Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37091 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated July 21, 2020, and effective 

September 15, 2020. FAA Order 

7400.11E is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA proposes an amendment to 

Title 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D 

airspace, increasing the radius to 4.7 

miles from 4.5 miles, removing Class E 

airspace area designated as an extension 

to Class D and Class E surface area, as 

it is no longer necessary, and amend 

Class E airspace extending upward from 

700 feet above the surface at Portsmouth 

International Airport at Pease, 

Portsmouth, NH, due to the 

decommissioning of the PEASE VOR/ 

DME and cancellation of the associated 

approach procedures (SIAPs). This 

action would update the airport name to 

Portsmouth International Airport at 

Pease, formerly Pease International 

Tradeport. In addition, the FAA would 

update the geographic coordinates of the 

airport and Littlebrook Air Park to 

coincide with the FAA’s database. 

Class D and E airspace designations 

are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, 

and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 

7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’, prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ANE NH D Portsmouth, NH [Amended] 

Portsmouth International Airport at Pease, 

NH 

(Lat. 43°04′41′′ N, long. 70°49′24′′ W) 

Eliot, Littlebrook Air Park, ME 

(Lat. 43°08′35′′ N, long. 70°46′24′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL 

within a 4.7-mile radius of the Portsmouth 

International Airport at Pease, excluding that 

airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of the 

Littlebrook Air Park. 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace 

Designated as an Extension to Class E 

Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

ANE NH E4 Portsmouth, NH [Removed] 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward from 700 feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ANE NH E5 Portsmouth, NH [Amended] 

Portsmouth International Airport at Pease, 

NH 

(Lat. 43°04′41′′ N, long. 70°49′24′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile 

radius of Portsmouth International Airport at 

Pease. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 8, 

2021. 

Andreese C. Davis, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14932 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BE56 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the Palo 

de Rosa From Endangered to 

Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia 

rhodoxylon) from endangered to 

threatened (downlist) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The proposed 

downlisting is based on our evaluation 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, which 

indicates that the species’ status has 

improved such that it is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, but that 

it is still likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. We also propose a 

rule under section 4(d) of the Act that 

provides for the conservation of palo de 

rosa. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 13, 2021. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for a 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 30, 2021. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37092 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail: 

Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W (JAO), 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule, list of literature cited, and 

supporting documents are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edwin Mun ̃iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. 

Box 491, Boquero ́n, PR 00622; 

telephone (787) 851–7297. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may warrant 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of endangered (in danger of 

extinction). The palo de rosa is listed as 

endangered, and we are proposing to 

reclassify (downlist) palo de rosa as 

threatened, because we have determined 

it is not currently in danger of 

extinction. Downlisting a species as a 

threatened species can only be 

accomplished by issuing a rulemaking. 

What this document does. This rule 

proposes to reclassify palo de rosa as a 

threatened species on the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants and 

to establish provisions under section 

4(d) of the Act that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of this species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species based on any of the five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. In our August 2017 5-year 

status review, we recommended 

downlisting this species from 

endangered to threatened based on our 

evaluation of these factors. We may 

downlist a species if the best available 

commercial and scientific data indicate 

the species no longer meets the 

applicable definition in the Act. We 

have determined that palo de rosa is no 

longer in danger of extinction and, 

therefore, does not meet the definition 

of an endangered species. However, the 

species meets the definition of a 

threatened species under the Act 

because it is affected by the following 

current and ongoing threats: Habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

from urban development; agricultural 

practices and rights-of-way 

maintenance, coupled with habitat 

intrusion by exotics; other natural or 

manmade factors, such as hurricanes; 

and this tree’s slow growth, limited 

dispersal, and low recruitment. 

The information used for our 2017 5- 

year review, and the best currently 

available information, indicate that 

there are at least 1,144 known 

individuals (including adults and 

saplings) of palo de rosa. These 

individuals are distributed in at least 66 

subpopulations (which include the 16 

known localities identified at the time 

of the recovery plan development) 

throughout Puerto Rico. About 25 (38 

percent) of those subpopulations show 

evidence of reproduction or natural 

recruitment (USFWS 2017, p. 6, table 1). 

The increase in the number of known 

individuals and new localities reflects 

increased survey efforts but does not 

necessarily indicate that previously 

known populations are naturally 

expanding their range. Approximately 

70 percent of individuals occur in areas 

managed under some conservation 

status or in areas subject to little habitat 

modification due to the steep 

topography in the northern karst region 

of Puerto Rico. The remaining 

individuals occur within areas severely 

encroached and vulnerable to urban or 

infrastructure development. 

