..... Manat[iacute]........ No.................. 1 1 PREPA \9\ 2010,
entire.
Dorado............................ Hacienda Sabanera.... Dorado............... Yes................. 101 1 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Monsegur
1584, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Higuillar Avenue..... Dorado............... Yes................. 23 0 Monsegur-Rivera and
Sustache-Sustache
2011, entire.
La Virgencita..................... La Virgencita south.. Dorado............... Yes................. 41 0 PRDNER 2015; USFWS
2018, unpubl. data;
Monsegur 1648, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
La Virgencita north.. Dorado............... Yes................. 42 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
R[iacute]o Lajas..... Dorado............... No.................. 5 0 Trejo 2276, UPR
herbarium.\6\
Highway PR-142....... Dorado............... No.................. 2 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data.
Mogotes de Nevares................ Mogotes de Nevares... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 30 0 PRDNER 2009, entire.
Mogotes de Nevares/ Toa Baja............. No.................. 8 0 Morales 2014,
Campanilla. entire.
Mogotes de Nevares/ Toa Baja............. No.................. 13 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
Holsum. data.
Primate Center....... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 4 1 Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and
Rojas-
V[aacute]zquez
2001, entire.
Sabana Seca.......... Toa Baja............. Yes................. 10 2 USFWS 2017, p. 8.
San Juan-Fajardo.................. Parque Monagas....... Bayamon.............. Yes................. 70 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl.
data; Monsegur
1582, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Parque de las Bayam[oacute]n....... Yes................. 39 1 PRDNER 2013; Proctor
Ciencias. 50105, SJ
herbarium.\8\
Fort Buchanan (RP) Guaynabo............. Yes................. 25 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl
\2\. data;
Rodr[iacute]guez-
Cruz 2013, pers.
comm.; Monsegur
1576, MAPR
herbarium.\3\
Mogotes de Caneja.... Guaynabo............. Yes................. 30 1 Breckon 5208, MAPR
herbarium \3\;
Proctor 51111, SJ
herbarium.\8\

[[Page 37097]]

Monte Picao.......... Can[oacute]vanas..... Yes................. 46 0 PRDNER 2013, entire.
El Convento.......... Fajardo.............. No.................. 1 2 PRDNER 2009; Liogier
32299, UPR
herbarium.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................ 66 Subpopulations.... ..................... 26 Yes.............. 1,144 adults 20 Vulnerable.
40 No............... 25 Low.
21 Protected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Development Threats column, 0 = Vulnerable to development; 1 = Low vulnerability due to topography; and 2 = Protected.
\2\ (RP) indicates subpopulations known at the time the recovery plan was finalized (1994).
\3\ ``MAPR herbarium'' is the herbarium of the Department of Biology at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.
\4\ ``PRHTA'' is the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority.
\5\ ``U.S. herbarium'' is the United States National Herbarium.
\6\ ``UPR herbarium'' is the Botanical Garden of the University of Puerto Rico.
\7\ ``UPRRP herbarium'' is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras.
\8\ ``SJ herbarium'' is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at San Juan.
\9\ ``PREPA'' is the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority.

The distribution of palo de rosa extends along the southern coast
of Puerto Rico, from the municipality of Cabo Rojo east to the
municipality of Guayanilla, in five geographical areas or populations:
(1) Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest, (2) Montes de Barinas, (3)
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas, (4) Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest, and
(5) Cerro Las Mesas-Sierra Bermeja. In addition, palo de rosa extends
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico from the municipality of
Aguadilla east to the municipality of Fajardo in the following nine
areas or populations: (1) Aguadilla-Quebradillas, (2) Camuy-Hatillo,
(3) Arecibo, (4) Utuado-Ciales, (5) Arecibo-Vega Baja, (6) Dorado, (7)
La Virgencita, (8) Mogotes de Nevares, and (9) San Juan-Fajardo (USFWS
2017, p. 11).
The range of the species extends to Hispaniola (Dominican Republic
and Haiti) (Acevedo-Rodr[iacute]guez and Strong, 2012, p. 369; Axelrod
2011, p. 184); however, there is little information on the population
structure and status of palo de rosa in these countries, and
information is limited to scattered herbarium collections. In the
Dominican Republic, the species occurs in Provincia (Province) de La
Altagracia, Provincia de Saman[aacute], Provincia de Puerto Plata,
Provincia de Pedernales, and Provincia de San Cristobal (JBSD, unpubl.
data). On the northern coast of Haiti, palo de rosa has been recorded
at ``Massif du Nord'' along a dry river (JBSD, unpubl. data). However,
these herbarium specimens provide no data on the subpopulation or
population abundance or number of associated individuals. Palo de rosa
is categorized as critically endangered according to the Red List of
Vascular Flora in the Dominican Republic (Lista Roja de la Flora
Vascular en Rep[uacute]blica Dominicana), an assessment of the
conservation status of all vascular plants in the Dominican Republic as
determined by the Ministry of Higher Education Science and Technology
Ministry (Garcia et al. 2016, p. 4).
The following information summarizes the current abundance,
distribution, and habitat of palo de rosa populations in Puerto Rico.
Populations Along the Southern Coast of Puerto Rico
Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF): The GCF is a natural area
comprising one of the best remnants of subtropical dry forest
vegetation in Puerto Rico and still harbors remnants of pristine dry
limestone forest (primary vegetation) that is prime habitat for palo de
rosa (Monsegur-Rivera 2009, p. 3). The GCF has been managed for
conservation since 1930, following its designation as a public forest
in 1917 ([Aacute]lvarez et al. 1990, p. 3; Murphy and Lugo 1990, p.
15). The climate in this forest is seasonal, with most precipitation
occurring between September and October (Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278).
All known palo de rosa subpopulations found within the dry
limestone forests along the southern coast of Puerto Rico occur at the
bottom of forested ravines (areas that provide enough moisture for
seedling recruitment). These ravines are mesic (moist) habitats where
evidence of natural recruitment has been documented (Monsegur-Rivera
2003-2018, pers. obs.). Eighty palo de rosa individuals have been
documented in five subpopulations within the GCF (see table, above)
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2009-2018, pers.
obs.; USFWS 2018, unpubl. data). Fruit production has been recorded at
Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Hoya Honda, Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Los
Murci[eacute]lagos, and Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Las Trichilias (USFWS 2017,
pp. 7-8) (see table 1, above). Despite the overall dry habitat
conditions at the GCF, natural recruitment of this species has been
recorded at Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Hoya Honda and Ca[ntilde][oacute]n Las
Trichilias. The Yauco Landfill subpopulation provides connectivity with
the northernmost GCF subpopulation, bringing the GCF population to 120
(see table, above) (USFWS 2017, p. 7).
Montes de Barinas: The range of palo de rosa extends from the GCF
north to the Montes de Barinas hills (range of limestone hills along
the boundary of the municipalities of Yauco and Guayanilla) in habitat
similar to that of the GCF (Monsegur-Rivera 2009-2018, pers. obs.).
This is a tract of privately owned lands located primarily along Indios
Ward in the municipality of Guayanilla, and Cambalache Ward in the
municipality of Yauco. The forest was partially logged for charcoal
production and ranching; however, the prime habitat for native and
endemic plant species remains undisturbed due to its marginal
agricultural value (79 FR 53315, September 9, 2014, p. 79 FR 53326).
The number of palo de rosa individuals may be greater than the five
currently known, as this habitat has not been adequately surveyed
(Morales 2011, pers. comm.).
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas: The range of palo de rosa extends east
to Cedro Ward in the municipality of Guayanilla, where the species was
collected along a forested drainage (MAPR, unpubl. data). This
population is composed of at least 53 individuals, with some evidence
of natural recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 2014, unpubl. data), suggesting
the population is stable (USFWS 2017, p. 15) (see table, above).
Additional subpopulations may occur on undisturbed habitat remnants of
evergreen dry forest over limestone substrate in the municipality of
Pe[ntilde]uelas (north of the Pe[ntilde]uelas

[[Page 37098]]

