Proposed Rule2022-13229
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of Mitracarpus polycladus From Endangered to Threatened With a 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
June 23, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reclassify Mitracarpus polycladus (a plant, no common name) 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 M. polycladus.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37476-37494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13229]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE53
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification
of Mitracarpus polycladus From Endangered to Threatened With a 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 Mitracarpus polycladus (a plant, no common name) 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 M. polycladus.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 22, 2022. 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 8, 2022.
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275
[[Page 37477]]
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule, list of
literature cited, and supporting documents, including the 5-year
reviews and the Recovery Plan, are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; telephone: (787) 851-
7297. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets
the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Mitracarpus
polycladus is listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify
(downlist) M. polycladus as threatened. We have determined M.
polycladus does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species,
but it does meet the definition of a threatened species (likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range). Reclassifying a species as
a threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through
the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
What this document does. This rule proposes to reclassify
Mitracarpus polycladus as a threatened species on the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) 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 or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We may reclassify a species if the best available
commercial and scientific data indicate the species no longer meets the
applicable definition in the Act. In our April 2011 and September 2018
5-year status reviews, we recommended reclassifying this plant from
endangered to threatened based on our evaluation of these same five
factors. Based on the status review, the current threats analysis, and
evaluation of conservation measures discussed in this proposed rule, we
conclude that the plant M. polycladus no longer meets the Act's
definition of an endangered species and should be reclassified to a
threatened species. The species is no longer in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but is likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. We determined that M.
polycladus is affected by the following current and ongoing threats to
the extent that the species meets the definition of a threatened
species under the Act: habitat destruction and modification due to road
and trail maintenance, trampling by humans; human-caused fires;
nonnative, invasive species; urbanization and tourism development; and
the effects of climate change.
The status of Mitracarpus polycladus has improved since the time of
listing with an increased range, number of localities and individuals.
At the time of listing, the known range of M. polycladus consisted of
an undetermined number of individuals located in a single population in
southern Puerto Rico and from one record on Saba Island. Currently,
there are 3 populations of M. polycladus with more than 20,000 adult
individuals in 11 localities in southern Puerto Rico and multiple
localities on Saba Island and Anegada Island. In the largest
population, 89 percent of individuals occur in areas managed for
conservation. Despite ongoing threats from habitat destruction and
modification, all three populations exhibit high or moderate resiliency
and have demonstrated ability to maintain occurrences through changing
environmental conditions. Furthermore, the current number of localities
buffers the species from catastrophic events (drought and fire). For
these reasons, we determined that the species is not in danger of
extinction, and, thus, we conclude that M. polycladus no longer meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species.
Although population numbers and abundance of M. polycladus have
increased, our analysis indicates that magnitude of threats will remain
into the foreseeable future. As the effects of habitat destruction and
modification and climate change continue into the future, the abundance
of each of the three populations may be reduced, thereby exacerbating
the impacts from these stressors. Thus, we find that M. polycladus is
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, and
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species.
We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule. We propose to
prohibit the activities under section 9(a)(2) of the Act for endangered
plant species as a means to provide protections to Mitracarpus
polycladus. We also propose specific exceptions from these prohibitions
for our State or Territorial agency partners, so that they may continue
with certain activities covered by an approved cooperative agreement to
carry out conservation programs that will 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 as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not downlist Mitracarpus polycladus
as a threatened species.
(2) Information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of Mitracarpus polycladus.
(3) Information on the known and potential threats to Mitracarpus
polycladus including habitat modification, habitat loss, or climate
change.
(4) Information regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat
use of Mitracarpus polycladus.
[[Page 37478]]
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
Mitracarpus polycladus 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 Mitracarpus polycladus 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 Act's section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we
should consider any additional exceptions 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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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-2021-0058 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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 proposed prohibitions or the proposed exceptions
to those prohibitions if we conclude it is appropriate in light of
comments and new information we receive. For example, we may expand the
proposed prohibitions to include prohibiting additional activities if
we conclude that those additional activities are not compatible with
conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional
exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that
the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation
and recovery of the species.
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 these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulation 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
opinion of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding 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. 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 September 9, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR
46715) a final rule listing listing Mitracarpus polycladus as an
endangered species. On October 6, 1998, we completed the recovery plan
(Service 1998, entire). An amendment to the M. polycladus recovery plan
was signed on September 24, 2019.
On September 27, 2006, and August 22, 2016, we initiated 5-year
reviews for the species (71 FR 56545 and 81 FR 56692, respectively) and
completed them on April 27, 2011 (Service 2011, entire), and September
25, 2018 (Service 2018a, entire). In those two reviews, we determined
the species no longer met the definition of an endangered species and
should be reclassified to threatened. The 5-year reviews are available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see Recovery,
below. See <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/206">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/206</a> for the species profile
for this plant.
I. Proposed Reclassification Determination
Background
Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of Mitracarpus polycladus is presented in the 5-year
status reviews (Service 2011, entire; Service 2018a, entire). Below, we
present a summary of the biological and distributional information
described in the 5-year status reviews and new information published or
obtained since.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Mitracarpus polycladus is a small shrub in the Rubiaceae family and
the Spermacoce clade. This large family of flowering plants in the
coffee family contains over 640 genera and 10,000 species with a mainly
tropical distribution (Bremer 1996, p. 23). Mitracarpus polycladus was
first collected in Puerto Rico in 1886 and described in 1903 as a new
species (Urban 1903, p. 389; Lioger 1997, p. 124).
Mitracarpus polycladus is frequently confused with other genera of
the Spermacoce clade, due to the similarity in morphological characters
of herbarium specimens (Nu[ntilde]ez-Florentin et al. 2017, p. 96;
Service 2018a, p. 22).
Mitracarpus polycladus may reach up to 45 centimeters (cm) (17.7
inches (in)) in height and its stems grow either erect
[[Page 37479]]
or along the ground (Proctor 1991, p. 127; Lioger 1997, p. 125). The
leaves are smooth and narrow, approximately 2-4.5 cm (0.8-1.8 in) long
and 0.3-0.5 cm (0.1-0.2 in) wide. The inflorescence is surrounded by
three bract-like leaves on the ends of branches and is made up of
smaller white flowers. The seed capsule is very small (1.5 millimeter
(mm) (0.06 in) diameter) and contains black seeds (Proctor 1991, p.
127).
Biology
The reproductive biology of Mitracarpus polycladus had not been
thoroughly studied at the time it was listed. Phenology of M.
polycladus is closely related to the dry and rainy seasons. Flower
production occurs just after the peak of rainfall, which may start as
early as May and end as late as December, and seed availability occurs
during the dry season, which is December to March (Service 2018a, p.
8). The species shows a large reproductive output after the rainy
season (high number of seedlings) followed by a low number of mature
adults counted during the next rainy season. Seed germination has been
observed a few days after a rain event, producing numerous seedlings
within 0.9 meter (m) (3 feet (ft)) surrounding mature plants, denoting
a clumped spatial distribution (Service 2018b, p. 6). Seedlings and
adults categories in our analysis are consistent with those used in
recent survey reports (Service 2018b, p. 4).
The timing and spatial distribution of seedlings indicate the
species produces viable seeds that stay in the soil seedbank until the
next rain event (Service 2018b, p. 6). Mitracarpus polycladus colonizes
on exposed limestone where aggregations of sediment and water provide
necessary conditions for seed germination and seedling rooting (Medina
et al. 2012, p. 203). Although a large number of seedlings (e.g., 1,500
and 13,680 in 2011 and 2018, respectively) have been documented in
Puerto Rico, seedling estimates are not included as part of the
population abundance estimates because surveyors have been unable to
determine seedling survival rates and effective recruitment (Service
2011, p. 24; Service 2018b, p. 8). Survival of seedlings to maturity is
uncertain due to natural thinning of the seedlings and environmental
variables (drought stress). High mortality of seedlings is observed
during the driest period (Service 2018b, p. 8). Additionally, the
clumping distribution of seedlings near the mature flowering plant is
likely related to the lack of an animal dispersal agent (e.g., bird,
small mammal) to carry the seeds farther away. Experts conclude that
seeds are dependent on water or wind as a dispersal mechanism, with
seeds that are not dispersed by water or wind clumping near the mature
plant (Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 25; Service 2018a, p. 9).
We have little information about Mitracarpus polycladus's
pollinators. However, two insect groups (Hymenopterous and
Lepidopterous) have been identified as visiting M. polycladus flowers
and may act as effective pollinators of the species (Monsegur 2017,
unpublished data). During 2017, bee species Apis mellifera, Megachile
lanata, and M. rufipennis, and the hanno blue butterfly (Hemiargurs
hanno watsoni) visited M. polycladus plants (Monsegur 2017, unpublished
data). Similar insects (e.g., the Great Southern butterfly (Ascia
monuste), honeybees, and the hanno blue butterfly) have been documented
visiting M. maxwelliae and are understood to pollinate the species
(Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 34). Although further research on the M.
polycladus's breeding system and reproductive biology is needed to
confirm its pollinators, available information indicates the species is
cross-pollinated by these insects. The observations of multiple insect
groups visiting M. polycladus support our rationale for defining
localities in the Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF) area as a
single population as it is very likely that insect-facilitated cross-
pollination is taking place.
Distribution and Abundance
Mitracarpus polycladus was known to occur only in Puerto Rico and
on Saba Island in the Lesser Antilles at the time of listing (59 FR
46715; September 9, 1994). Although the species was discovered on
Anegada Island in 1970, we were not aware of this occurrence at the
time of listing (Service 2011, p. 9; Hamilton and B[aacute]rrios 2017,
p. 1).
In Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus was first collected in 1886
on coastal rocks near Ca[ntilde]a Gorda in the municipality of
Gu[aacute]nica (Sintenis 1886, p. 1; Proctor 1991, p. 126). The species
was first collected on Saba Island (approximate 289.6 kilometers (km)
(180 miles (mi)) from the southeast coast of Puerto Rico) in 1906
(Bolding 1906, p. 1; Service 1998, p. 1). On Anegada Island, M.
polycladus was first collected in 1970 on an area adjacent to Deep Bay
(Woodbury 1970, p. 1). Anegada is approximately 144.8 km (90 mi) from
the northeast coast of Puerto Rico (Hamilton 2016, p. 26).
When listed, Mitracarpus polycladus was known in Puerto Rico only
from the Mesetas trail in the GCF (DNR 1976, pp. 56-58; 59 FR 46715,
September 9, 1994). No abundance estimates were available for the
species in Puerto Rico and no information was available on the status
of the species on Saba Island. When the 1998 recovery plan was
finalized, there was little information on M. polycladus's historical
and current abundance, distribution, ecology, and reproductive biology.
At that time, we described M. polycladus occurrences in Puerto Rico and
Saba Island as two populations (Proctor 1991, p. 2; Service 1998, p.
2).
At the time of listing and in the subsequent 5-year status reviews,
occurrences of Mitracarpus polycladus in Puerto Rico were referred to
as localities, and the occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands were
referred to as populations due to their distant geographic location.
This approach did not consider the species-specific characteristics of
clumped spatial distribution, distance among localities, natural
geographic barriers, or the species' need for cross-pollination.
Additional information about M. polycladus's geographic and spatial
distribution and biological and ecological aspects of the species' life
history (e.g., pollinators, seed dispersion, phenology) has since
become available. We concluded that the following are natural physical
barriers and preclude cross-pollination among populations and
localities: coastal plains; dense, extensive forest patches; and bays.
Connectivity among localities is important to maximize the likelihood
of cross-pollination and gene flow, and to increase fruit production,
viable seeds, and the chances of natural recruitment to support viable
M. polycladus populations. Based on the factors described, we now
identify three natural populations of M. polycladus: (1) Gu[aacute]nica
forest in south Puerto Rico (composed of at least 10 localities within
the GCF, which is managed for M. polycladus conservation, and adjacent
lands that provide suitable habitat and connectivity); (2) Saba Island;
and (3) Anegada Island. Additionally, a separate locality, Cerro Toro,
resulted from a private translocation effort. This population is
disjunct (no connectivity nor cross-pollination) from the GCF
population; thus, we consider it a separate, introduced population.
Since the time of listing and the recovery plan development, new
information on abundance and distribution has been gained through
targeted surveys (Service 2007 and 2017, unpubl. data) and incidental
observations. By 2011, seven M.
[[Page 37480]]
polycladus localities were documented within the GCF with an estimated
abundance of 1,400 adult individuals in four localities with no
occupied area estimated (Service 2011, pp. 8, 14). By 2018, 2
additional localities were documented within the GCF with an estimated
12,472 adult individuals in 9 localities in a 0.42-hectare (ha) (1.02
acres (ac)) area (Service 2018a, p. 22). The most recent abundance
estimate is 17,637 adult individuals occupying 0.44 ha (1.1 ac)
(Service 2018b, p. 9). These are underestimates of the population
abundance and spatial extent as they did not include three natural
localities due to time constraints. Because changes in the habitat have
not been observed in the three localities, we expect the abundance
(number) and spatial extent (ha) to be similar to the previous
assessments. Therefore, the information from these three localities is
unlikely to substantially change the estimates of abundance and extent
of occupied area for the population; however, we recognize the
potential for slight underestimation of the extent of areas with M.
polycladus occurrences.
To date, 10 natural localities and 1 introduced locality comprise
the Puerto Rico population; 8 of these are within the GCF and 3 are on
private properties (Ballena beach, Cerro Toro, and Monte de la Ventana,
which extends into the GCF). Based on the surrounding vegetation
structure and the presence of exposed limestone observed in aerial
images of the GCF, additional suitable habitat for the species has been
identified and may contain unknown localities of M. polycladus, but it
has not been quantified or surveyed. Therefore, we expect the species
may extend beyond surveyed areas (Service 2018b, p. 8).
The increase in the number of localities recorded in Puerto Rico
reflects additional survey efforts since the time of listing, while the
increase in the number of individuals likely reflects the species'
seasonal response to rain events (Service 2018b, p. 3). The species
shows a large reproductive output after the rainy season (high number
of seedlings) followed by a low number of mature adults counted during
the next rainy season. Therefore, timing and seasonality of surveys
affects abundance estimates.
On Saba Island, current information indicates the species occurs in
several localities along the road between The Bottom and Windward Side
towns in the southern section of the island (Rojer 1997, p. 19);
however, no population estimate is available and the 1997 assessment
does not include a population estimate. On Anegada Island, surveys for
M. polycladus were conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (B[aacute]rrios
and Hamilton 2018, p. 3). Based on these data, the estimated population
abundance is no more than 2,500 individuals in the north central region
of the island between Windlass Point and Cooper Rock (B[aacute]rrios
and Hamilton 2018, p. 4).
Table 1--Current Abundance and Areal Extent of Mitracarpus Polycladus per Locality in Puerto Rico
[Service 2018b, p. 9]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance (# of Area occupied **
Locality adult plants) in hectares/acres Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ca[ntilde]a Gorda.......................... Undetermined ................. Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources (Department).
Jaboncillo................................. Undetermined ................. Department.
Mesetas Trail.............................. 13,064 0.255/0.63 Department.
Ballena Trail.............................. 1,048 0.036/0.09
La Cueva................................... 310 0.016/0.04
Hoya Onda.................................. 246 0.004/0.01
State road PR 333.......................... 653 0.028/0.07
Las Picuas................................. 336 0.024/0.06
Monte de la Ventana........................ 1,967 0.077/0.19 Department and Private.
Ballena Beach.............................. Undetermined ................. Private.
Cerro Toro *............................... 13 0.004/0.01 Private.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 17,637 0.44/1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Introduced individuals.
** Area occupied reflects area surveyed by circular plots of 29.2 square meters (314 square feet) (Service
2018b, p. 3).
Habitat
Throughout its range in Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus occurs
only on exposed limestone with sediment and water accumulation in holes
and crevices. M. polycladus is restricted to geographical areas with
unique substrate and climate features in dry forest habitat types that
serve as corridors for pollinators and facilitate cross-pollination
among M. polycladus localities within contiguous habitats. The species
occurs among three major types of plant communities: coastal shrub
forest, cactus scrub forest, and coastal scrub on sandy soil (DNR 1976,
p. 53; Lugo et al. 1978, p. 282; Service 2018b, p. 11). Although these
forest types cover about 582 ha (1,438 ac), or about 15 percent of the
3,882 ha (9,593 ac) GCF, (DNR 1976 p. 53; Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278),
known occurrences of M. polycladus occupy only an area of 0.44 ha (1.1
ac), where the habitat and microhabitat features (i.e., exposed
limestone and aggregation of sediment and water) essential for the
species are present (Service 2018b, p. 8). However, surveys have not
been conducted throughout the suitable forest types; thus, the species
may occur elsewhere within this area. All known M. polycladus
localities in Puerto Rico fall in the subtropical dry forest life zone.
This life zone occupies an area of 121,640 ha (300,576 ac) (Ewel and
Whitmore 1973, p. 9) and is the driest life zone in Puerto Rico. It
receives a mean annual rainfall of 60-100 cm (24-40 in), experiences
high temperatures, and has high evapotranspiration when sufficient
water is available (Murphy and Lugo 1986, p. 90; C[aacute]ceres-
Charneco 2018, p. 27). The climate in this region is seasonal, with
most precipitation occurring in September and October (Lugo et al.
1978, p. 278) and another small peak of rainfall in May and June (Sloan
et al. 2006, p. 196; C[aacute]ceres-Charneco 2018, p. 28).
On Saba Island, the best available information indicates the
species occurs on Gile's cherty sandy loam soil found between The
Bottom and Windward Side towns. This arid section of the island is
located in the south portion of
[[Page 37481]]
Saba Island (Rojer 1997, p. 19; Freitas et al 2016, p. 10). On Anegada
Island, Mitracarpus polycladus currently grows on limestone plain and
coastal sandy habitats located in the north-central area of this island
where the species is restricted to two localities situated between
Windlass Point and Cooper Rock (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, p.
4). This area has similar environmental conditions and soil
characteristics to M. polycladus localities in Puerto Rico.
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all criteria in a recovery plan being
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while
other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may
determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all 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 Mitracarpus polycladus does not provide
downlisting criteria (Service 1998, p. 8). In 2019, we published an
amendment to the recovery plan that provides three revised criteria for
delisting M. polycladus (Service 2019, p. 4). The three recovery
criteria for delisting the species as outlined in the amendment are:
(1) Threat reduction and management activities have been implemented to
a degree that the species will remain viable into the foreseeable
future; (2) existing natural populations of M. polycladus show a stable
or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple
age classes; and (3) within the historical range, at least three new
populations of M. polycladus showing a stable or increasing trend have
been established on lands protected by conservation measures, as
evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age classes (Service
2019, entire). Based on the information gathered and analyzed, two of
these criteria have been partially met and the third has been
initiated. The following discussion provides an assessment of the
delisting criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of M.
polycladus.
Criterion 1 for Delisting
Criterion 1 states that threat reduction and management activities
have been implemented to a degree that the species will remain viable
into the foreseeable future. This criterion has been partially met.