The slow growth of this tree and its 

reproductive biology suggest that palo 

de rosa is a late successional species, 

whose saplings may remain under 

closed canopy until a natural 

disturbance induces favorable 

conditions for their development. 

Although natural disturbances (e.g., 

tropical storms or hurricanes) can 

promote the recruitment of saplings into 

adulthood, the palo de rosa population 

should be composed of different size 

classes in order to be able to withstand 

such stochastic events. 

Recovery actions such as propagation 

and planting have shown to be feasible, 

and the species is currently being 

propagated by the Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources (PRDNER), 

and planted in the Susu ́ a and Guajataca 

Commonwealth Forests, as well as on 

lands within Fort Buchanan, owned by 

the U.S. Army. We have established a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

with Fort Buchanan and PRDNER to 

address the conservation of the species 

within Fort Buchanan and to promote 

the propagation of palo de rosa for 

recovery purposes (U.S. Army, Fort 

Buchanan 2015, entire). 

We are proposing to promulgate a 

section 4(d) rule. We propose to adopt 

the Act’s section 9(a)(2) prohibitions as 

a means to provide protective 

mechanisms to palo de rosa. We also 

propose specific tailored exceptions to 

these prohibitions to allow certain 

activities covered by a permit or by an 

approved cooperative agreement to 

carry out conservation programs, which 

would facilitate the conservation and 

recovery of the species. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

downlist palo de rosa as a threatened 

species. 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of palo de rosa. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to palo de rosa, 

including habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation; habitat intrusion by 

exotics; hurricanes; and this tree’s slow 

growth, limited dispersal, and low 

recruitment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37093 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat use of palo 

de rosa. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of palo de 

rosa that may have adverse or beneficial 

impacts on the species. 

(6) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of palo de rosa and that 

the Service can consider in developing 

a 4(d) rule for the species. 

(7) Information concerning the extent 

to which we should include any of the 

section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or 

whether any other activities should be 

excepted from the prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule (to the extent permitted by 

Commonwealth law). 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparing this proposed rule, will be 

available for public inspection at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059 on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species should remain listed as 

endangered instead of being reclassified 

as threatened, or we may conclude that 

the species no longer warrants listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In addition, we may 

change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions if we conclude it is 

appropriate in light of comments and 

new information received. 

Public Hearing 

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

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ which was 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memorandum ‘‘Peer Review 

Process,’’ we will seek the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

and independent specialists regarding 

the scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed rule. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to the 

peer reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will ensure that the opinions of peer 

reviewers are objective and unbiased by 

following the guidelines set forth in the 

Director’s Memo, which updates and 

clarifies Service policy on peer review 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, 

entire). The purpose of such review is 

to ensure that our decisions are based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, 

our final decision may differ from this 

proposal. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 10, 1990, we published a 

final rule listing palo de rosa as an 

endangered species in the Federal 

Register (55 FR 13488). The final rule 

identified the following threats to palo 

de rosa: Loss of habitat due to past 

deforestation and urban development; 

forest management practices that do not 

take the species into consideration; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and the species’ 

vulnerability to natural disturbances 

such as flash flooding along stream 

beds. On September 20, 1994, we 

completed the recovery plan for this 

species (USFWS 1994, entire). We 

completed a 5-year status review on 

August 9, 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). In 

that review, we recommended that palo 

de rosa be downlisted to threatened 

because new occurrences of the species 

have been located and a substantial 

number of individuals have been 

documented (i.e., 963 adult individuals 

(not considering seedlings or saplings) 

in 54 subpopulations). The 5-year 

review is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. 

For additional details on previous 

Federal actions, see Recovery, below. 

See https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/ 

speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK for the 

species profile for this tree. 

I. Proposed Reclassification 

Determination 

Species Information 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the palo de rosa was 

presented in the 5-year review (USFWS 

2017, entire). Below, we present a 

summary of the biological and 

distributional information discussed in 

the 5-year review and new information 

published or obtained since. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Palo de rosa is a small evergreen tree 

that may reach up to 15 meters (m) (49 

feet (ft)) in height and is a member of 

the Icacinaceae family (USFWS 1994, p. 