Landfill) (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. obs.).
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest (SCF): The habitat of palo de rosa
includes moist drainages and rivers on serpentine soils within the
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest (SCF). Palo de rosa is known from 95
individuals (including saplings) in three subpopulations in the SCF
(see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; UPR, unpubl.
data). No seedlings have been recorded in surveys of the SCF population
(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Hamilton 2018, p. 31).
Similar habitat on serpentine soils extends northwest of the SCF to
the boundaries of the MCF. In this forest, palo de rosa is historically
known from a single individual in the upper watershed of the R[iacute]o
Cupeyes (Cupeyes River), on the edge of former State Road PR-362 (MAPR,
unpubl. data). The palo de rosa tree was apparently killed due to
lightning damage, although other individuals may occur in this
inaccessible area (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.).
Cerro Las Mesas (Mayag[uuml]ez) and Sierra Bermeja (Lajas and Cabo
Rojo): The type specimen collected in 1876 was likely collected between
Cerro Las Mesas in the municipality of Mayag[uuml]ez and the area north
of Poblado Rosario in the municipality of San German (Monsegur-Rivera
2018, pers. obs.). Cerro Las Mesas is the westernmost distribution of
the serpentine outcrops in Puerto Rico and lies within the subtropical
moist forest life zone (Ewel and Witmore 1973, p. 72). Palo de rosa was
misidentified in the Sierra Bermeja subpopulation, then discovered in
2015 at La Tinaja on the Laguna Cartegena National Wildlife Refuge
(LCNWR) and in 2016 on a property known as Finca Mar[iacute]a Luisa,
currently under a conservation easement managed by Para La Naturaleza,
Inc. (PLN), the operational unit of The Conservation Trust of Puerto
Rico (see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 6; PLN 2013,
entire; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 9; MAPR, unpubl. data). The Sierra
Bermeja subpopulation co-occurs with five other federally listed
plants, indicating high-quality habitat with potential for undetected
palo de rosa. The two individuals in the Guaniquilla-Buye subpopulation
occur in an area with small hills with limestone outcrops that is
located about 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) west-northwest of Sierra
Bermeja, adjacent to an area known as Punta Guaniquilla in the
municipality of Cabo Rojo (see table, above) (V[aacute]zquez and
Kolterman 1998, p. 277).
Populations Along the Northern Coast of Puerto Rico
Palo de rosa also occurs in the northern limestone belt in the
karst region of Puerto Rico. This area along the northern coast is
important to the conservation of palo de rosa (USFWS 2017, p.11).
Despite deforestation for agriculture in the 1930s, a west-to-east band
of continuous forested landscape extends from Aguadilla to San Juan,
and additional limestone outcrops extend to the northeast corner of
Puerto Rico in the municipalities of Lo[iacute]za and Fajardo (Lugo et
al. 2001, pp. 1-2; Miller and Lugo 2009, p. 95). The southern and
northern limestone belts differ in climate, with wet and moist life
zones (sensu Holdridge 1967) characterizing the environmental
conditions along the north coast of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p.
5). The karst area is characterized by a steep topography and a dense
concentration of haystack hills or mogotes, with valleys and sinkholes
between the hills (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 11). The steep topography and
low agricultural value provide refugia and serve as a seed source for
natural regeneration on adjacent forested lands following the
abandonment of agricultural lands.
Aguadilla-Quebradillas (including the R[iacute]o Guajataca):
Fourteen subpopulations make up the Aguadilla-Quebradillas population.
The westernmost subpopulation of palo de rosa occurs in the
municipality of Aguadilla (USFWS 2017, p. 7). The two subpopulations in
this municipality are single trees, with no evidence of recruitment
(see table, above) (Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; UPR unpubl.
data). Rare endemic plants along the cliff areas from Aguadilla to
Quebradillas highlight the good habitat quality; hence, more
individuals of palo de rosa may occur in this area and in suitable
habitat south and east of the municipality of Aguadilla, along an area
known as Cordillera Jaicoa, a rough karst region between the
municipalities of Moca and Isabela (Caraballo and Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n 2011, p. 2; Acevedo-Rodr[iacute]guez 2014, p. 7).
Cordillera Jaicoa extends east to the Guajataca Commonwealth Forest
(GuCF), which is in the municipality of Isabela and covers about 2,357
ac (953.8 ha) (PRDNER 2008, p. 1). Palo de rosa is known from one
subpopulation at the GuCF with no evidence of recruitment (USFWS 2017,
p. 7). Fifty-two individuals in seven subpopulations of palo de rosa
occur in or near the R[iacute]o Guajataca (Guajataca Gorge), with
natural recruitment recorded in the two largest subpopulations (see
table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2003-
2018, pers. obs.; PRHTA 2007, pp. 16-18; USFWS 2017, p. 7).
Four additional scattered subpopulations with 16 palo de rosa
individuals occur in the municipality of Quebradillas and Camuy (PRHTA
2007, pp. 16-18; PRDNER 2015, p. 16; UPR, unpubl. data), just east of
Lago Guajataca (Guajataca Reservoir). Thus, the current number of
individuals for the subpopulations in Aguadilla, the GuCF, the
Guajataca Gorge, and neighboring lands is at least 72 individuals
distributed along variable size classes, and with evidence of
recruitment in at least two subpopulations (see table, above).
Camuy-Hatillo (R[iacute]o Camuy): Another population of palo de
rosa occurs along the margins of the R[iacute]o Camuy, between the
municipalities of Camuy and Hatillo. Five subpopulations have been
discovered since 2006 (see table, above) (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7;
Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; MAPR, unpubl. data). Two
subpopulations have seedlings and evidence of recruitment (see table,
above) (PRHTA 2007, p. 19; Morales 2014, unpubl. data; USFWS 2017, p.
8). One subpopulation was recorded during the evaluation for a proposed
quarry expansion and noted in association with other endemic trees
(e.g., Manilkara pleeana (mameyuelo) and Polygala cowellii
([aacute]rbol de violeta)) (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7). As the
Guajataca Gorge and the R[iacute]o Camuy areas remain relatively
unexplored, we expect additional individuals of palo de rosa may occur
there. The current estimated number of palo de rosa individuals in the
Camuy-Hatillo population is 68 adults (see table, above).
Arecibo (including R[iacute]o Tanam[aacute] and R[iacute]o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest): Farther east, three palo de rosa subpopulations
occur in the Arecibo municipality. Two of the three subpopulations
occur in the 159-ha (392-ac) natural areas of El Tallonal and Mata de
Pl[aacute]tano with an approved Private Forest Stewardship Management
Plan (PRDNER 2005, entire). Available information indicates that at
least 15 individuals occur on El Tallonal, Mata de Pl[aacute]tano, and
the R[iacute]o Abajo Commonwealth Forest (RACF) (see table, above).
Additional subpopulations may occur along the margins of the R[iacute]o
Tanam[aacute] (Tanam[aacute] River) and the steep cliff areas in the
RACF. The forested corridor of the R[iacute]o Tanam[aacute] connects
Mata de Pl[aacute]tano and El Tallonal to the RACF between the
municipalities of Arecibo and Utuado, where palo de rosa also occurs.

[[Page 37099]]

Although palo de rosa is known only from one individual in the RACF
collected in 1994, suitable habitat occurs within the RACF and the
species may be found within the forest boundaries (Acevedo-
Rodr[iacute]guez and Axelrod 1999, p. 277).
Utuado-Ciales (R[iacute]o Encantado): Palo de rosa subpopulations
extend east of Lago Dos Bocas (Dos Bocas Reservoir) from Finca Opiola
east to the town of Ciales (R[iacute]o Encantado), in habitat similar
to the RACF. The general area is known as the R[iacute]o Encantado
Natural Protected Area, a mosaic of forested habitat among the
municipalities of Florida, Manat[iacute], and Ciales, occupying 736 ha
(1,818 ac) managed by PLN (PLN 2011b, p. 5). At least 37 palo de rosa
individuals occur in four subpopulations, with one subpopulation (Las
Abras) showing some evidence of recruitment. The R[iacute]o Encantado
area remains botanically unexplored due to the remoteness and steepness
of the terrain; thus, we anticipate that additional palo de rosa
subpopulations may occur in the R[iacute]o Encantado area. Additional
subpopulations of this species extend north to a low (west to east)
chain of mogotes at Miraflores Ward, in Arecibo.
Arecibo-Vega Baja (including Cambalache Commonwealth Forest (CCF),
Laguna Tortuguero Natural Reserve (LTNR), and Hacienda La Esperanza
Natural Reserve): The Arecibo-Vega Baja population includes 10
subpopulations, 3 of which show evidence of recruitment (see table,
above). Subpopulations occur within the protected areas of the CCF, the
LTNR between the municipalities of Manat[iacute] and Vega Alta, and at
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve in the municipality of
Manat[iacute] (see table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; PLN
2011a, p. 3). Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve is managed by PLN,
and covers an area of approximately 925 ha (2,286 ac) between the CCF
and the LTNR, including a coastal valley with cemented sand dunes and a
series of mogotes that provide habitat for palo de rosa (PLN 2011a, p.
3). Additional palo de rosa individuals may occur in this subpopulation
as the entire area with suitable habitat has not been surveyed. Five
additional subpopulations of the species occur on private lands in the
municipalities of Manat[iacute] and Vega Baja (see table, above). Thus,
the current number of individuals for the region between the CCF,
Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve, LTNR, and neighboring private
lands is at least 185 plants (see table, above). An historical specimen
from Islote Ward in Arecibo indicates the species' habitat extended to
the sand dunes in the past (UPR, unpubl. data). However, this specimen
is from the 1940s, and the area of Islote has been almost entirely
deforested for agriculture and urban development, we have determined
this subpopulation is extirpated (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.).
Dorado (Mogotes de Higuillar): The area of Mogotes de Higuillar
represents high-quality habitat for palo de rosa as evidenced by the
two subpopulations with strong recruitment. The Hacienda Sabanera
subpopulation (formerly known as Hacienda San Mart[iacute]n) was
assessed pre- and post-hurricane and showed no loss of individuals (84
and 101, respectively) and had different size classes represented (see
table, above) (USFWS 2017, p. 8; USFWS 2018, p. 12). The higher number
of palo de rosa individuals recorded during 2018 does not mean a
population increase compared to previous surveys as neither assessment
covered the entire area of suitable habitat. The subpopulation
discovered in 2011 just south of the Hacienda Sabanera subpopulation
shows strong evidence of recruitment as well with adult trees,
saplings, and hundreds of seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera and Sustache 2011,
p. 3; USFWS 2017, p. 8). Thus, the number of palo de rosa individuals
for the area comprising Mogotes de Higuillar and neighboring lands is
at least 124, with evidence of natural recruitment that includes
seedlings and saplings (see table, above).
La Virgencita: The distribution of palo de rosa extends south of
Highway PR-22, to the area known as Cruce La Virgencita where the
species was recorded in 2014. Of the four subpopulations, the La
Virgencita south subpopulation habitat is highlighted by the presence
of multiple endemic species and species with narrow distribution
(PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15). The four subpopulations in La Virgencita and
adjacent mogotes are made up of at least 90 trees, with evidence of
saplings and seedlings in the two La Virgencita subpopulations (see
table, above). The presence of other rare species in adjacent mogotes
is an indicator of potentially suitable palo de rosa habitat with
little disturbance and highlights the possible occurrence of additional
individuals.
Mogotes de Nevares and Sabana Seca: The range of palo de Rosa
extends west of R[iacute]o La Plata (La Plata River) to an area known
as Mogotes de Nevares and north to the former Sabana Seca Naval Station
in the municipality of Toa Baja. There are scattered records of the
species from the area of Mogotes de Nevares, but early collections do
not estimate abundance. The five subpopulations in Mogotes de Nevares
include three subpopulations (Mogotes de Navares, Primate Center, and
Sabana Seca) with evidence of recruitment (see table, above). A
subpopulation occurs on the former Sabana Seca Naval Station and a
second on an adjacent area near the Primate Research Center (Santiago-
Valent[iacute]n and Rojas V[aacute]zquez 2001, p. 57; Monsegur-Rivera
2006, pers. obs.). The best available information and recent survey
data in the area of Mogotes de Nevares account for at least 65
individuals of different size classes, including seedlings (see table,
above). Due to the good quality of the habitat and the presence of
remnants of native vegetation, it is very likely additional, undetected
subpopulations of palo de rosa occur along these mogotes.
San Juan Metropolitan Area (including neighboring municipalities of
Bayam[oacute]n and Guaynabo, and east to Fajardo): In the metropolitan
area of San Juan, palo de rosa occurs at four subpopulations in the
municipalities of Bayam[oacute]n (2) and Guaynabo (2) (see table,
above). Five of the subpopulations in the San Juan-Fajardo population
show evidence of recruitment; only the El Convento subpopulation does
not. The Parque Monagas subpopulation occurs in a small, forested area
managed for recreation and shows evidence of recruitment post-Hurricane
Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, p. 21). The palo de rosa subpopulation in
Fort Buchanan is noted in the 1994 recovery plan, and saplings and new
seedlings were noted in a post-Hurricane Mar[iacute]a assessment (USFWS
2018, p. 25). The Fort Buchanan and Mogotes de Caneja subpopulations
are part of a larger chain of mogotes known as Mogotes de Caneja that
were fragmented due to the construction of Highway PR-22. Two
subpopulations (Monte Picao and El Convento) occur east of the
municipality of San Juan in small limestone outcrops (see table,
above). Based on the available information, the palo de rosa
subpopulations at Parque de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort
Buchanan (including the entire area of Mogotes de Caneja), and the
scattered subpopulations along northeast Puerto Rico, are estimated at
least 211 individuals, including saplings, and with evidence of
seedling recruitment (see table, above).
Palo de rosa occurs in variable habitats but is dependent on the
specific microhabitat conditions. On dry limestone forest like the GCF,
the species occurs at the bottom of drainages that provide moisture,
whereas at the SCF, palo de rosa occurs

[[Page 37100]]

along the borders of rivers. The subpopulations along the northern
karst of Puerto Rico are found on the top of limestone hills, possibly
because those areas have no agricultural value, and so were not
impacted by conversion to agricultural lands. Such variability in
habitats indicates the species' current fragmented distribution and
lack of connectivity between populations are the result of earlier
land-clearing and habitat modification. Information from specimens
deposited at multiple herbaria (i.e., New York Botanical Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, UPR, UPRRP, and MAPR) suggests palo de rosa
was originally more common and widespread throughout Puerto Rico.