Eighty-nine percent of the currently known Mitracarpus polycladus
individuals in Puerto Rico occur within the GCF, which is managed for
conservation by the Department as recommended by the Master Plan for
the Commonwealth Forests of Puerto Rico (DNR 1976, p. 56). The
management actions in the GCF protect M. polycladus from development
activities and are compatible with the species' needs. In addition, M.
polycladus is listed as critically endangered under Department
regulations (DNRNA 2004, p. 52). Accordingly, the Department reviews
all proposed actions in the GCF that may impact M. polycladus and its
habitat within the forest. However the species is occasionally impacted
by intense use of trails, human-caused fires, and nonnative invasive
grasses encroaching on M. polycladus individuals and habitat. The
species is also impacted by road maintenance activities (vegetation
trimming) in 5 of the 11 localities where the species occurs (4 of
these localities are within the GCF) (Service 2018b, p. 10). Each of
the localities in the GCF has experienced some impact by one or more
stressors including trail use, fires, nonnative invasive species, or
road maintenance; these changes have resulted in loss of M. polycladus
habitat available for the species. Although portions of the GCF
localities have been impacted by these stressors, the threats do not
have a substantive effect on the population and the protected and
managed habitat in the GCF remains a stronghold for the species with
the largest number of individuals and areal extent occurring along the
Mesetas trail. Thus, although M. polycladus is legally protected in
this forest, it is subject to actions that limit its abundance and
distribution in impacted areas.
Two localities on private lands are subject to potential
development pressure. The Ballena beach locality is subject to
development pressure in the past with proposals for the development of
a hotel in that area. Although this project has not been constructed to
date, the threat remains. In Monte de la Ventana, development of a wind
farm project is expected to affect the species. This project and the
effects to M. polycladus are discussed under ``Urbanization and
Development,'' below.
Evidence of fire has been recorded on or adjacent to Mitracarpus
polycladus localities near State road PR 333 and GCF trails (Service
2018a, p. 27). Moreover, we have observed that M. polycladus does not
colonize previously burned areas on the GCF (Service 2018b, p. 12).
Therefore, fire can be a threat to species viability, as M. polycladus
is endemic to dry limestone forest where vegetation did not evolve
under a natural fire regime.
These threats of fire, development, nonnative and invasive species,
and road and trail maintenance, coupled with competition with other
plant species for specific habitat requirements such as holes and
cracks for seed germination, and observed lack of dispersal mechanisms,
reduce the species' ability to colonize other areas. Therefore, we
determined that, while threat reduction and management activities at
GCF have been implemented and have improved the species' viability,
they have not been
[[Page 37482]]
implemented or improved viability to a degree that the species will
maintain viability into the foreseeable future (criterion 1).
Accordingly, this criterion has not been fully met.
Criterion 2 for Delisting
Criterion 2 states that existing natural populations of Mitracarpus
polycladus show a stable or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural
recruitment and multiple age classes. This criterion has been partially
met. Since the time of listing, the number of individuals and
localities reported for M. polycladus have increased. Now,
approximately 17,624 adult M. polycladus individuals are distributed in
10 natural localities in Puerto Rico occupying 0.44 ha (1.1 ac), with
documented recruitment as evidenced by numerous seedlings in close
proximity to adult plants, particularly after rain events. However,
existing data indicate that seedlings' survival is uncertain due to
natural thinning and environmental stochasticity (drought stress).
Despite this uncertainty, effective recruitment has occurred, and
seedlings and saplings were noted in seven of eight localities in
Puerto Rico during the 2018 assessment (Service 2018b, p. 9).
Nonetheless, habitat modification caused by human-caused fires and
subsequent encroachment of nonnative grasses has resulted in the loss
of some clusters of individuals within a locality. Habitat modification
and other threats, discussed below under Summary of Biological Status
and Threats, may preclude the expansion of the species within known
suitable habitats in Puerto Rico. The status and trend of M. polycladus
populations on Anegada and Saba Islands, including recruitment, are
currently unknown. Based on the uncertainty of population estimates and
the lack of evidence of expansion into suitable habitat, we determined
that a stable or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural recruitment
and multiple age classes (criterion 2), has been met in Puerto Rico,
but not on Saba or Anegada Islands. Accordingly, this criterion has
been partially met.
Criterion 3 for Delisting
Criterion 3 states that at least three new populations of
Mitracarpus polycladus showing a stable or increasing trend have been
established within the historical range on lands protected by
conservation, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age
classes. This criterion has been initiated. In Cerro Toro, an
undetermined number of M. polycladus individuals were translocated from
the Monte de la Ventana locality by the landowner to establish a new
population of the species physically separated from the GCF population.
As of 2018, 13 of the planted individuals were still alive (Service
2018b, p. 9; see table 1, above), but no recruitment (seedlings or
saplings) was observed. However, this recovery effort has not been
expanded. The Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew), in collaboration with the
National Park Trust of the Virgin Islands, is propagating material from
M. polycladus on Anegada Island, but no planting efforts have been
implemented. No further efforts of translocations or propagation and
reintroduction are currently known. Greater emphasis has been placed on
the search for and protection of newly discovered localities in
southern Puerto Rico. To increase Mitracarpus polycladus's redundancy
and long-term viability, additional populations should be established
through translocation and/or propagation throughout the species' range.
Regulatory and Analytical 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 (50 CFR
424.11(c) and (d)).
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species 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
[[Page 37483]]
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.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the 5-year
review (Service 2018a, entire) documents our comprehensive biological
status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The following is a summary of this status
review and the best available information gathered since that time that
have informed this decision.
Habitat Alteration and Destruction
Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) were identified as
factors affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus polycladus at
the time of listing. Road and trail maintenance, human-caused fire,
nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism development,
and grazing continue to contribute to alteration of M. polycladus
habitat and are described in detail below. Although changes to habitat
conditions may affect pollinator abundance and distribution, we
currently have no evidence that a loss of pollinators is occurring in
M. polycladus habitat and expect that sufficient pollinators are
present to cross-pollinate individuals if they occur within the flight
distance of that pollinator species.
Road and Trail Maintenance
Currently, Mitracarpus polycladus grows adjacent to or along paved
and unpaved roads, parking areas, and trails that provide access to
recreational areas in seven localities in the dry southern section of
the GCF (Service 2018b, p. 5). These roads and trails are managed by
the Department as scenic trails and natural areas. However, management
and maintenance activities, primarily vegetation trimming, have
affected M. polycladus individuals in these areas (Service 2018b, p.
10). Similarly, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public
Works right-of-way maintenance causes impacts to individuals and
habitat in the State road PR 333 locality (Service 2018b, p. 10).
Right-of-way maintenance activities have resulted in mortality of
reproductive M. polycladus individuals in three localities and may
reduce production of seeds and potential seedlings in these localities
if the plants do not recover sufficiently to reproduce when conditions
are suitable (Service 2018b, p. 10).
The largest cluster of Mitracarpus polycladus occurs adjacent to
the Mesetas trail in GCF with 13,064 individuals occupying an area of
0.25 ha (0.63 ac). This trail is heavily used for recreation and is the
only access to that section of the GCF. Therefore, roughly a quarter of
the individuals along the trail in this locality are exposed to damage
caused by trail maintenance and human trampling. Physical impacts to M.
polycladus and its habitat are caused by the frequent use of the scenic
trails and adjacent habitat in the GCF by residents and tourists for
recreational activities (i.e., hiking, running, and mountain biking)
throughout the year (Service 2018a, p. 12). Such habitat impacts also
promote the intrusion of nonnative grasses along the trail corridor.
Nonnative grass encroachment along trails follows a similar pattern to
encroachment following fire and is described below. The Anegada and
Saba Island populations do not occur adjacent to trails or roads and
effects of road and trail maintenance on the M. polycladus population
in Puerto Rico are limited. Although over half of localities and
several thousand individuals are exposed to the threat of road and
trail maintenance, the number of individuals impacted by this threat
does not have a substantive effect on the population.
Human-Caused Fire
Fires are not a natural event in the subtropical dry forests in
Puerto Rico, and the native vegetation in the Caribbean is not adapted
to this type of disturbance (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557;
Santiago-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2008, p. 604). However, human-caused
fires were identified as a threat to the species when listed (59 FR
46715; September 9, 1994) and continue to occur throughout Mitracarpus
polycladus habitat in Puerto Rico (Service 2018a, p. 27). Currently, 6
of 10 natural localities of M. polycladus occur in areas vulnerable to
or at high risk of human-caused fires, particularly during the dry
season (Service 2018b, p. 10). Although the Department implements a
fire prevention and management program in the GCF during the dry
season, fires still occur and impact M. polycladus and its habitat
(Service 2011, p. 13; Service 2018b, p. 11). Surveyors documented
several fires along State road PR 333 that affected M. polycladus
habitat and, consequently, could have affected an undetermined number
of individuals (Service 2018b, p. 11).
Fire affects Mitracarpus polycladus survival through impacts of
heat and promotion of intrusion of invasive plant species. Nonnative
plant species outcompete M. polycladus and serve as fuel for fires
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, pp. 19, 33; Service 2018a, p. 27). The
interaction of fire and nonnative species is described under
``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below. Moreover, M. polycladus has not
been observed growing in areas with evidence of past fires (Service
2018b, p. 11). We expect this is due to the effects of fire on the
seedbank, thus precluding the sprouting of the species and
recolonization of an area from the seedbank after a fire.