1). The branches are smooth and dark 

gray and have conspicuous small 

lenticels (raised pores on the stem of a 

woody plant that allows gas exchange 

with the atmosphere and internal 

tissues) (Liogier 1994, p. 41). Leaves are 

ovate, are rounded or in some cases 

elliptic, and occasionally have an acute 

apex and short (6–8 millimeters (mm) 

(0.2–0.3 inches (in)) petiolate; flowers 

are solitary or grouped in a three to five 

flower cluster. The fruit is about 2.5 

centimeters (cm) (0.98 in) long and up 

to 2.2 cm (0.86 in) wide and is smooth 

and with a thin outer layer that turns 

dark purple when ripe. The seed is 

about 2 cm (0.8 in) long (Liogier 1994, 

p. 41; Santiago Valentı ́n and ViruetOquendo 2013, p. 62). Palo de rosa may 

be difficult to identify when sterile. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Reproductive Biology 

When the palo de rosa recovery plan 

was written, information about the 

flowering and fruiting pattern was 

limited due to the species not being 

well-studied and the infrequent 

observation of reproductive events, 

although flowering was observed in May 

and July 1993 (USFWS 1994, p. 5). A 

morphological description of the palo 

de rosa flower and fruit was completed 

based on material collected from wild 

individuals, cultivated material, and 

data from herbarium specimens 

(Santiago-Valentı ́n and Viruet-Oquendo 

2013, entire). The species bears 

hermaphrodite flowers, flowers for a 

short period at the beginning of the 

rainy season and develops fruits 

subsequently until November (Breckon 

and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; SantiagoValentı ́n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. 

62). Few buds and flowers occurred 

from April to May, with an explosive 

flowering in June, coinciding with the 

beginning of the rainy season in May. 

Herbarium specimens demonstrated 

flowering and fruiting between May and 

July, with an exception of one specimen 

with flowers collected in December 

(Santiago-Valentin and Viruet-Oquendo 

2013, p. 62). Flower and fruit 

production are documented in 

individuals with diameters at breast 

high greater than 5 in (12.7 cm). Despite 

the high number of adult individuals 

reported, only a few reach that stem size 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; 

USFWS 2009, unpubl. data). 

The cluster distribution of seedlings 

under the parent trees indicates that 

seeds are dispersed by gravity. 

Subpopulations in northern Puerto Rico 

are located on top of limestone hills 

indicating that some disperser (e.g., 

animal vector) took them there in the 

past (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Fruit-eating 

bats are a possible seed disperser 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15). 

However, camera monitoring of a tree 

bearing mature fruits at the Gua ́nica 

Commonwealth Forest (GCF) showed 

that despite the high availability of 

mature fruits, bats ignored them 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2004, pers. obs.). The 

Puerto Rican flower bat (Phyllonycteris 

major) is an extirpated frugivorous bat 

(Rodrı ́guez-Dura ́n and Kunz 2001, p. 

358), and could have acted as a natural 

disperser of palo de rosa (MonsegurRivera 2004–present, pers. obs.). 

Another hypothesis is that bats no 

longer recognize palo de rosa fruit as a 

food source due to the small size of the 

currently known subpopulations when 

compared to other food sources 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2004–present, pers. 

obs.). Dispersal by water has been 

hypothesized for the subpopulations in 

the southern coast, as these 

subpopulations are located at the 

bottom of small drainages. However, 

observations in GCF indicate that 

establishment of seedlings in these 

drainages is low, because seeds are 

buried by sediments and small plants 

are uprooted by high flows during 

storms (Monsegur-Rivera 2007, pers. 

obs.). 

Due to the infrequency of fruit 

production, germination experiments 

have been limited. Attempts to 

germinate seeds from the Dorado 

(Mogotes de Higuillar) population 

(northern Puerto Rico) have proven to 

be difficult (10 percent success) as the 

majority of seeds were attacked by 

insects (Coleoptera) (Ruiz Lebro ́n 2002, 

p. 2). The species also has been 

germinated by PRDNER and the 

University of Puerto Rico (Caraballo 

2009, pers. comm.). In February 2007, a 

preliminary germination trial of palo de 

rosa obtained a 50 percent germination 

success (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl. 

data). The germination starts with the 

development of a long taproot, probably 

an adaptation to secure the 

establishment of the seedlings under 

closed canopy conditions with a thick 

bed of leaf litter. Despite damage to the 

apical meristem (tissue in which new 

stem and root growth occurs) of the 

seedlings, seedlings were able to regrow 

and produced a new stem (MonsegurRivera, unpubl. data). This finding 

indicates that propagation of the species 

is feasible and may be used in palo de 

rosa recovery efforts. Palo de rosa is not 

known to reproduce vegetatively, 

although multiple stems may regrow 

from a tree that has been cut. 

Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat 

Palo de rosa was described by Ignatius 

Urban (1908) from material collected by 

Leopold Krug near the municipality of 

Mayagu ̈ ez in 1876 (Liogier 1994, p. 42). 