Recruitment and Population Structure

At least 25 subpopulations of the 66 subpopulations show evidence
of fruit production and seedling or sapling recruitment (see table,
above) (USFWS 2017, pp. 8, 11-12). Fruit production and seed
germination have been documented in several subpopulations (Monsegur-
Rivera 2016, pers. obs.). However, individual palo de rosa trees grow
extremely slowly and the growth of the saplings is also quite slow,
with an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) after 20 years
growth. Therefore, it is estimated that, under natural conditions,
individuals of palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size, and the currently known subpopulations are
experiencing slow recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). In
addition, seeds of this species are not dispersed by any discernible
method other than gravity. Thus, recruitment is limited to the
proximity of the parental tree, limiting the species' potential to
colonize further suitable habitat, and limiting the survival of
clustered seedlings due to closed canopy conditions and competition
with the parental tree.
Palo de rosa is a late successional species and requires several
decades to reach a reproductive size under natural conditions. Evidence
from herbarium specimens suggests that palo de rosa once extended to
the coastal lowlands of Puerto Rico, including dune ecosystems.
Population dynamics and survey assessments support the hypothesis that
palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may remain
dormant under closed canopy conditions, until there is some natural
disturbance that provides favorable conditions for the development of
the saplings. Thus, the species may require an open canopy to promote
seedling growth and is adapted to natural disturbances such as
hurricanes (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under this scenario, the
natural populations show a slow natural recruitment that requires
stable habitat conditions with a regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering and fruiting) have been
associated with bigger trees as observed in four subpopulations, where
tree diameters reach 13-20.5 cm (5.1-8.1 in) and canopies are higher
(at least 10 m) (32.8 ft) (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8; USFWS
2009, p. 4). For example, one large tree in the El Costillar-R[iacute]o
Guajataca (subpopulation had an estimated 1,000 seedlings under one
tree with an almost 90 percent survivorship of 156 monitored seedlings
after 18 months (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8). Further visits to
this subpopulation indicate the survival of seedlings and saplings
remains high, with evidence of additional recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera
2007, 2012, and 2014, pers. obs.).
Recruitment may be intermittent in some subpopulations. For
example, a subpopulation with no seedling survival following a fruiting
event in 2004 was noted to contain about 30 small saplings in the post-
Hurricane Mar[iacute]a assessment in 2018, suggesting the subpopulation
is slowly recruiting (USFWS 2018, p. 25). Since 2009, hundreds of
seedlings have been recorded in the Fort Buchanan subpopulation
(Monsegur-Rivera 2009-present, pers. obs.). In 2018, at least 12
saplings ranging from 0.3-1.0 m (0.9-3.3 ft) were observed. Saplings
this size can withstand seasonal drought stress, and individuals are
likely to persist in the long term if the habitat remains unaltered.
Cross-pollination between subpopulation maximizes the likelihood of
fruit production and contributes to recruitment, which underscores the
importance of conserving the species through a landscape approach.
Of the 26 subpopulations currently showing evidence of natural
recruitment, 9 of the 26 occur in areas that are managed for
conservation. The 9 subpopulations constitute 36 percent of
subpopulations showing natural recruitment and contain nearly 300
individuals in total. There is no evidence of natural recruitment at
this time for the remaining 40 subpopulations, although the species'
life history implies that recruitment may still occur in these
populations when a canopy opening is created and suitable conditions
for recruitment are present. Forest cover in Puerto Rico has increased
since the widespread deforestation in the 1930s-1950s (Marcano-Vega et
al. 2015, p. 67), but the availability of suitable habitat prior to
deforestation and habitat fragmentation implies palo de rosa may have
had greater abundance and wider distribution. Although current
information on population structure indicates the species requires some
open canopy areas to promote recruitment, widespread deforestation
fragments habitat and creates edges (habitat transition zones). The
possible long-term negative effects of habitat fragmentation and edge
effect on subpopulations with recruitment adjacent to habitat
disturbance are still unknown. Current observations from the 2018 post-
hurricane assessment suggest subpopulations encroached by development
or agriculture were negatively affected by weedy vegetation invading
the habitat following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (e.g., Cayaponia americana
(bejuco de torero), Dioscorea alata ([ntilde]ame), and Thunbergia
grandiflora (pompeya). However, the extent of such impact remains
uncertain and further monitoring is needed. Such information highlights
the effect of habitat fragmentation on the natural recruitment of palo
de rosa.

Recovery Criteria

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans must, to the
maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria
which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed
from the list.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For
example, one or more criteria may be exceeded

[[Page 37101]]

while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new
recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery. Parties
seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of
methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new
information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The
new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are
appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or
may not, fully follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the recovery
criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of the
taxon. The recovery plan for this species does not provide downlisting
criteria (USFWS 1994, entire). The recovery plan for palo de rosa
indicates the species could be considered for delisting when the
following criteria are met: (1) Populations known to occur on privately
owned land are placed under protective status; (2) an agreement between
the Service and the U.S. Army concerning the protection of the species
on their land (Fort Buchanan) has been prepared and implemented; and
(3) mechanisms for the protection of palo de rosa have been
incorporated into management plans for Maricao, Gu[aacute]nica,
Sus[uacute]a, and Cambalache Commonwealth Forests. Also, the plan notes
that given the discovery of additional populations, priority should be
given to enhancement and protection of existing populations in
protected areas and the protection of palo de rosa on privately owned
land (USFWS 1994, p. 13). At the time the recovery plan was written,
only 200 individuals in 16 populations (currently defined as
subpopulations) were known. In addition, the lack of recruitment in
palo de rosa populations was not known to be a concern; therefore,
recovery criteria primarily address protection of palo de rosa habitat.
We apply our current understanding of the species' range, biology, and
threats to these delisting criteria to support our rationale for why
downlisting is appropriate.
Delisting criterion 1 has been partially met. At the time the
recovery plan was written, 4 of 16 populations (now defined as
subpopulations) occurred on private lands. Currently, of the 66 known
palo de rosa subpopulations, 45 are located within private lands. From
those 45, 3 subpopulations (i.e., 7 percent of subpopulations, or 65
individuals) are under protective status (e.g., Hacienda Esperanza, El
Tallonal, and Mata de Pl[aacute]tano) (see table, above). The
subpopulations on the private natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata
de Pl[aacute]tano are protected from habitat modification, and each has
an approved private forest stewardship management plan that includes
measures for the protection of listed species within the property
(PRDNER 2005, entire). The palo de rosa individuals found at Hacienda
La Esperanza Natural Reserve are protected, as this reserve also is
managed for conservation by PLN, and the management plan considers palo
de rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67).
Additional conservation efforts have been implemented throughout
coordination among the Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and PRDNER resulting in the protection in perpetuity of
approximately 257 acres of private forested habitat adjacent to the
northern boundary of the GCF, which will benefit the Yauco Landfill
palo de rosa subpopulation (PRDNER 2015, p. 1). This conservation
effort maintains the connectivity between subpopulations and maximizes
the species' viability. In addition, the PRDNER acquired private lands
that included suitable habitat for palo de rosa and incorporated them
into the GCF, increasing the protected area from the approximately
4,016 ha (9,923 ac) in 1996, to at least 4,400 ha (10,872 ac) (Monsegur
2009, p. 8).
While this criterion has only been partially met, with the
identification of additional individuals, populations, and
subpopulations, of the 1,144 palo de rosa individuals known, only 341
(29 percent) occur on private lands with no protection. Currently, 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) occur in areas managed for conservation.
Together with our partners, we have met delisting criterion 2. In
2015, the Service signed an MOU with the U.S. Army and PRDNER for the
protection, management, and recovery of palo de rosa at Fort Buchanan
(U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire). As a result, the mogote where
palo de rosa is found at the military base is managed for conservation,
propagation and planting of palo de rosa has taken place, and the
species is frequently monitored (USACE 2014, p. 3). Nonetheless, the
viability of the Fort Buchanan subpopulation is influenced by
interaction with other individuals in neighboring private lands and
areas subject to development.
Lastly, we determine delisting criterion 3 to be obsolete. Although
species-specific management plans do not exist for Commonwealth
forests, the natural reserves are managed for conservation by PRDNER as
recommended by the Master Plan for the Commonwealth Forests of Puerto
Rico (DNR 1976, entire). These management efforts prevent adverse
impacts to plants and animals, particularly listed species such as palo
de rosa, and their habitats. Forest management protects palo de rosa
along the southern coast of Puerto Rico where the GCF and SCF
subpopulations (175 individuals) are located within the boundaries of
these forests. The development of effective conservation mechanisms for
the species outside Commonwealth forests also protects palo de rosa, as
components of the resiliency of populations (e.g., effective cross-
pollination, fruit set, and natural recruitment) depend on the
interactions among neighboring subpopulations. Thus, we continue
working with PRDNER and other partners to monitor and survey suitable
unexplored habitat for palo de rosa, to develop sound conservation
strategies, and to proactively identify priority areas for
conservation. Such conservation measures may include the maintenance
and enhancement of effective forested buffer areas and corridors to
provide connectivity between palo de rosa subpopulations, and to secure
the microhabitat conditions necessary to promote the species'
recruitment.
In conclusion, the implementation of recovery actions, in addition
to the identification of numerous additional individuals and
subpopulations, have reduced the risk of extinction for palo de rosa.
Of the 1,144 adult palo de rosa individuals known, only 341 (29
percent) occur on private lands with no protection. Currently, 407
individuals (representing 36 percent of known individuals or 32 percent
of subpopulations) occur in areas managed for conservation. Although
many individuals occur on protected lands, we have identified 20
subpopulations throughout Puerto Rico where habitat modification and
fragmentation can still occur. Puerto Rico's laws and regulations
protect palo de rosa on both public and private lands, and other
protection mechanisms (i.e., conservation easements) have been
implemented, but impacts to palo de rosa subpopulations may occur due
to lack of enforcement, misidentification of the species, agricultural
practices, and unregulated activities (see Summary of