Human-caused fires lead to the destruction of native vegetation by
direct impacts to individuals and to the seedbank (which is not fire-
adapted). Therefore, it is very likely that fires reduce or eliminate
Mitracarpus polycladus seeds in the seedbank and promote favorable
conditions for the establishment of nonnative plant species. These
species, such as guinea grass, are adapted to a natural fire regime and
serve as fuel for fires, thus promoting conditions for a more frequent
fire regime that precludes the establishment of native vegetation
(Thaxton et al. 2012, p. 9). The presence of guinea grass and other
nonnative grass species (e.g., paj[oacute]n and buffel grass) increases
the amount of fuel for the fire and the resultant intensity of the
fire. This occurs in some areas of M. polycladus habitat in the GCF,
where nonnative grasses are present and M. polycladus is not
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Therefore,
in habitats subject to fire, lack of seed availability is the primary
factor limiting the recolonization of the forest with native species
and compromises the long-term viability of native species, including M.
polycladus (Wolfe 2009, p. 28). Other factors such as seed predation,
seed intrinsic viability, and seedling survival also affect forest
recovery after fire. In this and other habitat types, fires promote
habitat fragmentation, return habitat to an earlier successional state,
and slow forest recovery processes (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557;
Meddens et al. 2008, p. 569).
Fire negatively impacts Mitracarpus polycladus and its habitat, and
the
[[Page 37484]]
capacity of the species to survive and recover from this type of
catastrophic event over time is unknown. Moreover, M. polycladus occurs
in areas with high vulnerability to fires, exacerbating the potential
effects of fire on individuals and populations. The effects of climate
change and nonnative invasive species may alter conditions in M.
polycladus habitat to promote increased susceptibility to fire (as
described under ``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below). Therefore,
even with the Department's current fire prevention and management
program efforts during the dry season, human-caused fires occur every
year within the species' range. Fires in M. polycladus localities
affect the survival and recruitment of individuals, population
resiliency, and, potentially, the species' viability (Service 2018b, p.
11). Information regarding the threat of fire to the Anegada and Saba
Island populations is less extensive than the information for Puerto
Rico; however, we expect the threat of human-caused fire is similar
since the Anegada and Saba Island populations also occur along
roadsides.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
Caribbean dry forests generally have seedbanks with low numbers and
variety of species, and forest regeneration in areas disturbed through
mechanical vegetation removal or through burning is largely dependent
on propagules or seeds from nearby habitats (Wolfe 2009, p. 28).
Nonnative species typically become established more quickly and may
have less specific habitat or life-history requirements than native
species. When nonnative species become established in a disturbed
habitat, they outcompete native species for resources including space,
nutrients, water, and sunlight. The impacts of nonnative invasive
species are second only to habitat loss and degradation as a threat to
global biodiversity and are among the greatest threats to the
persistence of native rare species and their habitats in Puerto Rico
(Thomson 2005, p. 615, Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire). Nonnative
species like guinea grass, buffel grass, paj[oacute]n, and African
grass (Heteropogon contortus) aggressively colonize and compete with
native species for sunlight, nutrients, water and ground cover (space),
suppressing native vegetation (Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire;
Rojas-Sandoval and Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2016, p. 156; Service
2018b, p. 12). Research on other listed plant species such as Harrisia
portoricensis indicates that seedlings and juveniles are particularly
susceptible to changes in microclimate conditions, and establishment is
precluded by the presence of nonnative grasses (Rojas-Sandoval and
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2012, pp. 35, 37; Rojas-Sandoval and
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2013, p. 489). This finding is consistent with
observations indicating that Mitracarpus polycladus did not occur in
areas occupied (or dominated) by these grasses at localities in the GCF
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Moreover,
nonnative trees (e.g., lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala)) also colonize
M. polycladus habitat, particularly after fire events, and suppress the
growth of native vegetation (Wolfe and Van Bloem 2012, entire). Lead
trees can remain as a dominant canopy species for at least 80 years
(Wolfe 2009, p. 2), thus precluding recolonization of M. polycladus for
long periods. The wind-aided broad seed dispersal and rapid growth of
nonnative grasses can also negatively affect the establishment and
persistence of M. polycladus. In areas where M. polycladus is
established, nonnative species do not appear to reduce habitat directly
by displacing existing individuals, but primarily impact M. polycladus
populations by preventing or reducing colonization by the species when
the area is disturbed. In summary, nonnative invasive species
outcompete M. polycladus for required resources, promote increased
frequency and intensity of fire, and prevent establishment of
seedlings, thus impacting M. polycladus at the individual, population,
and, potentially, species level.
Urbanization and Development
As previously mentioned, 89 percent of the currently known
Mitracarpus polycladus individuals in Puerto Rico occur within the GCF,
which is managed for conservation by the Department (DNR 1976, p. 56).
However, one Mitracarpus polycladus locality occurs within an area
currently proposed for the construction of a wind generation project
(San Francisco Wind Farm) in Monte de la Ventana. This project occupies
79 ha (195 ac) of dry forest habitat with 1,967 M. polycladus
individuals in the project area (Service 2018b, pp. 1, 11). Ninety-six
percent of M. polycladus individuals on the site occur on and adjacent
to now-abandoned roads opened in 2013 to access the proposed wind
project site. The remaining 4 percent of individuals occur in areas
that would not be impacted by the project.
Since 2010, we have been working with the landowner on the
development and implementation of conservation measures to avoid or
minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat caused by the
proposed development of the wind farm project. This wind farm project
is covered by an incidental take permit (ITP) under a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that includes conservation measures to minimize
adverse effects to listed species in the project area (Service 2013, p.
3). Although a substantial portion of this property is identified as a
conservation area under the HCP, the conservation areas do not include
habitat for Mitracarpus polycladus (Service 2013, p. 3). Mitracarpus
polycladus is vulnerable to effects from the wind farm project
operations because the species usually grows in open areas (e.g., dirt
roads and wind turbine pads in the project area), exposing it to
impacts from maintenance activities, vehicle traffic, and habitat
encroachment by nonnative invasive plants. To date, this wind farm
project has not been constructed, but we have no indication that it is
not being actively considered.
The Ballena beach locality has been subject to development pressure
in the past with proposals for the development of a hotel in that area.
Although this hotel development project has not been constructed, we do
not have evidence it will not be pursued in the future.
Mitracarpus polycladus occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands are
also threatened by development. On Anegada Island, the potential for
island-wide development exists, with local community support and road
improvement works now underway (Hamilton 2016, p. 185). Anegada Island
has been recognized by its government as an undeveloped island with
high potential for tourism development due to the beauty of its natural
resources (sandy beaches and coral reefs). In 2007, the Government of
Anegada, under the authority of the Physical Planning Act No.15 of 2004
(enacted in March 2005), developed a Land Use Plan (Plan) designating
areas for commercial and residential purposes, as well for hotel
development, agriculture, community parks and recreational areas, a
business district, protection and conservation, and government offices
and related facilities (IRF 2013, p. 24). The Plan proposes to set
aside some areas for conservation (IRF 2013, p. 25); however, the
proposed areas do not contain M. polycladus or the habitat it requires.
If the Plan is enacted fully, we expect M. polycladus and its habitat
to be reduced or eliminated by the proposed development of the island.
Although urbanization and development plans for Saba Island are
unknown, the potential for urbanization and tourism development is
present.
[[Page 37485]]
Grazing
On Anegada and Saba Islands, Mitracarpus polycladus habitat has
been degraded by the grazing of feral livestock, such as goats and
donkeys (Freitas et al 2016, p. 21; B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018,
p. 5; Hamilton 2020, pers. comm.). Livestock presence and grazing leads
to an increase in soil erosion by disturbing soil with their hooves
while foraging on the slopes, as has been observed on Saba Island
(Freitas et al. 2016, p. 21). These animals also trample M. polycladus
individuals, reduce its abundance, and affect the population structure.
The best available information indicates feral livestock grazing may
impact the species, although the extent of these impacts in the future
is unclear.
In summary, impacts associated with habitat destruction and
modification due to vegetation clearance for maintenance and
improvement activities of roads and trails, urbanization and tourism
development, human-caused fires, and encroachment of nonnative plant
species have been documented as current threats to Mitracarpus
polycladus throughout its range. In Puerto Rico, although about 89
percent of M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, the species
and its habitat are still threatened by impacts from vegetation
maintenance (trimming) along roads and trails, frequent human-caused
fires, and encroachment of nonnative and invasive species after such
disturbances. Human-caused fires have been documented in M. polycladus
habitat even when fire management practices are implemented during the
dry season. The remaining 11 percent of the individuals occur on
private lands, not managed for conservation, where habitat destruction
and modification resulting from road clearing and wind farm development
and operation pose a threat to the species. All M. polycladus
individuals on Saba Island and Anegada Island occur on private lands
and are not purposefully managed for conservation. Occurrences on Saba
island are subject to threats of grazing and human-induced fire, and
potentially to the threat of urbanization and development. Anegada
Island's M. polycladus are at risk due to grazing, urbanization and
development, and human-induced fire.
Limited Distribution and Small Population Size
At the time of listing, we identified the species' limited
distribution (i.e., two isolated populations known at that time)
coupled with an undetermined but presumably low number of individuals
(i.e., no abundance information was available, combined with ongoing
drought conditions at the time) as the primary threats to the species.
Since listing, our knowledge concerning Mitracarpus polycladus's
abundance and distribution has improved, and we are aware of increased
numbers and occurrences throughout the southern section of the GCF
(Service 2018a, p. 22). Currently, there are three known natural
populations (Puerto Rico, Saba Island, Anegada Island) and one
introduced population occurring on three Caribbean islands across the
species' historical range. The species is restricted to small clusters
on exposed limestone, occupying a total area of 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in
southern Puerto Rico (no areal extent is estimated for the populations
on Anegada and Saba Islands). The limited distribution of the four
populations makes M. polycladus vulnerable to catastrophic events
(e.g., widespread and severe drought and large-scale fires).