Based on the description of the type 

locality (area from where the species 

was originally collected and described), 

the collection site may correspond to an 

area known as Cerro Las Mesas. At the 

time of listing, palo de rosa was known 

from nine individuals in three areas and 

considered endemic to Hispaniola and 

Puerto Rico (55 FR 13488, April 10, 

1990, p. 55 FR 13489). Subpopulations 

and populations were not defined or 

identified at the time of listing. The 

species was known from the limestone 

hills near the municipality of Bayamo ́n 

in northern Puerto Rico, several sites in 

the GCF in southwest Puerto Rico, and 

one individual on the southern slopes of 

the Maricao Commonwealth Forest 

(MCF) (55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990, p. 

55 FR 13489). 

At the time the recovery plan was 

written in 1994, there was little 

information on the species’ distribution, 

ecology, and reproductive biology; 

therefore, in the recovery plan, species 

experts considered each subpopulation 

or cluster of individuals as a population. 

The recovery plan describes additional 

individuals observed as a result of 

increased survey efforts in suitable 

habitat. In the 1994 recovery plan, we 

estimated 200 palo de rosa individuals 

in 16 populations (now defined as 

subpopulations and noted with ‘‘(RP)’’ 

in the table below). An additional 

population (now considered a 

subpopulation) was reported in 1996, 

increasing the total number of trees to 

207 adult individuals (Breckon and 

Kolterman 1996, p. 4). 

The current understanding of palo de 

rosa’s biological and ecological 

requirements has led us to define a 

population as a geographical area with 

unique features (substrate or climate) 

and continuous forested habitat that 

provides for genetic exchange among 

subpopulations (i.e., cross-pollination) 

where the species occurs. We further 

considered natural barriers (e.g., 

mountain ranges and river valleys) and 

extensive gaps of forested habitat to 

discern the boundaries of these broader 

populations because connectivity 

between subpopulations is critical to 

support a functional population of palo 

de rosa due to the cross-pollination 

requirement of the species. 

Furthermore, the flowering of palo de 

rosa is sporadic and not synchronized, 

thus prompting us to further define a 

population as groups of subpopulations 

that show connectivity to secure crosspollination. Based on the above 

information, we have determined palo 

de rosa to be distributed across Puerto 

Rico in 14 populations composed of 66 

subpopulations containing 1,144 

individuals (not including seedlings). 

Following this approach, 8 of the 14 

current populations (containing 47 

subpopulations with approximately 804 

individuals) occur in the geographical 

areas associated with the 16 populations 

(now defined as subpopulations) 

included in the Service’s 1994 recovery 

plan. Since 1994, we have identified 6 

additional populations (as currently 

defined) composed of 19 

subpopulations (342 individuals) 

ranging in size from 5 to 124 individuals 

in areas associated with remnants of 

forested habitat suitable for the species. 

Thus, these additional occurrences are 

key in understanding the current 

condition of the species. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37095 

Currently, the number of palo de rosa 

individuals has increased from 9 

individuals on protected lands at the 

time of listing to 407 individuals 

(representing 36 percent of known 

individuals or 32 percent of 

subpopulations) currently occurring in 

areas managed for conservation (e.g., 

Commonwealth Forest and Federal 

lands; see table, below). An additional 

396 individuals (38 percent of 

subpopulations) occur in areas subject 

to little habitat modification due to the 

steep topography in the northern karst 

region of Puerto Rico (see table, below). 

The remaining 30 percent of the 

subpopulations (containing 

approximately 341 individuals) occur 

within areas severely encroached and 

vulnerable to urban or infrastructure 

development (see table, below). 

However, the resiliency of all 

subpopulations depends on interaction 

(cross-pollination) with nearby 

subpopulations. Despite the increase in 

the number of known subpopulations 

and individuals, there are no records of 

recruited individuals reaching 

reproductive size in the past three 

decades. We also do not have any 

records of recent dispersal and range 

expansion of the species. The following 

discussion provides the most updated 

information on these populations, and 

their respective geographical areas. 

TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO

DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO

Population Subpopulation name Municipality 

Evidence of 

reproduction or 

recruitment 

Number of 

adults 

Development 

threat 2 Source 

Gua ́nica Commonwealth Forest 

(GCF).

La Cobana 

(GCF) (RP) 2.

Yauco ................. No ...................... 7 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Hoya Honda 

(GCF) (RP) 2.

Gua ́nica .............. Yes ..................... 16 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; 

USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; 

Monsegur 591, MAPR herbarium.3

Can ̃on Los 

Murcie ́lagos 

(GCF) (RP) 2.