[[Page 37102]]

Biological Status and Threats, below). Based on the biology of palo de
rosa and its dependence on cross-pollination, impacts that reduce
connectivity between subpopulations may affect the breeding capacity of
the species, and thus its long-term recruitment and viability. The
recovery of palo de rosa will include collaboration and partnership
efforts with PRDNER and private landowners to develop conservation
strategies and recommendations when evaluating urban and infrastructure
development projects that could affect these subpopulations. Recovery
efforts should be directed towards landscape planning and management
strategies that would ensure abundance and distribution of palo de rosa
subpopulations to allow cross-pollination and recruitment and
contribute to the long-term recovery of palo de rosa.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five
factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened or
delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e)).
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species--such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
We consider 50 years to be the foreseeable future within which we
can reasonably determine the threats, the magnitude of those threats,
and the species' response to those threats. The foreseeable future for
the individual factors and threats vary. However, based on the
available information from ongoing monitoring of populations known at
the time of listing, it is estimated that under natural conditions,
individuals of palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a
reproductive size, and the reproductive ecology of palo de rosa is
consistent with late successional species. Within 50 years, an
individual plant of palo de rosa would reach a reproductive size and
effectively contribute to the next generation. Therefore, this
timeframe accounts for maturation, the probability of flowering,
effective cross-pollination, setting viable fruits, seed germination,
and early seedling survival and establishment, taking into account
environmental stochastic events such as drought periods. Some palo de
rosa life stages are more sensitive to a particular threat (e.g.,
seedling and sapling susceptibility to drought conditions); therefore,
the species' response to threats in all life stages and the effects of
these responses can be reasonably determined within the foreseeable
future (50 years). We can also reasonably predict development and
habitat fragmentation and modification within this timeframe based on
current trends. Furthermore, the established timeframe for the
foreseeable future provides for the design and implementation of
conservation strategies to protect and enhance currently known
populations.
In terms of climate, we recognize that modelled projections for
Puerto Rico are characterized by some divergence and uncertainty later
in the century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). However, we have
reasonable confidence in projections within a 50-year timeframe
representing the foreseeable future for palo de rosa because
uncertainty is reduced within this timeframe. We assessed the climate
changes expected in the year 2070 and determined that

[[Page 37103]]

downscaled future climate change scenarios indicate that Puerto Rico is
predicted to experience changes in climate that will affect palo de
rosa (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). Thus, using a 50-year timeframe
for the foreseeable future allows us to account for the effects of
projected changes in temperature, the shifting of life zones, and an
increase in droughts in the habitat.

Analytical Framework

The 5-year review (USFWS 2017, entire) documents the results of our
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a
summary of the key results and conclusions from the 5-year review and
the best available information gathered since that time. The 5-year
review can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0059.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

Below, we review the biological condition of the species and its
resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and
future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and
the risks to that viability.

Habitat Destruction and Modification

Habitat destruction and modification, including forest management
practices, were identified as factors affecting the continued existence
of palo de rosa when it was listed in 1990 (55 FR 13488; April 10,
1990). At present, forest management practices within Commonwealth
forests are not considered a threat to palo de rosa because of existing
regulatory mechanisms and lack of evidence of direct impacts to the
species due to forest management practices. For example, although there
is evidence of palo de rosa individuals with multiple stems due to
historical deforestation and harvesting for charcoal production in the
GCF, selective harvesting and deforestation is no longer a threat to
the GCF population. Similar to the GCF, the palo de rosa SCF population
(i.e., Quebrada Peces, Quebrada Grande, and R[iacute]o Loco
subpopulations) is also entirely under conservation, and we have no
evidence of adverse impacts to the species due to forest management
practices.
However, that is not necessarily the case on private lands; the
subpopulations of Montes de Barinas and Guayanilla-CORCO remain
vulnerable to deforestation and habitat modification. In Montes de
Barinas, palo de rosa occurs on private properties subject to urban
development, resulting in encroachment of native dry forest areas, and
thus in the isolation of palo de rosa (see 79 FR 53307, September 9,
2014, with reference to threats in the same area). These areas also are
threatened by deforestation for cattle grazing and the extraction of
timber for fence posts (Rom[aacute]n-Guzman 2006, p. 40; see 79 FR
53307, September 9, 2014). In fact, active extraction of timber for
fence posts has been reported adjacent to the Montes de Barinas
subpopulation and on a neighboring property with other endemic species,
with palo de rosa individuals in the Montes de Barinas population
likely to be cut if harvesting continued (Monsegur-Rivera 2003-2006,
pers. obs.; Morales 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, the area of Montes
de Barinas showed evidence of bulldozing and subdivision for urban
development (Rom[aacute]n-Guzman 2006, p. 40).
The habitat at the Guayanilla-CORCO population is impacted on a
regular basis by the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority (PREPA) for
the maintenance of power lines and associated rights-of-way (USFWS
2017, p. 16). Impacts to the species' habitat have been reported in
that area as a result of construction of access roads to PREPA towers
(Monsegur-Rivera 2014-2020, pers. obs.). Such habitat disturbance and
modification affect the integrity of palo de rosa habitat and likely
results in direct and indirect impacts to individuals. In fact, some
access roads go through drainages that provide good habitat for palo de
rosa and could affect microhabitat conditions necessary for seedling
germination and recruitment. In addition, these dirt access roads
provide corridors for the establishment of exotic plant species like
guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and zarcilla (Leucaena
leucocephala), which outcompete the native vegetation (including palo
de rosa) and promote favorable conditions for human-induced fires
(USFWS 2017, p. 16). Moreover, these dirt roads are used to access the
forested habitat for harvesting of timber for fence posts (Monsegur-
Rivera 2014, pers. obs.). Similarly, the habitat in the municipalities
of Pe[ntilde]uelas and Ponce (i.e., Punta Cucharas) near the
Guayanilla-Pe[ntilde]uelas population has been severely fragmented by
urban development (e.g., housing development, hotels, a jail, a
landfill, rock quarries, and highway PR-2) (see 79 FR 53307, September
9, 2014), and due to maintenance of PREPA power lines (Monsegur-Rivera
2020, pers. obs.).
In Sierra Bermeja and Cerro las Mesas, private forested lands also
have been impacted through deforestation, mainly for agricultural
practices (i.e., grazing by cattle and goats, and associated conversion
of forested habitat to grasslands) and some urban development (i.e.,
construction of houses and roads) (Cede[ntilde]o-Maldonado and Breckon
1996, p. 349; USFWS 1998, p. 6; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 6). Most of
the Sierra Bermeja mountain range was zoned with specific restrictions
on development activities to protect the natural resources of the area
(JPPR 2009, pp. 151-153). This zoning allows for agricultural
activities and construction of residential homes with the
implementation of best management practices and some limitations (JPPR
2009, p. 151; JPPR 2015, pp. 118-129). Nonetheless, landowners continue
impacting the habitat through activities like cutting new access roads
on their properties and conversion of forested land to pasture (Pacheco
and Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). The palo de rosa population in
Sierra Bermeja is limited to two isolated individuals on protected
lands (LCNWR and PLN conservation easement), with no evidence of
natural recruitment. Similarly, the other two palo de rosa individuals
in Guaniquilla-Buye, also in southwest Puerto Rico, are found within
private lands subject to urban and tourist development, although these
plants are not yet impacted.
Core subpopulations of palo de rosa occur in the northern karst
belt of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 1), where approximately 80
percent of the known sites for palo de rosa occur on private lands not
managed for conservation. These private lands are encroached upon by
development and subject to habitat modification activities (e.g., urban
development) detrimental to palo de rosa. The palo de rosa
subpopulation at GuCF is the westernmost record of the species in
northern Puerto Rico that lies within an area managed for conservation.
As previously discussed, the GuCF subpopulations extend to private
lands along the Guajataca Gorge. Although the steep terrain and low
agricultural value of this area has protected the subpopulations from
habitat modification, some remain vulnerable to infrastructure
development (e.g., possible expansion of Highway PR-22 between the
municipalities of Hatillo and Aguadilla). For example, three previously
unknown subpopulations (including one showing recruitment) were located
during the biological

[[Page 37104]]