Small population size can exacerbate other threats acting on the
species. Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to
various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. These
factors have a relatively minor impact on a species with large, stable
local populations and a wide and continuous distribution. However,
populations that are small, isolated by habitat loss or fragmentation,
or impacted by other factors are more vulnerable to extirpation by
natural, randomly occurring events (such as predation or stochastic
weather events), and to genetic effects that plague small populations,
collectively known as small population effects (Purvis et al. 2000, p.
1947). These effects can include genetic drift, founder effects (over
time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow
range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower
genetic diversity, with consequent negative effects on adaptive
capacity and reproductive success (Keller and Waller 2002, p. 235).
The Mesetas trail locality in GCF, the most abundant locality with
13,064 adults, is numerically strong; the remaining 9 natural
localities on Puerto Rico are smaller localities with varying degrees
of connectivity and cross-pollination between localities. The
information regarding M. polycladus populations on Anegada and Saba
Islands is more limited than that regarding the Puerto Rico population.
Based on the best available information for Anegada and Saba Islands,
these populations are currently small (2,500 on Anegada Island and
unknown abundance on Saba Island) and in a few localities with limited
distribution.
Effects of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014,
pp. 2, 40). Observed effects associated with climate change include
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, increased extreme weather
events including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, more
intense tropical cyclones, and an increase in sea level (IPCC 2014, pp.
40-44). Rather than assessing climate change as a single threat in and
of itself, we examined the potential consequences to the species and
its habitat that arise from changes in environmental conditions
associated with various aspects of climate change (temperature,
precipitation, and sea level rise). Climatic changes may affect the
phenology, abundance, and distribution of many species (Walther et al.
2002, p. 394). Thus, vulnerability to climate change impacts can be
defined as a function of sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity
of the species to those changes (IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 21; Glick and Stein
2010, p. 19).
The IPCC-modelled scenarios for the Caribbean islands predict
precipitation declines, sea level rise, stronger and more frequent
extreme weather events, and temperature increases by 2050 (Penn 2010,
p. 45; Khalyani et al. 2016 p. 265; Gould et al. 2018, p. 813; Strauss
and Kulp 2018, p. 3; USGCRP 2018, p.136). We examined a downscaled
model for Puerto Rico and the British Virgin Islands based on global
emissions scenarios from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project
(CMIP3) dataset. The more current CMIP5 dataset was not available for
the species' range at the time of analysis. The Special Report on
Emissions (SRES) scenarios using the CMIP3 dataset are generally
comparable to the more recent representative concentration pathways
(RCP) scenarios from RCP4.5 (SRES B1) to RCP8.5 (SRES A2) (Lorde 2011,
entire; IPCC 2014, p. 57; Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279-280).
Under both scenarios, emissions increase, precipitation declines, and
temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in extreme drought
conditions that convert subtropical dry forest into dry and very dry
forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280).
Modeling shows dramatic changes to Puerto Rico through 2100;
however, the divergence in these projections increases after mid-
century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). By 2050, Puerto Rico is
predicted to be subject to a decrease
[[Page 37486]]
in rainfall, along with increased drought intensity (Khalyani et al.
2016 p. 265; USGCRP 2018, p.136). As precipitation decreases,
influenced by warming, it will tend to accelerate the hydrological
cycles, resulting in wet and dry extremes (Cashman et al. 2010, pp. 1,
51, 53; Jennings et al. 2014, pp. 1, 5-6). A reduction in precipitation
in the subtropical dry forests, where rain events are already limited,
will affect Mitracarpus polycladus viability through reduced seed
viability and result in increased seedling mortality. Droughts
compromise seedling recruitment as evidenced following dry periods,
when seedling and adult mortality is the highest and other individuals
show partial die-off (Service 2018b, p. 8). In fact, under experimental
conditions, the germination and survival of seedlings of the closely
related M. maxwelliae were negatively affected by reduced soil moisture
(Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 25). There are indications that the southern
region of Puerto Rico, where M. polycladus occurs, has experienced
negative trends in annual rainfall. Between 2000 and 2016, Puerto Rico
had seven drought episodes concentrated around the south, east, and
southeastern regions of the island. The most severe drought occurred
between 2014 and 2016 when Puerto Rico experienced 80 consecutive weeks
of moderate drought, 48 weeks of severe drought, and 33 weeks of
extreme drought conditions (Alvarez-Berr[iacute]os et al. 2018, p. 1).
Prolonged dry seasons may represent a bottleneck for seedlings and
promote changes in the composition of recruits of plant species (Allen
et al. 2017, p. 6). Additionally, prolonged droughts and associated
changes in soil conditions (i.e., temperature and soil humidity) would
result in conditions promoting fire throughout M. polycladus's range,
impacting individuals and reducing seed viability, and therefore
species' recruitment. Moreover, the absence of forest canopy on the
exposed limestone substrate where M. polycladus occurs reduces suitable
habitat conditions (i.e., hydrology and moisture retention) that buffer
the severity of stress resulting from environmental perturbations, such
as droughts.
The IPCC global models and scenarios analyzed for the downscaled
models apply to the Caribbean islands. Downscaled general circulation
models predict dramatic shifts in the life zones of Puerto Rico with
potential loss of subtropical rain, moist, and wet forest, and the
appearance of tropical dry and very dry forests anticipated (Khalyani
et al. 2016, p. 275). Some species may move to higher elevations in
response to this shift in life zones; however, the extent of a species'
ability to redistribute will depend on its dispersal capability and
forest connectivity (Khalyani et al. 2019, p. 11). Due to the low
dispersal capability of Mitracarpus polycladus, clumped spatial
distribution, habitat requirements (exposed limestone), and the limited
availability of the required habitat, a shift from dry to very dry
forest is expected to affect species' viability because of a lack of
suitable habitat and the species' inability to move to suitable
habitat. Based on the similarity of habitat and geographic proximity,
the effects of climate change on Anegada and Saba Islands are expected
to be similar to Puerto Rico as emissions increase, precipitation
declines, and temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in
extreme drought conditions that convert subtropical dry forest into dry
and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). In the subtropical
dry forest habitat where M. polycladus occurs, climate change may
impact the species through declines in natural recruitment and
population expansion.
Sea level rise is another expected effect of climate change that
may affect coastal communities and habitat in the Caribbean islands
(Penn 2010, entire; Lorde 2011, entire; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 1).
Integrated sea level rise projection and flood risk analysis predict
floods reaching 0.5 m (1.64 ft) above current high tide levels will
become common events throughout most of the Caribbean by 2050 (Strauss
and Kulp 2018, p. 2). Other scenarios using RCP4.5 and 8.5 forecast
that by mid-century, sea level is expected to increase by 0.24 m (0.8
ft) to 0.85 m (2.8 ft) (Church et al. 2013, p. 1182; Sweet et al. 2017,
p. 75; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 14). Based on these sea level rise
projections, coastal floods will negatively affect Mitracarpus
polycladus habitat at or below the 1.0 m (3.3 ft) sea level near the
coast or in areas with high coastal erosion through the effects of
saltwater inundation. In Puerto Rico, M. polycladus occurs at
elevations ranging from 1.5 m (5 ft) to 52 m (172 ft) from current sea
level (Service 2018b, p. 5). On Saba Island, M. polycladus occurs at an
elevation ranging from 12 m (40 ft) to 335 m (1,100 ft) (Rojer 1997, p.
19; Freitas et al 2016, p. 10). On Anegada Island, M. polycladus occurs
at elevations ranging from 1 m (3.2 ft) to 8 m (26 ft) from current sea
level (Barrios 2021, pers. comm.; Hamilton 2021, pers. comm.). Across
the range, the only known locality in an area with potential to be
affected by flooding and sea level rise is the Windlass site on Anegada
Island (approximately 200 M. polycladus individuals). The Windlass site
is located in the sandy and rocky areas on the northern coast of the
island where the habitat is subjected to high energy wave and coastal
erosion (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, p. 5). Mitracarpus
polycladus individuals occur in elevations higher than those we expect
to be impacted by sea level rise on Puerto Rico, Saba Island, and other
localities on Anegada Island. Based on predicted sea level rise and the
elevation where most individuals occur, we determined sea level rise
does not pose a threat to the species in the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, sea level rise may indirectly impact the species,
particularly on Anegada Island, through development associated with
displacement of the human population from coastal areas to inland and
urban areas where individuals of M. polycladus occur (Penn 2010, pp.
21, 249; Hamilton 2016, p. 101).
In summary, other natural and human-caused factors, such as the
limited distribution of the three known natural populations and the
effects of climate change (i.e., decreased rainfall, severe droughts,
and shift in life zones), are current threats to Mitracarpus
polycladus. The threats to the species will be exacerbated by the
expected changes in climatic conditions by 2050. We expect the
projected changes in habitat and microhabitat conditions of temperature
and rainfall will have negative effects on M. polycladus. The ecology
of M. polycladus appears closely linked to specific current climatic
conditions of rain seasonality and drought periods. By 2050, sea level
rise is expected to affect the Caribbean islands, including Puerto
Rico, Anegada Island, and Saba Island. We do not expect significant
effects to M. polycladus from sea level rise, although one coastal
locality on Anegada Island has the potential to be affected. Overall,
the effects of a changing climate on M. polycladus will be exacerbated
by the relatively low number of populations and habitat degradation and
fragmentation, which can affect the future viability of the species.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
In the final listing rule (59 FR 46715; September 9, 1994), we
identified the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as one of
the factors affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus
polycladus. At that time, the species had no legal protection, because
it had not been included in Puerto Rico's list of protected species.