Gua ́nica .............. Yes ..................... 5 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Can ̃on Las 

Eugenias 

(GCF).

Yauco ................. No ...................... 3 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs. 

Can ̃on Las 

Trichilias 

(GCF).

Gua ́nica .............. Yes ..................... 49 2 Breckon and Kolterman 2003, p. 4; 

USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; 

Monsegur 240, 252 and 880, 

MAPR herbarium 3; Breckon 

7012, MAPR herbarium.3

Yauco Landfill .... Yauco ................. Yes ..................... 40 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2015; Monsegur 

1591, MAPR herbarium.3

Montes de Barinas ......................... Montes de 

Barinas.

Yauco ................. No ...................... 5 0 Morales 2011, pers. comm. 

Guayanilla-Pen ̃uelas ....................... GuayanillaCORCO (RP) 2.

Guayanilla .......... Yes ..................... 53 0 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; 

Monsegur-Rivera 2014, unpubl. 

data; Breckon 4590 and 5201, 

MAPR herbarium 3; Monsegur 

1586, MAPR herbarium.3

Susu ́a Commonwealth Forest 

(SCF).

Quebrada PecesSCF (RP) 2.

Yauco ................. No ...................... 11 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Quebrada 

Grande-SCF 

(RP) 2.

Yauco ................. Yes ..................... 59 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Rı ́o Loco-SCF 

(RP) 2.

Yauco ................. No ...................... 25 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Cerro Las Mesas and Sierra 

Bermeja.

Sierra Bermeja 

(RP) 2.

Cabo Rojo-Lajas No ...................... 2 2 Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016; Monsegur 

1583, MAPR herbarium.3

Guaniquilla-Buye 

(RP) 2.

Cabo Rojo .......... No ...................... 2 0 Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs. 

Aguadilla-Quebradillas .................... Aguadilla Road 

PR–2.

Aguadilla ............ No ...................... 1 0 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

Ramey Solar Observatory.Aguadilla ............ No ...................... 1 1 Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 2014; 

Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 15931, U.S. 

herbarium.5

Guajataca Commonwealth Forest.Isabela ............... No ...................... 2 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2009; Monsegur 

1051, MAPR herbarium.3

El Costillar-Rı ́o 

Guajataca 

(RP) 2.

Isabela ............... Yes ..................... 14 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; 

Monsegur 1578, MAPR herbarium.3

Rı ́o Guajataca 

(RP) 2.

Isabela ............... No ...................... 1 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Cara del IndioGuajataca.Isabela ............... No ...................... 5 1 PRHTA4 2007, entire; Monsegur 

1559, MAPR herbarium.3

El Tu ́nelGuajataca 

(RP) 2.

Isabela ............... Yes ..................... 24 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. 

Quebrada 

Columbiana.

Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 5 1 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

Guajataca Gorge 

south.

Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 1 1 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

MerenderoGuajataca.Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 2 1 PRDNER 2009, entire; Monsegur 

1087, MAPR herbarium.3


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37096 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO

DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued 

Population Subpopulation name Municipality 

Evidence of 

reproduction or 

recruitment 

Number of 

adults 

Development 

threat 2 Source 

Quebrada 

Bellaca.

Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 3 1 Trejo 2441, UPR herbarium.6

Arca de Noe ....... Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 4 0 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

Piedra Gorda ..... Camuy ................ No ...................... 1 1 Trejo 2533, UPR herbarium.6

Quebradillas 481 Quebradillas ....... No ...................... 8 0 PRDNER 2015, entire. 

Camuy-Hatillo ................................. Rı ́o Camuy PR–2 

(RP) 2.

Camuy ................ Yes ..................... 10 1 USFWS 2017; Breckon 8126, 

MAPR herbarium.3

R. Ortiz and 

Sons Quarry.

Hatillo ................. No ...................... 16 1 Sustache-Sustache 2010, entire. 

Rı ́o Camuy-Camino del Rı ́o.Camuy ................ No ...................... 2 1 Monsegur-Rivera 2015, entire. 

Rı ́o Camuy oeste Camuy ................ Yes ..................... 33 1 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

Rı ́o Camuy este Hatillo ................. No ...................... 7 1 PRHTA4 2007, entire. 

Arecibo ............................................ Mata de Pla ́tano Arecibo ............... No ...................... 2 2 Trejo 2408, UPR herbarium.6

El Tallonal .......... Arecibo ............... No ...................... 12 2 Trejo 2462, UPR herbarium.6

Highway PR–10 Arecibo ............... No ...................... 1 2 Axelrod 8134, UPRRP herbarium.7

Utuado-Ciales (Rı ́o Encantado) ...... Las Abras ........... Arecibo-Ciales .... Yes ..................... 32 1 Trejo 2222 and 2473, UPR herbarium.6

Ciales High 

School.