assessments for the proposed expansion of Highway PR-22 (PRHTA 2007, p.
19).
Another subpopulation vulnerable to habitat modification is the
Merendero-Guajataca; this area is managed for recreation, and the
habitat remains threatened by vegetation management activities (e.g.,
maintenance of green areas and vegetation clearing along trails).
Habitat modification can also have implications beyond the direct
impacts to a subpopulation. Although the palo de rosa in the Merendero-
Guajataca subpopulation have produced flowers, there are no records of
fruit production or seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera 2009-present, pers.
obs.); this is likely due to habitat modification at the site.
Nonetheless, this subpopulation may interact through cross-pollination
with the nearby El T[uacute]nel-Guajataca subpopulation and, thus,
contribute to observed recruitment in other Guajataca Gorge
subpopulations. A palo de rosa subpopulation was located during a
biological assessment for the proposed expansion of an existing quarry
adjacent to the R[iacute]o Camuy (Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7). We
expect impacts to this subpopulation from the quarry activities will
interfere with the natural recruitment of the species along the
R[iacute]o Camuy.
Habitat encroachment is evident on private lands surrounding the
CCF, Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve, and Tortuguero Lagoon
Natural Preserve, where at least six known subpopulations occur within
private lands adjacent to areas subject to development or
infrastructure projects. The subpopulations at Hacienda Esperanza
extend to private lands on their southern boundary, where development
projects have been proposed (e.g., Ciudad M[eacute]dica del Caribe;
PRDNER 2011, pp. 24-25). Habitat modification in those areas can result
in direct impacts to palo de rosa individuals and can interrupt the
connectivity between subpopulations (e.g., cross-pollination). In
addition, the analysis of aerial images indicates four additional
subpopulations occurring on private lands in the proximity of Hacienda
Esperanza are encroached upon by urban development, rock quarries, and
agricultural areas (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.).
The palo de rosa subpopulations at Hacienda Sabanera in Dorado have
been encroached upon by development. We prepared a biological opinion
during the consultation process for the construction of Hacienda
Sabanera and its associated impacts on palo de rosa (USFWS 1999,
entire). The biological opinion indicates that approximately 83 of the
200 acres (including forested mogote habitat) would be impacted, and 6
adults, 12 saplings, and 35 seedlings of palo de rosa would be directly
affected by the proposed project (USFWS 1999, p. 6). Although we
concluded that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence
of palo de rosa (USFWS 1999, p. 7), the project resulted in substantial
loss of forested habitat, promoting edge habitat favorable for
intrusion of weedy species. In addition, a series of mogotes along
Higuillar Avenue, south of Hacienda Sabanera, are expected to be
impacted by proposed road construction (PRDNER 2013, pp. 22-24), and we
have no information that plans for the road have been discarded.
Encroachment conditions similar to those in Hacienda Sabanera also
occur in the areas of La Virgencita (north and south), Mogotes de
Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort
Buchanan. For example, at La Virgencita, the population of palo de rosa
is bisected by Highway PR-2 and could be further impacted if the road
is widened in the future. Landslides have occurred in this area in the
past and road maintenance in this vulnerable area may trigger slide
events (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15). In addition, palo de rosa individuals
are found within the PREPA power line rights-of-way (Power Line 41500),
and there is evidence the overall decrease or absence of saplings or
juveniles in the La Virgencita south population may be the result of
habitat modification and resulting edge habitat due to the maintenance
of the PREPA power line rights-of-way (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13-15; USFWS
2018, p. 33). In addition, the westernmost subpopulation of palo de
rosa occurs in the municipality of Aguadilla in an area identified by
the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) as part of
the proposed expansion of highway PR-22 (USFWS 2017, p. 7).
The Mogotes de Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque
Monagas, and Fort Buchanan subpopulations are also severely fragmented
by urban development and a rock quarry (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Such
fragmentation compromises the connectivity between subpopulations. Some
of these areas are vulnerable to landslides due to changes in the
contour of the terrain associated with a high density of urban
development, encroachment, and quarry operations (e.g., Parque Monagas
and Fort Buchanan) (U.S. Army 2014, p. 3). Although Fort Buchanan
habitat is set aside for conservation, landslides have occurred within
and near Fort Buchanan and the subpopulation remains threatened due to
potential landslides. Fort Buchanan is evaluating a possible slope
stabilization project for the site (U.S. Army 2014, pp. 4, 9-11).
Palo de rosa occurs within several National Parks on Hispaniola
(Dominican Republic and Haiti) (e.g., Parque Nacional del Este, Parque
Nacional Los Haitises, and Parque Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco). Despite
the occurrence of the species within areas managed for conservation
(e.g., Parque del Este and Sierra de Bahoruco), these areas continue to
be affected by illegal deforestation for agriculture and charcoal
production, and enforcement of existing regulations is limited
(Jim[eacute]nez 2019, pers. comm.). The dependence of the human
population of Haiti on wood-based cooking fuels (e.g., charcoal and
firewood) has resulted in substantial deforestation and forest
conversion to marginal habitat in both Haiti and adjacent regions of
the Dominican Republic (e.g., Sierra de Bahoruco), and the expected
increases in the human population in Haiti will result in an increase
in the demand for such fuel resources (USFWS 2018, p. 4). In fact,
there has recently been increasing amounts of deforestation and habitat
degradation in the Sierra de Bahoruco and the surrounding region (Grupo
Jaragua 2011, entire; Goetz et al. 2012, p. 5; Simons et al. 2013, p.
31). In 2013, an estimated 80 square kilometers (19,768.4 acres) of
forest in the area was lost primarily due to illegal clearing of
forested habitat for agricultural activities (Gallagher 2015, entire).
Vast areas (including suitable habitat for palo de rosa) along the
border between Haiti and Dominican Republic (including within National
Parks) are being cleared and converted to avocado plantations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). Such deforestation extends to other
National Parks, such as Parque Nacional del Este and Isla Saona, where
illegal vegetation clearing for agriculture and tourism development
continue to occur (Monsegur-Rivera 2011, pers. obs.). For example,
analysis of aerial images from Isla Saona (Parque Nacional del Este)
show extensive deforestation and conversion of forested habitat to
agricultural lands during the last decade (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers.
obs.). Impacts to palo de rosa populations due to development and
habitat destruction and modification in Hispaniola are not described in
the final listing rule for the species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990),
but current information indicates that palo de rosa and its habitat are
being affected by deforestation for agricultural practices and
extraction for fuel

[[Page 37105]]

resources. To summarize, forest management practices within
Commonwealth Forests are no longer considered a threat to palo de rosa.
The palo de rosa populations at the CCF, GCF, GuCF, RACF, and SCF are
protected, as these forest reserves are protected by Commonwealth laws
and managed for conservation. Nonetheless, populations extending onto
private lands in southern Puerto Rico are vulnerable to impacts from
urban development, agricultural practices (e.g., harvesting fence
posts), and maintenance of power lines and rights-of-way (Monsegur-
Rivera 2019, pers. obs.). In addition, the majority of the
subpopulations along the northern karst of Puerto Rico occur on private
lands, where habitat encroachment occurs and creates edge habitat
conditions (habitat intrusion by exotics that precludes seedling
establishment) and affects connectivity and natural recruitment. For
example, despite the abundance of individuals at the palo de rosa
subpopulation adjacent to the former CORCO in Guayanilla-
Pe[ntilde]uelas, recruitment is limited due to the multiple stressors,
including maintenance of power line rights-of-way, fence post harvest,
and intrusion of exotic plants species, as well as the changes in
microhabitat conditions at these sites, which preclude seedling
establishment. Furthermore, habitat fragmentation along the northern
coast may affect cross-pollination among subpopulations, resulting in
the lack of fruit production at isolated subpopulations with a smaller
number of individuals (e.g., Merendero-Guajataca).

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

In the final listing rule (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), we
identified the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as one of
the factors affecting the continued existence of palo de rosa. At that
time, the species had no legal protection, because it had not been
included in Puerto Rico's list of protected species. Once palo de rosa
was federally listed, legal protection was extended by virtue of an
existing cooperative agreement (under section 6 of the Act) with the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Federal listing assured the addition of
palo de rosa to the Commonwealth's list of protected species, and the
Commonwealth designated palo de rosa as endangered in 2004 (DRNA 2004,
p. 52).
In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved Law No. 241, also
known as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico (Nueva Ley de Vida
Silvestre de Puerto Rico), and palo de rosa is legally protected under
this law. The purpose of this law is to protect, conserve, and enhance
both native and migratory wildlife species, and to declare as property
of Puerto Rico all wildlife species within its jurisdiction, to
regulate permits, to regulate hunting activities, and to regulate
exotic species, among other activities. This law also has provisions to
protect habitat for all wildlife species, including plants. In 2004,
the PRDNER approved Regulation 6766 or Regulations to Govern the
Management of Species Vulnerable and Danger of Extinction in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las
Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado
Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of Regulation 6766
prohibits, among other activities, collecting, cutting, and removing of
listed plant individuals within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico (DRNA
2004, p. 11). The provisions of Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766
extend to private lands. However, the protection of listed species on
private lands is challenging, as landowners may be unaware that species
are protected and may damage those species (e.g., by cutting, pruning,
or mowing) (USFWS 2017, p. 23), which might be the case if palo de rosa
is cut for fence posts.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law No. 133 (1975, as amended in 2000),
also known as Puerto Rico Forests' Law (Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico),
protects the areas of the GCF, SCF, GuCF, RACF, and CCF, and, by
extension, the palo de rosa individuals on them. Section 8(a) of this
law prohibits cutting, killing, destroying, uprooting, extracting, or
in any way hurting any tree or vegetation within a Commonwealth forest.
The PRDNER also identified these Commonwealth forests as ``critical
wildlife areas.'' This designation constitutes a special recognition
with the purpose of providing information to Commonwealth and Federal
agencies about the conservation needs of these areas, and to assist
permitting agencies in precluding adverse impacts as a result of
project endorsements or permit approvals (PRDNER 2005, pp. 211-216). In
addition, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law No. 292 (1999), also known as
Puerto Rico Karst Physiographic Protection and Conservation Law (Ley
para la Protecci[oacute]n y Conservaci[oacute]n de la
Fisiograf[iacute]a C[aacute]rsica de Puerto Rico), regulates the
extraction of rock and gravel for commercial purposes, and prohibits
the cutting of native and endemic vegetation in violation of other laws
(e.g., Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766). Law No. 292-1999 applies
to karst habitat in both southern and northern Puerto Rico.
On the LCNWR, habitat is managed in accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-
668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]), and collection of plants within refuge
lands is prohibited by title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at Sec. 27.51. The LCNWR has a comprehensive conservation plan
that includes measures for the protection and recovery of endangered
and threatened plant species (USFWS 2011a, p. 35). Furthermore, the
Puerto Rico Planning Board (Junta de Planificaci[oacute]n de Puerto
Rico) classified most of the mountain range of Sierra Bermeja as a
District of Conservation of Resources (Distrito de Conservaci[oacute]n
de Suelos) (JPPR 2009, p. 151). This conservation category identifies
lands with particular characteristics that need to be maintained or
enhanced (e.g., provide habitat for species of concern), and
establishes specific restrictions for development (JPPR 2009, p. 151).
Also, in 2015, the Puerto Rico Planning Board approved the Land Use
Plan for Puerto Rico, and categorized most of the Sierra Bermeja
Mountains, including the LCNWR, as Rustic Soil Specially Protected
(Suelo Rustico Especialmente Protegido) where no urban development is
considered due to location, topography, aesthetic value, archaeological
value, or ecological value of land (Puerto Rico Planning Board
Interactive Map 2020).
The palo de rosa individuals found at Hacienda La Esperanza Natural
Reserve are protected, as this reserve also is managed for conservation
by PLN, and the management plan considers palo de rosa in its
activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67). The PLN also manages the R[iacute]o
Encantado Natural Protected Area, a mosaic of at least 1,818 ac (736
ha) of forested habitat (including extensive areas of suitable habitat
for palo de rosa) in the municipalities of Florida, Manat[iacute], and
Ciales, and PLN plans to continue acquiring habitat at this
geographical area (PLN 2011b, p. 5). Also, palo de rosa is protected
and managed under an MOU among the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Buchanan,
the Service, and PRDNER (U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 2015, entire). This
palo de rosa subpopulation is found in a mogote designated for
conservation (USACE 2014, p. 3).
In addition, the private natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata
de

[[Page 37106]]

Pl[aacute]tano, which contain subpopulations of palo de rosa in the
municipality of Arecibo, are protected from habitat modification and
have approved private forest stewardship management plans that include
measures for the protection of listed species within the properties
(PRDNER 2005, 47 pp.). We have an extended history of collaboration
with these two reserves, providing financial and technical assistance
for the implementation of recovery actions to benefit listed species.
In addition to protections provided by the Act, the species is
protected from collection and provided management considerations by the
Improvement Act within one national wildlife refuge (LCNWR). In
addition, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally protects palo de
rosa, including protections to its habitat, through Commonwealth Law
No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766, which prohibit, among other actions,
collecting, cutting, and removing listed plants. If we downlist this
species, we do not expect this species to be removed from legal
protection by the Commonwealth. Although these protections extend to
both public and private lands, as discussed above, protection of this
species on private land is challenging. Habitat that occurs on private
land is subject to pressures from agricultural practices (e.g.,
grazing, harvesting fence posts) and development. Accidental damage or
extirpation of individuals has occurred because private landowners or
other parties on the property may not be able to identify the species
or may not be aware that palo de rosa is a protected species. Habitat
modifications and fragmentation continue to occur on private lands,
which can increase the likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic plants
and human-induced fires and reduce connectivity between populations and
the availability of suitable habitat for the species' recruitment. In
short, this plant is now more abundant and widely distributed,
including within conservation land, so the threat due to inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms has been reduced. However, the occurrences of
palo de rosa on private lands continue to need enforcement of existing
prohibitions, as well as increased attention and associated outreach to
highlight the species' conservation and importance.