[[Page 37487]]
After M. polycladus was listed under the Act, the Commonwealth
designated the species as endangered in 2004 (DRNA 2004, p. 56).
Presently, Mitracarpus polycladus is legally protected under
Commonwealth Law No. 241-1999 (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto Rico at
sections 107-107u), known as Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto Rico
(New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico). The purpose of this law is
multifaceted: to protect, conserve, and enhance both native and
migratory wildlife species; to declare as property of Puerto Rico all
wildlife species within its jurisdiction; to regulate permits and
hunting activities; and to regulate exotic species, among other
activities. This law also has provisions to protect habitat for all
wildlife and plant species. In 2004, the Department approved Regulation
6766 or Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las Especies Vulnerables y
en Peligro de Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto
Rico (Regulation 6766: To govern the management of threatened and
endangered species in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of
Regulation 6766 prohibits collecting, cutting, and removing, among
other activities, listed plant individuals within the jurisdiction of
Puerto Rico (DRNA 2004, p. 11). The provisions of Commonwealth Law No.
241-1999 and Regulation 6766 extend to private lands.
Mitracarpus polycladus that occur in the GCF are further protected
under Commonwealth Law No. 133-1975 (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto
Rico at sections 191-204), known as Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico
(Forest Act of Puerto Rico), as amended in 2000. Section 8(a) of this
law prohibits cutting down, killing, causing the deterioration of, bud
pruning, uprooting, or otherwise injuring or deteriorating any tree or
vegetation within a Commonwealth forest without authorization of the
Department Secretary (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto Rico at section
198). The Department also identified the GCF as a Critical Wildlife
Area. The designation is intended to provide information to
Commonwealth and Federal agencies about the conservation needs of these
areas, and assist permitting agencies in precluding adverse impacts as
a result of project endorsements or permit approvals (DNR 2005, pp.
211-216).
Although there are legal mechanisms in place (e.g., laws or
regulations) for the protection of Mitracarpus polycladus, the
enforcement of such mechanisms on private and public land is sometimes
challenging. For example, accidental damage by cutting, pruning,
mowing, or trampling, or even loss of M. polycladus individuals, may
occur when land managers or private landowners are not aware it is a
protected species. Land managers, landowners, and law enforcement
officers are not always aware of the localities occupied by the species
throughout its range or may have difficulty correctly identifying the
plant (Service 2018b, p. 10). Therefore, limited public awareness of
the species and its status exacerbates the challenge of implementation
of existing laws and regulations and affects conservation of M.
polycladus and its habitat.
On Anegada Island, various conservation and education efforts are
taking place for the protection of rare plant and animal species
(Gardner et al. 2008, entire; IRF 2013, p. 29). However, we are unaware
of any formal regulatory mechanism that protects Mitracarpus polycladus
on Anegada Island. Similarly, no terrestrial areas on Saba Island are
legally protected (Geelhoed et al. 2013, p. 12). A draft Island Nature
Protection Ordinance must be approved by each island's government in
the former Netherlands Antilles to facilitate the creation of island-
specific conservation legislation (Collier and Brown 2008, p. 259).
This process is ongoing within the Saba Island government, but to our
knowledge, no current legislation is in place for the designation of
terrestrial protected areas or conservation of species.
Outside of the protections provided by the Act, as previously
indicated, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally protects Mitracarpus
polycladus as an endangered species, including protections to its
habitat, through Commonwealth Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766,
which prohibit collecting, cutting, and removal, among other actions,
of listed plants. If this species is reclassified as a threatened
species under the Act, 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 is challenging. Mitracarpus polycladus habitat on private
land is subject to pressures from urbanization and tourism development.
Additionally, accidental damage or loss of individuals has occurred
because public land managers, private landowners, or other parties may
not be aware that it is a protected species. Nevertheless, this plant
is now more abundant, is widely distributed, and largely occurs within
conserved lands. Despite the existing regulatory mechanisms and
conservation efforts, the threats discussed above are still affecting
the species to the extent that it does not meet the criteria for
delisting. However, additional opportunities exist to engage the public
and provide information about M. polycladus and support the enforcement
of existing protective mechanisms.
Summary
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by Mitracarpus
polycladus in developing this proposed rule. Limited distribution and a
low number of individuals were considered a threat to M. polycladus
when we listed the species in 1994, but recent information indicates
the species is more abundant and widely distributed than was known at
the time of listing and most individuals occur in protected lands where
threats, although they still occur, are reduced. We determined that
habitat destruction and modification (e.g., vegetation clearance with
trail and road maintenance activities, human-caused fires, encroachment
by nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism
development), as well as other natural or manmade factors such as
limited distribution and the effects of climate change, will continue
to pose threats to M. polycladus populations over the foreseeable
future.
Species viability, or the species' ability to sustain populations
over time, is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic
events (redundancy), to adapt to changing environmental conditions
(representation), and to withstand stochastic disturbance of varying
magnitude and duration (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.
We evaluated the biological status of this species, both currently
and into the future, considering the species' viability as
characterized by its resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
Mitracarpus polycladus has demonstrated some level of resiliency to
natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the past. Adult individuals
have overcome disturbances such as droughts and habitat modification,
road and trail maintenance, and fires. However, seedlings are
susceptible to the effects of drought and to the invasion of nonnative
plant species after fire events. The lack of or reduced seedling
recruitment can affect population demographics and long-term viability
of the species.
[[Page 37488]]
For Mitracarpus polycladus to maintain viability, populations, or
some portion thereof, must be sufficiently resilient. Resiliency
describes the ability of population to withstand stochastic events
(arising random factors). We can measure resiliency based on metrics of
population health: for example, birth versus death rates and population
size. For this proposed rule, our classification of resiliency relies
heavily on the biology of the species and habitat characteristics in
the absence of highly certain population size or trend estimates.
We broadly define categories of resiliency for M. polycladus
populations by assessing demographic and habitat parameters and anchor
these categories in the species' needs and life-history
characteristics. Important species' characteristics center on the
species' seasonality, seedling mortality after drought, dispersal
capability, and competition with nonnative grasses for space and
resources. The demographic metrics we evaluated include abundance at
localities and evidence of reproduction or recruitment. We assessed
habitat characteristics, including the degree of habitat protection
(or, conversely, development risk), extent of suitable habitat,
connectivity to other localities, and vulnerability to threats. A
population may not exhibit each characteristic of the category as
defined, but most parameters known for the population fall into the
resilience category. For example, a population that is described as
highly resilient may have high abundance, high number of localities,
good distribution of localities, and recruitment at most localities,
but suitable habitat and connectivity may be limited.
Table 2--Definitions for Mitracarpus polycladus Population Resiliency
Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Moderate Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Abundance is high;. <bullet> Abundance <bullet> Abundance
<bullet> Number of is moderate;. is low;
localities is high, and <bullet> Number of <bullet> Number of
they occupy a greater localities is localities is
spatial extent within moderate, and they limited to one, and
suitable habitat;. occupy a limited it occupies a very
<bullet> Reproduction and spatial extent restricted spatial
recruitment are such that within suitable extent;
the population remains habitat;. <bullet> No
stable or increases;. <bullet> reproduction or
<bullet> Abundant suitable Reproduction and/or recruitment is
habitat occurs outside recruitment is occurring;
known localities; and. occurring at some <bullet> Mortality
<bullet> Connectivity occurs localities;. exceeds recruitment
among most localities.. <bullet> Recruitment such that the
and mortality are population is
equal such that the declining;
population does not <bullet> Limited or
grow or the no suitable habitat
population trend is occurs outside
unknown;. known locality; and
<bullet> Some <bullet> There is no
suitable habitat connectivity
occurs outside between localities
known localities; (single locality
and. population).
<bullet>
Connectivity occurs
between at least
two localities..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, three Mitracarpus polycladus natural populations are
known from three islands in the Caribbean (i.e., Puerto Rico, Anegada
Island, and Saba Island). In Puerto Rico, many M. polycladus adult
individuals occur in small clusters, and seedlings have been
documented, particularly after rain events. Information from Anegada
Island and Saba Island is very limited, making it difficult to
determine the level of population resiliency. However, both of those
populations of M. polycladus demonstrate some level of resiliency as
they are still present on both islands and have presumably overcome
historical disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, including
habitat modification.
The short time it takes M. polycladus to reach reproductive size
and the extent of seed production facilitates population-level
resiliency. However, resiliency is limited by the small size of
clusters of individuals, species' seasonality, low dispersal capacity,
and high seedling mortality. We have no evidence that known M.
polycladus clusters are expanding or colonizing suitable habitat away
from roads and trails. The lack of expansion and colonization results
in isolated clusters with an increased chance of reduced genetic
variation due to genetic drift, potentially resulting in inbreeding
depression and lower resiliency. In addition, M. polycladus has been
displaced by nonnative, invasive species after habitat disturbance by
fire, which further precludes the effective recruitment of the species.
The M. polycladus population in Puerto Rico occurs on 0.44 ha (1.1 ac)
of habitat in 10 naturally occurring and 1 introduced locality.
Suitable habitat connects some, but not all, localities. Habitat
protection and enhancement to increase connectivity between scattered
localities in Puerto Rico is important to maximize the resiliency of
the M. polycladus population. The Saba and Anegada Islands populations
occur in limited areas as well and although the species has persisted
in these locations, the population trend and extent are not known.
Overall, the limited areal extent of M. polycladus contributes to its
susceptibility to stochastic and catastrophic events. Based on these
factors, we determined the Puerto Rico population currently exhibits
moderate resiliency and the Anegada and Saba Islands populations
exhibit unknown or likely low resiliency.