Ciales ................. No ...................... 2 1 Sustache 685 and 688, SJ herbarium.8

Senderos de 

Miraflores.

Arecibo ............... No ...................... 2 1 USFWS 2009, entire. 

Miraflores Ward .. Arecibo ............... No ...................... 1 1 Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 11717, U.S. 

herbarium.5

Arecibo-Vega Baja .......................... Cambalache 

Commonwealth 

Forest (RP) 2.

Arecibo ............... No ...................... 15 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; 

Breckon 8325, MAPR herbarium.3

Tortuguero Lagoon.Manati ................ No ...................... 1 2 Breckon 8325, MAPR herbarium.3

Hacienda 

Esperanza.

Manati ................ Yes ..................... 51 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2009; Monsegur 

1038, MAPR herbarium 3; 

USFWS 2018, unpubl. data. 

Ciudad Me ́dica 

del Caribe.

Manatı ́ ................ Yes ..................... 59 1 PRDNER 2013, entire. 

Highway PR–604 Manatı ́ ................ No ...................... 2 0 Breckon 8153, MAPR herbarium.3

Highway PR–22 Vega Baja .......... No ...................... 7 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data. 

Highway PR–155 Vega Baja .......... Yes ..................... 31 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; 

Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 12293, U.S. 

herbarium.5

Vega Serena ...... Vega Baja .......... No ...................... 3 0 Monsegur 1091, MAPR herbarium.3

Productora de 

Agregados.

Vega Baja .......... No ...................... 15 0 PRDNER 2009, entire. 

Vı ́a Verde ........... Manatı ́ ................ No ...................... 1 1 PREPA9 2010, entire. 

Dorado ............................................ Hacienda 

Sabanera.

Dorado ............... Yes ..................... 101 1 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; 

Monsegur 1584, MAPR herbarium.3

Higuillar Avenue Dorado ............... Yes ..................... 23 0 Monsegur-Rivera and SustacheSustache 2011, entire. 

La Virgencita ................................... La Virgencita 

south.

Dorado ............... Yes ..................... 41 0 PRDNER 2015; USFWS 2018, 

unpubl. data; Monsegur 1648, 

MAPR herbarium.3

La Virgencita 

north.

Dorado ............... Yes ..................... 42 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data. 

Rı ́o Lajas ............ Dorado ............... No ...................... 5 0 Trejo 2276, UPR herbarium.6

Highway PR–142 Dorado ............... No ...................... 2 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data. 

Mogotes de Nevares ...................... Mogotes de 

Nevares.

Toa Baja ............ Yes ..................... 30 0 PRDNER 2009, entire. 

Mogotes de 

Nevares/ 

Campanilla.

Toa Baja ............ No ...................... 8 0 Morales 2014, entire. 

Mogotes de 

Nevares/ 

Holsum.

Toa Baja ............ No ...................... 13 0 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data. 

Primate Center ... Toa Baja ............ Yes ..................... 4 1 Santiago-Valentı ́n and RojasVa ́zquez 2001, entire. 

Sabana Seca ..... Toa Baja ............ Yes ..................... 10 2 USFWS 2017, p. 8. 

San Juan-Fajardo ........................... Parque Monagas Bayamon ............ Yes ..................... 70 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; 

Monsegur 1582, MAPR herbarium.3

Parque de las 

Ciencias.

Bayamo ́n ............ Yes ..................... 39 1 PRDNER 2013; Proctor 50105, SJ 

herbarium.8

Fort Buchanan 

(RP) 2.

Guaynabo .......... Yes ..................... 25 2 USFWS 2018, unpubl data; 

Rodrı ́guez-Cruz 2013, pers. 

comm.; Monsegur 1576, MAPR 

herbarium.3

Mogotes de 

Caneja.

Guaynabo .......... Yes ..................... 30 1 Breckon 5208, MAPR herbarium 3; 

Proctor 51111, SJ herbarium.8


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37097 

TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO

DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued 

Population Subpopulation 

name Municipality 

Evidence of 

reproduction or 

recruitment 

Number of 

adults 

Development 

threat 2 Source 

Monte Picao ....... Cano ́vanas ......... Yes ..................... 46 0 PRDNER 2013, entire. 

El Convento ....... Fajardo ............... No ...................... 1 2 PRDNER 2009; Liogier 32299, 

UPR herbarium.6

Totals ....................................... 66 Subpopulations............................. 26 Yes ................