Recruitment

Here, we summarize the continuing threat of low recruitment on palo
de rosa populations, and we describe this influence on palo de rosa
viability in greater detail under Recruitment and Population Structure,
above. Characteristics of palo de rosa's life history may contribute to
the slow or lack of recruitment observed in current subpopulations
(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). Individual palo de rosa trees grow
extremely slowly, and the growth of the saplings is also quite slow,
with an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) after 20 years of
growth. It is estimated that, under natural conditions, individuals of
palo de rosa may require at least 40 years to reach a reproductive
size. In addition, seeds of this species are not dispersed by any
discernible method other than gravity and concentrate under the
parental tree. Thus, recruitment is limited to the proximity of the
parental tree, limiting the species' potential to colonize further
suitable habitat, and limiting the survival of clustered seedlings due
to closed canopy conditions and competition with the parental tree.
Population dynamics and survey assessments support the conclusion
that palo de rosa is a late successional species, whose saplings may
remain dormant under closed canopy conditions, until there is some
natural disturbance that provides favorable conditions for the
development of the saplings. Thus, the species requires an open canopy
to promote seedling growth and is adapted to natural disturbances such
as hurricanes (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under this scenario, the
natural populations show a slow natural recruitment that requires
stable habitat conditions with a regime of natural disturbance (i.e.,
tropical storms or hurricanes).
Reproductive events (i.e., flowering and fruiting) have been
associated with larger, more mature trees (Breckon and Kolterman 1992,
p. 8; USFWS 2009, p. 4). Cross-pollination between or among
subpopulations maximizes the likelihood of fruit production and
contributes to recruitment, which underscores the importance of
conserving the species through a landscape approach to promote natural
recruitment. Although current information on population structure
indicates the species requires some open canopy areas to promote
recruitment, widespread deforestation fragments habitat and creates
edges (habitat transition zones).
There is no evidence of natural recruitment at this time for 40 of
the 66 known subpopulations, although the species' life history implies
that recruitment may still occur in these populations when a canopy
opening is created and suitable conditions for recruitment are present.
Forest cover in Puerto Rico has increased since the widespread
deforestation in the 1930s (Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but the
species was likely more widespread prior to deforestation and habitat
fragmentation. A life history requirement for a closed canopy forest
for adult individuals with canopy openings to promote seedling and
sapling recruitment was likely more sustainable in populations with
greater abundance and distribution than the species currently exhibits.
Smaller and more isolated subpopulations are less able to provide
closed canopy conditions with small pockets of openings; thus, inherent
palo de rosa life history characteristics have an effect on
recruitment, and this effect is expected to continue in the future.

Hurricanes and Related Threats

At the time of listing, we considered individuals of palo de rosa
vulnerable to flash flood events (see 55 FR 13490, April 10, 1990).
Flash floods remain a moderate threat and may compromise the natural
recruitment of seedlings, particularly on subpopulations along the
southern coast of Puerto Rico where the species occurs at the bottom of
drainages (USFWS 2017, p. 17). Below, we describe these threats and
other natural and human-caused factors affecting the continued
existence of palo de rosa.
As an endemic species to the Caribbean, palo de rosa is expected to
be well adapted to tropical storms and associated disturbances such as
flash floods. Under natural conditions, healthy populations with robust
numbers of individuals and recruitment should withstand tropical
storms, and these weather and climatic events may be beneficial for the
population dynamics of palo de rosa by creating small openings in the
closed canopy to allow seedling and sapling growth. The islands of the
Caribbean are frequently affected by hurricanes. Puerto Rico has been
directly affected by four major hurricanes since 1989. Successional
responses to hurricanes can influence the structure and composition of
plant communities in the Caribbean islands (Lugo 2000, p. 245; Van
Bloem et al. 2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 572; Van Bloem et
al. 2006, p. 517). Examples of the visible effects of hurricanes on the
ecosystem includes massive defoliation, snapped and wind-thrown trees,
large debris accumulations, landslides, debris flows, and altered
stream channels, among others (Lugo 2008, p. 368). Hurricanes can
produce sudden and massive tree mortality, which varies among species
but averages about 41.5 percent (Lugo 2000, p. 245). Hence, small
populations

[[Page 37107]]

of palo de rosa may be severely impacted by hurricanes, resulting in
loss of individuals or extirpation. The impact of catastrophic
hurricanes is exacerbated in small populations.
There is evidence of damage to individuals of palo de rosa due to
previous hurricane events (e.g., Hurricane Georges in 1998) at the
Hacienda Sabanera and Hacienda Esperanza subpopulations (USFWS 2017, p.
17). A post-hurricane assessment of selected populations of palo de
rosa was conducted to address the impact of Hurricane Mar[iacute]a
(USFWS 2018, entire). Even though Hurricane Mar[iacute]a did not
directly hit the GCF, evidence of damage to palo de rosa trees was
recorded at Ca[ntilde]on Las Trichilias (e.g., uprooted trees and main
trunk broken) (USFWS 2018, p. 3). Additional evidence of direct impacts
(including mortality) due to Hurricane Mar[iacute]a were recorded in
the Hacienda Esperanza, Hacienda Sabanera, Parque Monagas, and La
Virgencita subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire). An analysis of high-
resolution aerial images from these sites following Hurricane
Mar[iacute]a shows extensive damage and modification to the forest
structure, with subpopulations in southern Puerto Rico exposed to less
wind damage (Hu and Smith 2018, pp. 1, 17). When comparing affected
subpopulation abundance, the evidence of direct impacts to individuals
of palo de rosa due to Hurricane Mar[iacute]a appear to be
discountable. However, this post-hurricane assessment focused on
previously surveyed robust subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire).
Overall, the subpopulations along the northern coast of Puerto Rico
suffered severe defoliation, with trees showing mortality of the crown
apex, but some trees showing regrowth 6 months post-hurricane (USFWS
2018, entire).
However, hurricane damage extends beyond the direct impacts to
individual palo de rosa trees. As mentioned above, the subpopulations
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico are severely fragmented due to
prior land-use history. Disturbance and edge effects associated with
urban development and infrastructure corridors may promote the
establishment and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species, and
lianas (woody vines) typical of early or intermediate successional
stages, which may result in rare and endemic plant species being
outcompeted (Hansen and Clevenger 2005, p. 249; Madeira et al. 2009, p.
291). Hurricanes may not introduce nonnative species to the forest
structure, but they can promote favorable conditions for these species
and therefore increase the relative abundance of nonnatives.
Habitat intrusion by exotics is positively correlated to the
distance of the disturbance gap (Hansen and Clevenger 2005, p. 249).
Thus, the adverse effects from human-induced habitat disturbance (e.g.,
deforestation and urban development) can be exacerbated by hurricanes
by creating or increasing this disturbance gap. A post-hurricane
assessment provided evidence that all palo de rosa subpopulations along
the north coast of Puerto Rico showed habitat intrusion by weedy vines
(e.g., Dioscorea alata ([ntilde]ame), Thunbergia grandiflora (pompeya),
Cissus erosa (caro de tres hojas), and Cayaponia americana (bejuco de
torero)) following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, entire). In the
same assessment, weedy vegetation and vines densely covered an area in
the Hacienda Esperanza subpopulation, where palo de rosa occurs at a
low-elevation mogote, and Hacienda Sabanera, where the habitat that
harbors the palo de rosa population was cut to the edge of the
population of the species due to urban development (USFWS 2018, pp. 8-
18). Examination of aerial images of the habitat shows a flattened
forest structure indicative of hurricane damage, with standing trees
missing main branches and canopy. Competition with nonnative species
and weedy vines for necessary resources (space, light, water,
nutrients) may reduce the natural recruitment by inhibiting germination
and outcompeting seedlings of native species (Rojas-Sandoval and
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2013, p. 11; Thomson 2005, p. 615). Palo de
rosa seedlings at Hacienda Esperanza were covered (and outcompeted) by
weedy vines following Hurricane Mar[iacute]a (USFWS 2018, p. 8). At
Fort Buchanan, 6 months after Hurricane Mar[iacute]a, the vegetation at
the base of the mogote on that property was overgrown and dominated by
weedy species. However, weedy vegetation had not reached palo de rosa
individuals at the top of the mogote, and there was little evidence of
adverse impacts to seedlings and saplings due to competition with
exotics (USFWS 2018, p. 8).
The GCF subpopulations of palo de rosa are surrounded by a large
tract of intact native forest, providing a buffer zone that precludes
habitat invasion by exotics. Despite the overall evidence of canopy
opening and some impacts to individuals of palo de rosa due to
Hurricane Mar[iacute]a, there was no evidence of habitat intrusion by
exotics at Ca[ntilde]on Las Trichilias and Ca[ntilde]on Hoya Honda
(USFWS 2018 pp. 3-8), which highlights the importance of maintaining
native forested habitat that provides a buffer for palo de rosa
subpopulations.
The above discussion indicates that the potential adverse impacts
due to hurricanes and the associated habitat intrusion by exotic plant
species are variable, depending on habitat fragmentation, topography,
distance to disturbance, and the size of the subpopulation. It further
highlights the importance of having healthy populations with robust
numbers of individuals and a stratified population structure (i.e.,
seedlings, saplings, and adults) to allow for recovery following
hurricanes and associated habitat disturbance.