The species' viability is also affected by its ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions. We have no information on the
genetic variability of Mitracarpus polycladus nor information on
variation in adaptive life-history traits, and, therefore, we evaluated
the species' ability to adapt based on its likelihood of maintaining
the breadth of genetic diversity and gene flow. This species occurs in
small patches of suitable habitat within subtropical dry forest in
three islands of the Caribbean with little variation in habitat
conditions between populations. Historically, genetic diversity may
have contributed to the species' ability to adapt to changing
conditions (to adapt or shift in place). We expect that the species has
maintained some underlying genetic diversity, but as threats affect the
species' viability in the future, this genetic diversity may be
reduced, and the species will be less able to adapt. Currently, M.
polycladus representation relies on the genetic contribution of only
three disconnected and distinctive populations: Puerto Rico, Saba
Island, and Anegada Island. In Puerto Rico, the natural population
occurs in scattered clusters along approximately 5 miles of
southwestern Puerto Rico coastline. Although on protected land, some
localities are subject to human-caused fires and habitat encroachment
by invasive grasses, which increase the distance between clusters and
further affect cross-pollination. On Anegada
[[Page 37489]]
and Saba Islands, M. polycladus individuals are also clustered in a
small area vulnerable to the effects of urbanization and development,
as well as human-caused fires and encroachment by invasive grasses.
Rangewide, all populations are vulnerable to the effects of climate
change (i.e., decreased rainfall, severe droughts, and shift in life
zones), which could result in the extirpation of clusters of
individuals and the loss of genetic representation.
The ability of the species to adapt is also a function of the level
of gene flow between populations. The three populations are
disconnected; thus, gene flow is limited to individuals within
populations. Small, isolated populations are susceptible to the loss of
genetic diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding, which will affect the
ability of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions
over time. At this time, the most updated information shows that the
species' occurrences remain stable; thus, the species does not appear
to be affected by genetic drift at present. However, gene flow is
limited to individuals within populations due to the lack of
connectivity that would allow cross-pollination among populations. As
fragmentation increases, gene flow will be reduced further, and the
populations will become more vulnerable to genetic drift and
inbreeding, thereby reducing the species' ability to adapt to changing
conditions. We determined M. polycladus representation is likely
somewhat reduced from historical representation due to reduced or
fragmented habitat conditions, but maintains moderate adaptive capacity
for the species.
Lastly, the species' viability depends on its ability to withstand
catastrophic events, which is a function of the number and distribution
of M. polycladus populations. The more sufficiently resilient
populations, and the wider the distribution of those populations, the
more redundancy the species will exhibit. The number and distribution
of localities in each population continue to occur in the same
geographic area and are exposed to naturally occurring levels of
catastrophic events. The primary catastrophic risks include drought and
fire. These factors are expected to increase with the subtropical dry
forest shifting to very dry forest habitat within the foreseeable
future. Hence, we expect the risk of catastrophic events to increase in
the foreseeable future. The species' largest population (Puerto Rico)
is moderately resilient and the species now occurs in a wider rangewide
distribution than was known historically; therefore, we have determined
M. polycladus has maintained moderate species redundancy.
In summary, the current abundance of Mitracarpus polycladus has
increased and some of the identified threats have decreased since
listing in 1994. However, our analysis indicates that threats and
stressors continue to affect the species. We based our analyses on
biological factors, expert judgments regarding the consequences of
interacting stressors to the species' viability, and our assessment of
likely future habitat conditions.
Determination of Mitracarpus polycladus's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely
to become an endangered species 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we have determined that Mitracarpus polycladus' current
viability is higher than was known at the time of listing (current
abundance estimate of more than 20,000 adult individuals in three
populations) and most individuals occur on protected lands where
threats are reduced. Accordingly, we find that the species is not in
danger of extinction and no longer meets the Act's definition of an
endangered species.
At the time of listing, the known range of Mitracarpus polycladus
consisted of an undetermined number of individuals located in a single
population in southern Puerto Rico and from one record on Saba Island.
The primary threats were habitat destruction and modification,
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and limited distribution
(59 FR 46715, September 9, 1994, pp. 46716-46717). Currently, M.
polycladus is known to occur in 11 localities within an areal extent of
0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in southern Puerto Rico and several localities on Saba
Island and Anegada Island. In Puerto Rico, about 89 percent of the
known M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, a forest managed
for conservation by the Department in a manner compatible with M.
polycladus's needs and protected by Commonwealth regulations.
However, although now known to be more widespread and abundant than
previously thought, the remaining 11 percent of individuals on Puerto
Rico and individuals on Saba and Anegada Islands occur on private lands
and are at risk due to habitat destruction and modification from wind
farm projects, urbanization, and tourism development. Accidental damage
to M. polycladus also occurs because private landowners and road and
trail maintenance crews may not be aware it is a protected species or
may not be able to identify it. Information from Puerto Rico also
indicates that threats from human-caused fires, human trampling, and
nonnative and invasive species are acting on M. polycladus on both
public and private lands. Some of these threats could be more severe
for the populations on private lands, since there are no fire
management prevention practices implemented, making the species more
vulnerable to impacts. On both Saba and Anegada Islands, the species
also faces threats due to residential and commercial development and
degradation due to uncontrolled grazing of feral livestock. Information
from Anegada Island and Saba Island is very limited, making it
difficult to determine the level of population resiliency; however,
both populations demonstrate some level of resiliency as they are still
present on both islands and have presumably overcome historical
disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, including habitat
modification. Thus, we determined the Puerto Rico population currently
exhibits moderate resiliency and the resiliency of the Anegada and Saba
Islands populations is unknown or likely low.
Furthermore, the species' distribution is wider than known at the
time of listing, and the species' listing by the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico provides some level of protection to Mitracarpus polycladus.
However, there continues to be concern about present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
(specifically, maintenance of existing roads and trails, human
trampling, human-caused fires, encroachment of
[[Page 37490]]
nonnative and invasive species after fires and other habitat
modification activities, and urbanization and tourism development)
(Factor A); and other natural or manmade factors affecting the
continued existence of Mitracarpus polycladus throughout its range
(specifically, limited distribution and the effects of climate change)
(Factor E). The species is not affected by stressors related to
overutilization. The best available information does not indicate that
diseases are affecting the species or feral livestock are specifically
targeting this species and consuming it. Despite the identification of
these threats that currently continue to act upon the species, the
species overall--and the Puerto Rico population in particular--appears
sufficiently resilient to the current magnitude and scope of threats
acting upon it.
In summary, Mitracarpus polycladus is distributed across a narrow
range, but the number of localities within populations and
environmental conditions have improved since the time of listing. Given
the species' current resiliency and ability to withstand catastrophic
events and adapt to changing conditions, the species is not currently
in danger of extinction throughout its range. Therefore, we proceed
with determining whether M. polycladus is threatened (i.e., is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future) throughout all of
its range.
Based on biological factors and stressors to the species'
viability, we determined 25 years to be the foreseeable future within
which we can reasonably project threats and the species' response to
those threats. The foreseeable future for the individual factors and
threats varies. We reviewed available information including forest
management plans, proposed development projects, and fire history
within the range of the species, to inform our assessment of likely
future levels for each threat. Projections out to the year 2050 predict
increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation (Khalyani et
al. 2016, pp. 274-275). However, divergence in temperature and
precipitation projections increases dramatically after mid-century
among climate change scenarios (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275), making
late-century projections more uncertain. Therefore, our ability to
reliably predict stressors associated with climate change is reduced
beyond mid-century. In addition, observation of threats and the effects
of those threats on the species since listing more than 25 years ago
has given us a baseline to understand how threats described above may
impact the species. For example, we have observed the effects of
habitat destruction and modification (such as vegetation clearance for
maintaining or improving trails and access roads, human trampling,
human-caused fires, invasive species, and urban and tourist
development), and climate change (predicted changes in temperature,
increased droughts, and life zones shifting) on the species since its
listing and can reliably predict the species' response to these
threats.
The 25-year period includes multiple generations of the species and
allows adequate time for impacts from conservation efforts or changes
in threats to be observed through population responses. For example,
this timeframe accounts for the species' reproductive biology, and thus
the time required by multiple generations of Mitracarpus polycladus to
reach a reproductive size and effectively contribute to the viability
of the species. It accounts for reaching maturity, flowering, setting
viable fruits and seeds, seed germination, and seedling survival and
establishment, and allows environmental stochastic events such as
severe drought periods to affect the species. Furthermore, the
established timeframe provides an opportunity to analyze the
implications of the Department's forest management actions, and
existing laws and regulations to protect currently known populations.
Although population numbers and abundance of M. polycladus have
increased and the species' occurrences appear stable, threats remain in
magnitude, scope, and impact over time. Habitat destruction and
modification, such as vegetation clearance for maintaining or improving
trails and access roads, human trampling, human-caused fires, invasive
species, and urban and tourist development (Factor A), and other
natural or manmade factors such as the effects of climate change
(Factor E) may limit the species' abundance and distribution of
occurrences. Gene flow will continue to be limited to individuals
within populations due to the lack of connectivity that would allow
cross-pollination among populations; populations may become more
vulnerable to genetic drift and inbreeding thereby reducing the
species' ability to adapt to changing conditions. Although much of the
Puerto Rico population occurs in the GCF, which is managed for
conservation, actions that benefit the species will not eliminate the
threats of trail maintenance, trampling, nonnative and invasive
species, and human-caused fires and these threats are expected to
continue to affect the species in the foreseeable future. Proposed
urbanization and tourism development projects may be completed in the
foreseeable future. Furthermore, under climate change projections, the
risk of catastrophic drought and fire is expected to increase with the
subtropical dry forest shifting to very dry forest habitat within the
foreseeable future. The magnitude of effects associated with habitat
destruction and modification and with climate change are expected to
continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Despite
the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts, the
threats discussed above are still affecting the species to the extent
that it does not meet the criteria for delisting. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we conclude that M. polycladus is not
currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
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 Service
does 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
[[Page 37491]]
consider whether there are any significant portions of the species'
range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for Mitracarpus polycladus,
we choose to address the status question first--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 endangered. Types of threats and levels of threats
are more likely to vary across a species' range if the species has a
large range rather than a very small natural range, such as M.
polycladus. Species with limited ranges are more likely to experience
the same types and generally the same levels of threats in all parts of
their range.