40 No .................

1,144 adults 20 Vulnerable. 

25 Low. 

21 Protected. 

1 In the Development Threats column, 0 = Vulnerable to development; 1 = Low vulnerability due to topography; and 2 = Protected. 

2 (RP) indicates subpopulations known at the time the recovery plan was finalized (1994). 

3 ‘‘MAPR herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the Department of Biology at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. 

4 ‘‘PRHTA’’ is the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority. 

5 ‘‘U.S. herbarium’’ is the United States National Herbarium. 

6 ‘‘UPR herbarium’’ is the Botanical Garden of the University of Puerto Rico. 

7 ‘‘UPRRP herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras. 

8 ‘‘SJ herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at San Juan. 

9 ‘‘PREPA’’ is the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority. 

The distribution of palo de rosa 

extends along the southern coast of 

Puerto Rico, from the municipality of 

Cabo Rojo east to the municipality of 

Guayanilla, in five geographical areas or 

populations: (1) Gua ́nica 

Commonwealth Forest, (2) Montes de 

Barinas, (3) Guayanilla-Pen ̃uelas, (4) 

Susu ́ a Commonwealth Forest, and (5) 

Cerro Las Mesas-Sierra Bermeja. In 

addition, palo de rosa extends along the 

northern coast of Puerto Rico from the 

municipality of Aguadilla east to the 

municipality of Fajardo in the following 

nine areas or populations: (1) AguadillaQuebradillas, (2) Camuy-Hatillo, (3) 

Arecibo, (4) Utuado-Ciales, (5) AreciboVega Baja, (6) Dorado, (7) La Virgencita, 

(8) Mogotes de Nevares, and (9) San 

Juan-Fajardo (USFWS 2017, p. 11). 

The range of the species extends to 

Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and 

Haiti) (Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez and Strong, 

2012, p. 369; Axelrod 2011, p. 184); 

however, there is little information on 

the population structure and status of 

palo de rosa in these countries, and 

information is limited to scattered 

herbarium collections. In the Dominican 

Republic, the species occurs in 

Provincia (Province) de La Altagracia, 

Provincia de Samana ́, Provincia de 

Puerto Plata, Provincia de Pedernales, 

and Provincia de San Cristobal (JBSD, 

unpubl. data). On the northern coast of 

Haiti, palo de rosa has been recorded at 

‘‘Massif du Nord’’ along a dry river 

(JBSD, unpubl. data). However, these 

herbarium specimens provide no data 

on the subpopulation or population 

abundance or number of associated 

individuals. Palo de rosa is categorized 

as critically endangered according to the 

Red List of Vascular Flora in the 

Dominican Republic (Lista Roja de la 

Flora Vascular en Repu ́ blica 

Dominicana), an assessment of the 

conservation status of all vascular plants 

in the Dominican Republic as 

determined by the Ministry of Higher 

Education Science and Technology 

Ministry (Garcia et al. 2016, p. 4). 

The following information 

summarizes the current abundance, 

distribution, and habitat of palo de rosa 

populations in Puerto Rico. 

Populations Along the Southern Coast 

of Puerto Rico 

Gua ́nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF): 

The GCF is a natural area comprising 

one of the best remnants of subtropical 

dry forest vegetation in Puerto Rico and 

still harbors remnants of pristine dry 

limestone forest (primary vegetation) 

that is prime habitat for palo de rosa 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2009, p. 3). The GCF 

has been managed for conservation 

since 1930, following its designation as 

a public forest in 1917 (A ́ lvarez et al. 

1990, p. 3; Murphy and Lugo 1990, p. 

15). The climate in this forest is 

seasonal, with most precipitation 

occurring between September and 

October (Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278). 

All known palo de rosa 

subpopulations found within the dry 

limestone forests along the southern 

coast of Puerto Rico occur at the bottom 

of forested ravines (areas that provide 

enough moisture for seedling 

recruitment). These ravines are mesic 

(moist) habitats where evidence of 

natural recruitment has been 

documented (Monsegur-Rivera 2003– 

2018, pers. obs.). Eighty palo de rosa 

individuals have been documented in 

five subpopulations within the GCF (see 

table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 

1993, p. 4; Monsegur-Rivera 2009–2018, 

pers. obs.; USFWS 2018, unpubl. data). 