Climate Change

Regarding the effects of climate change, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the climate
system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Observed effects associated
with climate change include widespread changes in precipitation amounts
and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation,
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4).
Rather than assessing climate change as a single threat in and of
itself, we examined the potential effects to the species and its
habitat that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change.
We examined a downscaled model for Puerto Rico based on three IPCC
global emissions scenarios from the CMIP3 data set--mid-high (A2), mid-
low (A1B), and low (B1)--as the CMIP5 data set was not available for
Puerto Rico at that time (Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279-280).
These scenarios are generally comparable and span the more recent
representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios from RCP 4.5 (B1)
to RCP 8.5 (A2) (IPCC 2014, p. 57). The B1 and A2 scenarios encompass
the projections and effects of the A1B scenario; we will describe our
analyses for the B1 (RCP 4.5) and A2 (RCP 8.5) scenarios and recognize
the A1B (RCP 6.0) projections and effects fall into this range.
The modelling of climate projections expected in Puerto Rico used
in our analysis extends to 2100. We acknowledge inherent divergence in
climate projections based on the model chosen, with uncertainty
increasing later in the century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275).
However, we assessed the climate changes expected in the year 2070, a
50-year timeframe representing the foreseeable future for palo de rosa
(as described in Regulatory Framework,

[[Page 37108]]

above). Under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, precipitation declines
while temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in extreme
drought conditions that would result in the conversion of subtropical
dry forest into dry and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280).
Downscaled future climate change scenarios indicate that by 2070,
Puerto Rico is predicted to experience a decrease in rainfall, along
with increased drought intensity under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 (Khalyani et al.
2016, p. 265; Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 133; U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) 2018, 20:820). The western region of Puerto Rico has
already experienced negative trends in annual rainfall (PRCC 2013, p.
7). Temperatures are also expected to rise between 2020 and 2070. Under
RCP 4.5, a mean temperature increase of 4.6-5.4 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (40.3-41.7 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) is projected, and an
increase of 7.5-9 [deg]C (45.5-48.2 [deg]F) is projected under RCP 8.5
(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). As precipitation decreases influenced
by warming, it will tend to accelerate the hydrological cycles,
resulting in wet and dry extremes (Jennings et al. 2014, p. 4; Cashman
et al. 2010, p. 1). Downscaled general circulation models predict
dramatic shifts in the life zones of Puerto Rico with potential loss of
subtropical rain, moist, and wet forests, and the appearance of
tropical dry and very dry forests are anticipated under both RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). Nonetheless, such
predicted changes in life zones may not severely affect palo de rosa
due to its distribution throughout Puerto Rico, which includes
different life zones and habitat types.
Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a function of
sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes, and adaptive
capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19). As described
earlier, palo de rosa is a species with low recruitment and seed
dispersal limited to gravity, limiting its potential to reach areas
with suitable microhabitat conditions for its establishment. Despite
the evidence of multiple reproductive events (fruit production) in one
subpopulation, low recruitment of saplings and a population structure
dominated by adult trees could be the result of mortality and thinning
of individuals at the seedling stage due to drought stress. The
projected prolonged droughts expected with climate change may affect
the phenology of palo de rosa, resulting in the loss of developing
flowers and fruits, or reduce the viability of the few produced seeds,
reducing the likelihood of natural recruitment. In addition, hurricanes
followed by extended periods of drought caused by climate change may
result in microclimate alterations that could allow other plants
(native or nonnative) to become established and become invasive (Lugo
2000, p. 246), which would preclude the recruitment of palo rosa
seedlings.
Based the distribution of palo de rosa and its habitat, we have
determined that conditions associated with climate change could impact
this species. Climate change is almost certain to affect terrestrial
habitats and palo de rosa; however, the future extent and timing of
those effects beyond the foreseeable future is uncertain. Some
terrestrial plant populations are able to adapt and respond to changing
climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire), but the ability of
palo de rosa to do so is unknown. A sound, long-term monitoring of
known palo de rosa populations is needed to understand the effects on
the species' viability.
In summary, other natural and manmade factors, such as hurricanes
and related threats due to habitat fragmentation, edge habitat, habitat
intrusion by exotic plant species, and the low recruitment and limited
dispersal of palo de rosa, are current threats to the species.
Hurricanes and post-hurricane habitat encroachment and nonnative plant
invasion have affected subpopulations along the northern coast of
Puerto Rico (USFWS 2018, entire). Invasive species can preclude the
establishment of new palo de rosa individuals through competition for
sunlight, nutrients, water, and space to grow. Although climate change
is almost certain to affect terrestrial habitats, there is uncertainty
about how predicted future changes in temperature, precipitation, and
other factors will influence palo de rosa.

Small Population Size

At the time of listing (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), we considered
small population size as a threat affecting the continued survival of
palo de rosa, based on the species' limited distribution and low number
of individuals (i.e., only 9 individuals throughout the species' range
in Puerto Rico). Based on this information, we considered the risk of
extinction of palo de rosa very high. New distribution and abundance
information available since the species was listed reflects that palo
de rosa is more abundant and widely distributed than previously thought
(USFWS 2017, entire); thus, we no longer consider limited distribution
as an imminent threat to this species. However, at least 37 (56
percent) of the known subpopulations are composed of 10 or fewer
individuals. The effect of small population size exacerbates other
threats and makes these subpopulations vulnerable to extirpation by
stochastic and catastrophic events.

Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by palo de rosa in
developing this proposed rule. Limited distribution and a low number of
individuals were considered a threat to palo de rosa when we listed the
species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), but recent information indicates
the species is more abundant and widely distributed than known at the
time of listing. However, other threats are still affecting palo de
rosa. Based on the analysis above, although we no longer consider
limited distribution as an imminent threat to this species, we conclude
that habitat destruction and modification on privately owned lands
(particularly along the northern coast of Puerto Rico), and other
natural or manmade factors (e.g., hurricanes, habitat fragmentation
resulting in lack of connectivity between individuals, and habitat
encroachment by invasive species) have been greatly reduced but
continue to threaten palo de rosa populations. In addition, low
recruitment related to sporadic flowering and fruit production, and the
slow growth of seedlings under close canopy conditions (e.g., species
reproductive biology and ecology), coupled with the threats discussed
above, are expected to remain threats to palo de rosa. It is also
expected that palo de rosa will be affected by climate change within
the foreseeable future, particularly by generalized changes in
precipitation and drought conditions. Climate change is expected to
result in more intense hurricanes and extended periods of drought.
Increased hurricanes are expected to cause direct mortality of adult
trees downed due to high winds, whereas more intense drought conditions
are expected to reduce the species' reproductive output (reduced
flowering and fruiting events) and also preclude seedling and sapling
recruitment. However, based on the best available data, we do not
consider climate change to represent a current or an imminent threat to
this species across its range.
Species viability, or the species' ability to sustain populations
over time, is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic
population- and species-level events (redundancy), to adapt to novel
changes in its biological

[[Page 37109]]

and physical environment (representation), and to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity and disturbances
(resiliency). The viability of a species is also dependent on the
likelihood of new stressors or continued threats, now and in the
future, that act to reduce a species' redundancy, representation, and
resiliency. A highly resilient palo de rosa population should be
characterized by sufficient abundance and connectivity between
reproductive individuals to allow for reproductive events and cross-
pollination, an age class structure representative of recruitment
greater than mortality, multiple subpopulations within the population,
and the availability of high-quality habitat to allow for recruitment.
High representation for the species is characterized by multiple
populations occurring within a wide range of environmental conditions
(e.g., substrate and precipitation) that allow for sufficient genetic
variability. Multiple resilient populations across the range of the
species characterize high redundancy for palo de rosa.
We evaluated the biological status of palo de rosa both currently
and into the future, considering the species' viability as
characterized by its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Based
on the analysis of available herbarium specimens, we have determined
the species' distribution and abundance was once more common and
widespread, and was likely a dominant late successional species of
coastal to middle elevation (500 m (1,640 ft)) habitats, and even
extended to coastal valleys and sand dunes (see table, above)
(Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. obs.). The current known palo de rosa
subpopulations are remnants of the species' historical distribution,
persisting on areas of low agricultural value (e.g., top of the
mogotes) that were affected by deforestation for charcoal production,
as evidenced by individuals with multiple trunks of palo de rosa
sprouting from the same base. Based on the available information on
palo de rosa's natural distribution at the time of listing, and
considering that 40 of the known 66 subpopulations currently show no
recruitment and no subpopulations appear to be expanding due to natural
dispersal, palo de rosa populations exhibit reduced resiliency. No
subpopulations appear to be dispersing, and no populations are highly
resilient. None of the currently known subpopulations of palo de rosa
are considered a recent colonization event or natural expansion of the
species within its habitat. The species persisted through the almost
entire deforestation of Puerto Rico with less than 6 percent of
remaining forested habitat across the island by the 1930s (Franco et
al. 1997, p. 3), when the low elevation coastal valleys habitat of palo
de rosa was extensively deforested for agricultural practices (e.g.,
sugar cane and tobacco plantations). There are broad accounts regarding
the extensive deforestation and habitat modification that occurred in
Puerto Rico until the 1950s (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), which resulted
in changes in forest structure and diversity, pollinators' assemblages,
seed dispersers, and the prevailing microhabitat conditions in which
palo de rosa evolved. Despite the return from such deforestation, known
subpopulations show a clustered and patchy distribution, and are
characterized by a population structure dominated by adults. Moreover,
the species faces a low recruitment rate and slow growth, resulting in
few saplings reaching a reproductive size; in addition, the species
shows minimal or no dispersal (limited to gravity). Based on our
observations, it has taken about 60 years from the peak of
deforestation (1930s) for palo de rosa to show some initial evidence of
recruitment.
We consider that palo de rosa has limited redundancy, as it is
known from multiple subpopulations (66) throughout its geographical
range, representing 14 natural populations distributed throughout the
southern and northern coasts of Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, about 37 (56
percent) of the known subpopulations are composed of 10 or fewer
individuals and show little or no recruitment and, thus, reduced
resiliency (see table, above). As described above, the species faces a
low recruitment rate, slow growth and limited dispersal, and patchy and
small subpopulations, resulting in an increased vulnerability to
extirpation of these subpopulations. All these characteristics are
limiting factors and make the species vulnerable to catastrophic and
stochastic events, such as hurricanes and droughts, that can cause
local extirpations. The best available information indicates that palo
de rosa is not naturally expanding into or colonizing habitats outside
the areas where it is known to occur.
In terms of the representation of palo de rosa, we have no data on
its genetic variability. Although the species occurs in a wide range of
habitats and environmental conditions, it has a fragmented
distribution, scattered (sporadic) flowering events, and a low
recruitment rate. Thus, little or no genetic exchange is thought to
occur between extant subpopulations, likely resulting in outbreeding
depression, which may explain the lack of effective reproduction and
recruitment (Frankham et al. 2011, p. 466). The low recruitment rate
results in little transfer of genetic variability into future
generations, limits the expansion of the species outside its current
locations, and limits its ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions. For example, the loss or reduction of connectivity between
subpopulations in areas like Arecibo-Vega Baja, Dorado, La Virgencita,
Mogotes de Nevares, and San Juan-Fajardo can be detrimental to the
long-term viability of the species as it affects cross-pollination and,
therefore, gene flow. In fact, the only populations that occur entirely
within native forest areas managed for conservation are GCF and SCF.
This continued protected habitat provides for an effective cross-
pollination (gene flow) that can secure the long-term viability of the
species. However, the overall representation of palo de rosa is
reduced, as the GCF and SCF populations are restricted to the southern
coast and the genetic representation of palo de rosa in the northern
karst area, a different ecological environment, is vulnerable because
that habitat is threatened by destruction or modification.