For Mitracarpus polycladus, 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 loss and modification
due to vegetation maintenance or trimming along roads and trails, human
trampling, and urbanization and tourism development; human-caused
fires; nonnative invasive plant species; the effects of climate change
(prolonged droughts, expected shifts of life zones, and sea level
rise); and synergistic and cumulative effects. We also considered
whether these threats may be exacerbated by small population size and
limited connectivity between populations. For detailed description of
each threat, see Summary of Biological Status and Threats, above.
Habitat modification poses a threat to most of the 11 Mitracarpus
polycladus localities in Puerto Rico, as well as the populations on
Saba and Anegada Islands. The M. polycladus populations on Puerto Rico,
Anegada Island, and Saba Island experience threats of habitat
degradation and modification due to vegetation clearance for
maintenance and improvement of roads and trails, urbanization and
tourism development, human-caused fires, and the subsequent
encroachment of nonnative and invasive species. In addition,
approximately 11 percent of M. polycladus individuals in Puerto Rico
occur on private lands that are exposed to the threat of development
more so than plants on protected lands. Moreover, the species'
localities in Puerto Rico are distributed across a limited geographic
area. Although climate change is expected to affect M. polycladus
populations in the foreseeable future, we determined that climate
change does not represent a current threat to the species; therefore,
our assessment of the threat of climate change as a future threat is
consistent with our ``threatened'' determination.
Small population size can exacerbate other threats acting on the
species. The information regarding Mitracarpus polycladus populations
on Anegada and Saba Islands is more limited than that regarding the
Puerto Rico population. Based on the best available information for
Anegada and Saba Islands, these populations are currently small or
assumed to be small (2,500 on Anegada Island and unknown abundance on
Saba Island) and in a few localities with limited distribution. Ten of
the 11 localities on Puerto Rico also occur in clusters with low
numbers of individuals that are isolated from other clusters, but the
species is represented by a wider distribution on Puerto Rico than on
Anegada and Saba Islands. Despite the rarity of M. polycladus on
Anegada and Saba Islands, the species has demonstrated continued
presence for decades in some localities. Although species' persistence
does not equate with high resiliency or viability of a population or
species, we expect M. polycladus populations to maintain resiliency in
the future, despite ongoing threats. Therefore, small population size
and low abundance in these localities, even when considered in the
context of other threats, do not represent a concentration of threats
at a biologically meaningful scale such that the species may be in
danger of extinction in this portion. Based on our review of
information and the synergistic effects of threats on Anegada and Saba
Islands, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis
for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range.
Overall, we found that threats are likely acting on individuals or
populations similarly across the species' range. These threats are
certain to occur, and populations are facing the same extent of
threats, even though certain populations may have fewer occurrences. We
found no concentration of threats in any portion of Mitracarpus
polycladus'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 in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not need to consider
whether any portions are significant and, therefore, did not apply the
aspects of the Final Policy's definition of ``significant'' that those
court decisions held were invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that Mitracarpus polycladus meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to reclassify
M. polycladus as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
II. Proposed Rule Under Section 4(d) 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. Because we are proposing to reclassify
this species as a threatened species, the prohibitions in section 9
would not apply directly. 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.
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language 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,
[[Page 37492]]
the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the
Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened
species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish
or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the
combination of the two sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary
with wide latitude of discretion to select and promulgate appropriate
regulations tailored to the specific conservation needs of the
threatened species. The second sentence grants particularly broad
discretion to us when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld 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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species.
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such
species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote the
conservation of M. polycladus by encouraging management of the
landscape in ways that meet both land management considerations and the
conservation needs of M. polycladus. The provisions of this proposed
rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote the
conservation of M. polycladus. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only
if and when we make final the reclassification of M. polycladus as a
threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
Exercising this authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have
developed a proposed rule that is designed to address Mitracarpus
polycladus' specific threats and conservation needs. As discussed above
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that
Mitracarpus polycladus is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future primarily due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (specifically, human-caused fires, nonnative and invasive
species, and urbanization and tourism development); and other natural
or manmade factors (specifically, the effects of climate change).
Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as she
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each
threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those
protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(2) of
the Act prescribes for endangered species. We find that, if finalized,
the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this proposed rule as
a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of M. polycladus.
The protective regulations we are proposing for Mitracarpus
polycladus incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(2) to address the
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(2) prohibits the following
activities for endangered plants: importing or exporting; certain acts
related to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving,
carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce. These proposed protective
regulations include all of these prohibitions for M. polycladus because
the species is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and
putting these prohibitions in place will help to protect the species'
remaining populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other threats. For example,
modifying the habitat of the species on Federal lands without
authorization (e.g., unauthorized opening of trails, etc.) would be
considered a violation of this rule. Also, removing, cutting, digging
up, or damaging or destroying of the species on any non-Federal lands
in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the Territory or in
the course of any violation of the Territory's criminal trespass law
would be considered a violation. As a whole, the proposed 4(d) rule for
this species would help in the efforts to recover M. polycladus.
In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the
conservation of Mitracarpus polycladus by prohibiting the following
activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are
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 activity; or selling or offering for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. The exceptions to the prohibitions
would include all of the general exceptions to the prohibition against
removing and reducing to possession endangered plants, as set forth in
50 CFR 17.61.
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more
otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The
regulations that govern permits for threatened plants state that the
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise
prohibited with regard to threatened species (50 CFR 17.72). Those
regulations also state that the permit shall be governed by the
provisions of Sec. 17.72 unless a special rule applicable to the plant
is provided in Sec. Sec. 17.73 to 17.78. Therefore, permits for
threatened species are governed by the provisions of Sec. 17.72 unless
a species-specific 4(d) rule provides otherwise. However, under our
recent revisions to Sec. 17.71, the prohibitions in Sec. 17.71(a)
will not apply to any plant listed as a threatened species after
September 26, 2019. As a result, for threatened plant species listed
after that date, any protections must be contained in a species-
specific 4(d) rule. We did not intend for those revisions to limit or
alter the applicability of the permitting provisions in Sec. 17.72, or
to require that every species-specific 4(d) rule spell out any
permitting provisions that apply to that species and species-specific
4(d) rule. To the contrary, we anticipate that permitting provisions
would generally be similar or identical for most species, so applying
the provisions of Sec. 17.72 unless a species-specific 4(d) rule
provides otherwise would likely avoid substantial duplication.
Moreover, this interpretation brings Sec. 17.72 in line with the
comparable provision for wildlife at 50 CFR 17.32, in which the second
sentence states that the permit shall be governed by the provisions of
Sec. 17.32 unless a special rule applicable to the wildlife, appearing
in 50 CFR 17.40 to 17.48, provides otherwise. Under 50
[[Page 37493]]
CFR 17.72 with regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other activities
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act. Additional
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and
10 of the Act.
We recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of activities
with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the
propagation of the species and, therefore, 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 species' survival in the wild. In this
regard, seeds of cultivated specimens would not be subject to the
prohibitions above, provided that a statement that the seeds are of
``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or their container (50 CFR
17.71(a)).
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State and
Territorial natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State and Territorial agencies often
possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of
wildlife and plants. State and Territorial agencies, because of their
authorities and their close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in
implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the
Act provides that the Service shall cooperate to the maximum extent
practicable with the States and Territories in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
Territorial conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative
agreement with us 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 Mitracarpus polycladus that may
result in otherwise prohibited activities without additional
authorization.
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
Mitracarpus polycladus. 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 This Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(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 under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under
the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48
FR 49244). We also determine that 4(d) rules that accompany regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are not subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 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 no Tribes will
be affected by this proposed reclassification.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
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. In Sec. 17.12 in paragraph (h) amend the table by revising the
entry for ``Mitracarpus polycladus'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:
[[Page 37494]]
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Mitracarpus polycladus........ No common name... Wherever found... T 59 FR 46715, 9/9/1994;
[Federal Register citation
of final rule]; 50 CFR
17.73(l).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. As proposed to be amended at 85 FR 58224 (September 17, 2020), 85 FR
61684 (September 30, 2020), 86 FR 18014 (April 7, 2021), 85 FR 66906
(October 21, 2020), 86 FR 3976 (January 15, 2021), 86 FR 33159 (June
24, 2021), and 86 FR 37091 (July 14, 2021), Sec. 17.73 is further
amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.73 Special rules--flowering plants.
* * * * *
(l) Mitracarpus polycladus (no common name)
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered plants also apply to Mitracarpus polycladus. Except as
provided under paragraph (l)(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 the species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy the species on any
such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the species on
any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the
Territory or in the course of any violation of a Territorial criminal
trespass law.
(iii) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(d) for endangered plants.
(iv) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.61(e) for
endangered plants.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by permit under Sec. 17.72.
(ii) Remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy on areas not under
Federal jurisdiction if you are a qualified employee or agent of the
Service or Territorial conservation agency which is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c)
of the Act, and you have been designated by that agency for such
purposes, when acting in the course of official duties.
(iii) Engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (l)(1) of this
section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement
that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or
their container.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-13229 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 23, 2022.
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.