Determination of Palo de Rosa's Status

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. For a more detailed
discussion on the factors considered when determining whether a species
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' and our analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future
in making these decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical
Framework, above.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have determined that palo de rosa's current viability is higher than
was known at the time of listing (population current estimate of 1,144
individuals in 66 subpopulations) based on the best available
information.

[[Page 37110]]

Currently, the number of palo de rosa individuals has changed from 9
individuals in protected lands at the time of listing to 407
individuals (32 percent of subpopulations) currently occurring in areas
managed for conservation (e.g., Commonwealth Forest and Federal lands).
Furthermore, 396 individuals (38 percent of subpopulations) occur in
areas subject to little habitat modification due to the steep
topography in the northern karst region of Puerto Rico. The remaining
30 percent of the subpopulations (containing approximately 341
individuals) occur within areas severely encroached and vulnerable to
urban or infrastructure development. Nonetheless, habitat destruction
and modification on privately owned lands (particularly along the
northern coast of Puerto Rico) and other natural or manmade factors
(such as hurricanes, habitat fragmentation, lack of connectivity
between populations, habitat intrusion by invasive species, and the
species' reproductive biology) continue to threaten the viability of
palo de rosa. Although population numbers and abundance of palo de rosa
have increased, and some identified threats have decreased, our
analysis indicates that threats remain. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that palo de rosa no longer meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species throughout all of its
range. We therefore proceed with determining whether palo de rosa meets
the Act's definition of a threatened species (i.e., is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future) throughout all of its range.
In terms of habitat destruction and modification, we can reasonably
determine that 70 percent of subpopulations (71 percent of individuals)
are not expected to be substantially affected by habitat destruction
and modification in the foreseeable future. This majority occurs within
protected lands managed for conservation (36 percent of the known
individuals or 32 percent of subpopulations) or on private lands with
low probability of modification due to steep topography (35 percent of
the known individuals or 38 percent of subpopulations). However, for
the 30 percent of subpopulations occurring in areas severely encroached
and vulnerable to urban or infrastructure development now and into the
future (30 percent of the known individuals), we are reasonably certain
these subpopulations will continue to have a lower resiliency (due to
reduced connectivity (cross-pollination) and lack of recruitment), and,
in some cases, may experience the loss of individuals or subpopulations
adjacent to critical infrastructure such as highways or other
development within the foreseeable future (e.g., Hacienda Sabanera, PR-
2 and PR-22 maintenance and expansion, Islote Ward extirpation).
We have evidence that some populations are showing signs of
reproduction and recruitment. However, due to the slow growth of the
species it may take several decades to ensure these recruitment events
effectively contribute to a population's resiliency (new individuals
reach a reproductive size). Despite no longer considering limited
distribution as an imminent threat to this species, we have identified
factors associated with habitat modification and other natural or
manmade factors that still have some impacts on palo de rosa and affect
the species' viability and effective natural recruitment. The species
still faces dispersal problems, and the recruitment is still limited to
the proximity of parent trees; we have no evidence of a population of
palo de rosa that is the result of a recent colonization event or a
significant population expansion. This renders the known subpopulations
vulnerable to adverse effects related to habitat fragmentation and lack
of connectivity, which may preclude future recruitment and the
population's resiliency.
In addition, despite the presence of regulations protecting the
species both on public and private lands, the protection of palo de
rosa on private lands remains challenging. Habitat modifications and
fragmentation continue to occur on private lands, which can increase
the likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic plants and human-induced
fires, and reduce connectivity between populations (affecting cross-
pollinations) and the availability of suitable habitat for the natural
recruitment of the species. Still, none of these is an imminent threat
to the species at a magnitude such that the taxon warrants endangered
status across its range. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that palo de rosa is not currently in danger
of extinction, but it is likely to become in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Services
do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for palo de rosa, we choose
to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is may be endangered. Kinds of threats and levels of
threats are more likely to vary across a species' range if the species
has a large range rather than a very small natural range, such as the
palo de rosa. Species with limited ranges are more likely to experience
the same kinds and generally the same levels of threats in all parts of
their range.
For palo de rosa, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale in the context of its small natural
range. We examined the following threats: Habitat destruction,
fragmentation, and modification; invasive species; hurricanes; and the
effects of climate change, including cumulative effects. We have
identified that habitat destruction and modification is threatening
known populations in three of the five areas

[[Page 37111]]

along the southern coast of Puerto Rico and eight of nine populations
along the northern coast of Puerto Rico, particularly on privately
owned lands throughout the range of the species. In addition, habitat
destruction and modification are occurring within the species' range in
Hispaniola. Habitat encroachment by invasive plant species and habitat
fragmentation caused by harvesting of timber for fence posts and
maintaining rights-of-way are also considered to be further stressors
to the viability of palo de rosa across the species' range. Changes in
climatic conditions are expected to result in more intense hurricanes
and extended periods of drought under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, but the effect
of these changes on palo de rosa is unknown. The expected changes in
climatic conditions will affect all populations of palo de rosa
uniformly across the range of the species. Lastly, palo de rosa
populations across the range experience low recruitment rates, slow
growth, and limited dispersal.
We found no concentration of threats in any portion of palo de
rosa's range at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no
portions of the species' range where the species has a different status
from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portion of the species' range
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that
the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017).

Determination of Status

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that palo de rosa meets the Act's definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we propose to reclassify palo de rosa as
a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. We are proposing to reclassify palo de
rosa as a threatened species, and if we adopt this rule as proposed,
the prohibitions in section 9 would no longer apply directly to the
palo de rosa. We are therefore proposing below a set of regulations to
provide for the conservation of the species in accordance with section
4(d) of the Act, which also authorizes us to apply any of the
prohibitions in section 9 of the Act to a threatened species. The
proposal, which includes a description of the kinds of activities that
would or would not constitute a violation, complies with this policy.

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

Background

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary of the Interior shall issue such regulations
as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that
statutory language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a
large degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S.
592 (1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the
second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary
may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any
act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife,
or 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9 of the Act.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D.
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity,
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address palo de rosa's specific
threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not require
us to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the
adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this
rule as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to
issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of palo de rosa. As discussed above under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that palo de rosa is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future primarily due
to habitat destruction and modification, particularly by urban
development, right-of-way maintenance, rock quarries, and grazing.
Additionally, other natural or manmade factors like hurricanes,
invasive species, and landslides still threaten the species. The
provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote conservation of
palo de rosa by encouraging conservation programs for the species and
its habitat and promoting additional research to inform future habitat
management and recovery actions for the species. The provisions of this
proposed rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote the
conservation of palo de rosa. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only
if and when we make final the reclassification of palo de rosa as a
threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of palo
de rosa by prohibiting the following activities, except as otherwise
authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; certain acts related
to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving,
transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial

[[Page 37112]]

activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the species' habitat or range (specifically, urban development,
maintenance of power lines and associated rights-of-way, infrastructure
development, rock quarries, grazing by cattle, and extraction of fence
posts), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural
or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence
(specifically, hurricanes, invasive plant species, landslides, and
habitat fragmentation and lack of connectivity between subpopulations)
are affecting the status of palo de rosa. A range of activities have
the potential to impact this plant, including recreational and
commercial activities. Regulating these activities will help preserve
the species' remaining populations, slow their rate of potential
decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
stressors. As a whole, the regulation would help in the efforts to
recover the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other purposes consistent
with the purposes and policy of the Act. Additional statutory
exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 10 of the
Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State and
Territorial natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State and Territorial agencies often
possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of
wildlife and plants. State and Territorial agencies, because of their
authorities and their close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist the
Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard,
section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
Territorial conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative
agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act,
who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able
to conduct activities designed to conserve palo de rosa that may result
in otherwise prohibited activities for plants without additional
authorization.
We also recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of
activities with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the
propagation of the species, and therefore would satisfy permit
requirements under the Act. We intend to monitor the interstate and
foreign commerce and import and export of these specimens in a manner
that will not inhibit such activities, providing the activities do not
represent a threat to the survival of the species in the wild. In this
regard, seeds of cultivated specimens would not be regulated provided a
statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the
seeds or their container.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of palo de
rosa. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined
through planned programmatic consultations for the species between us
and other Federal agencies, where appropriate. We ask the public,
particularly State and Territorial agencies and other interested
stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide
comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that
the Service could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested,
above).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection
with determining a species' listing status under the Endangered Species
Act. In an October 25, 1983, notice in the Federal Register (48 FR
49244), we outlined our reasons for this determination, which included
a compelling recommendation from the Council on Environmental Quality
that we cease preparing environmental assessments or environmental
impact statements for listing decisions.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We have determined that there are no
Tribal lands affected by this proposal.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2020-0059 and upon
request form the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 37113]]

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entry ``Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon......... Palo de rosa....... Wherever found.... T 55 FR 13488, 4/10/1990;
[Federal Register
citation of final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.73(g).4d

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Add Sec. 17.73 to read as follows:

Sec. 17.73 Special rules--flowering plants.

(a) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de rosa).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered plants also apply to Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de rosa).
Except as provided under paragraph (g)(2) of this section, it is
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this
species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(b) for endangered
plants.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal
jurisdiction, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(c)(1).
(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy the species on any areas under
Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the
species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation
of the Territory or in the course of any violation of a Territorial
criminal trespass law, as set forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(d) for endangered plants.
(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(e) for
endangered plants.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon (palo de rosa):
(i) The prohibitions described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section
do not apply to activities conducted as authorized by a permit issued
in accordance with Sec. 17.72.
(ii) Any employee or agent of the Service or of a Territorial
conservation agency that is operating under a conservation program
pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by that
agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official
duties, remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal
jurisdiction members of palo de rosa that are covered by an approved
cooperative agreement to carry out conservation programs.
(iii) You may engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (g)(1)
of this section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a
statement that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the
seeds or their container.

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-14661 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

</pre></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 14, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.