Fruit production has been recorded at 

Can ̃ o ́n Hoya Honda, Can ̃o ́n Los 

Murcie ́lagos, and Can ̃ o ́n Las Trichilias 

(USFWS 2017, pp. 7–8) (see table 1, 

above). Despite the overall dry habitat 

conditions at the GCF, natural 

recruitment of this species has been 

recorded at Can ̃o ́n Hoya Honda and 

Can ̃ o ́n Las Trichilias. The Yauco 

Landfill subpopulation provides 

connectivity with the northernmost GCF 

subpopulation, bringing the GCF 

population to 120 (see table, above) 

(USFWS 2017, p. 7). 

Montes de Barinas: The range of palo 

de rosa extends from the GCF north to 

the Montes de Barinas hills (range of 

limestone hills along the boundary of 

the municipalities of Yauco and 

Guayanilla) in habitat similar to that of 

the GCF (Monsegur-Rivera 2009–2018, 

pers. obs.). This is a tract of privately 

owned lands located primarily along 

Indios Ward in the municipality of 

Guayanilla, and Cambalache Ward in 

the municipality of Yauco. The forest 

was partially logged for charcoal 

production and ranching; however, the 

prime habitat for native and endemic 

plant species remains undisturbed due 

to its marginal agricultural value (79 FR 

53315, September 9, 2014, p. 79 FR 

53326). The number of palo de rosa 

individuals may be greater than the five 

currently known, as this habitat has not 

been adequately surveyed (Morales 

2011, pers. comm.). 

Guayanilla-Pen ̃ uelas: The range of 

palo de rosa extends east to Cedro Ward 

in the municipality of Guayanilla, 

where the species was collected along a 

forested drainage (MAPR, unpubl. data). 

This population is composed of at least 

53 individuals, with some evidence of 

natural recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 

2014, unpubl. data), suggesting the 

population is stable (USFWS 2017, p. 

15) (see table, above). Additional 

subpopulations may occur on 

undisturbed habitat remnants of 

evergreen dry forest over limestone 

substrate in the municipality of 

Pen ̃uelas (north of the Pen ̃uelas 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37098 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Landfill) (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. 

obs.). 

Susu ́ a Commonwealth Forest (SCF): 

The habitat of palo de rosa includes 

moist drainages and rivers on serpentine 

soils within the Susu ́ a Commonwealth 

Forest (SCF). Palo de rosa is known 

from 95 individuals (including saplings) 

in three subpopulations in the SCF (see 

table, above) (Breckon and Kolterman 

1993, p. 4; UPR, unpubl. data). No 

seedlings have been recorded in surveys 

of the SCF population (Breckon and 

Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Hamilton 2018, p. 

31). 

Similar habitat on serpentine soils 

extends northwest of the SCF to the 

boundaries of the MCF. In this forest, 

palo de rosa is historically known from 

a single individual in the upper 

watershed of the Rı ́o Cupeyes (Cupeyes 

River), on the edge of former State Road 

PR–362 (MAPR, unpubl. data). The palo 

de rosa tree was apparently killed due 

to lightning damage, although other 

individuals may occur in this 

inaccessible area (Monsegur-Rivera 

2006, pers. obs.). 

Cerro Las Mesas (Mayagu ̈ ez) and 

Sierra Bermeja (Lajas and Cabo Rojo): 

The type specimen collected in 1876 

was likely collected between Cerro Las 

Mesas in the municipality of Mayagu ̈ ez 

and the area north of Poblado Rosario in 

the municipality of San German 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). 

Cerro Las Mesas is the westernmost 

distribution of the serpentine outcrops 

in Puerto Rico and lies within the 

subtropical moist forest life zone (Ewel 

and Witmore 1973, p. 72). Palo de rosa 

was misidentified in the Sierra Bermeja 

subpopulation, then discovered in 2015 

at La Tinaja on the Laguna Cartegena 

National Wildlife Refuge (LCNWR) and 

in 2016 on a property known as Finca 

Marı ́a Luisa, currently under a 

conservation easement managed by Para 

La Naturaleza, Inc. (PLN), the 

operational unit of The Conservation 

Trust of Puerto Rico (see table, above) 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 6; PLN 

2013, entire; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 

9; MAPR, unpubl. data). The Sierra 

Bermeja subpopulation co-occurs with 

five other federally listed plants, 

indicating high-quality habitat with 

potential for undetected palo de rosa. 

The two individuals in the GuaniquillaBuye subpopulation occur in an area 

with small hills with limestone outcrops 

that is located about 9.6 kilometers (6 

miles) west-northwest of Sierra Bermeja, 

adjacent to an area known as Punta 

Guaniquilla in the municipality of Cabo 

Rojo (see table, above) (Va ́zquez and 

Kolterman 1998, p. 277). 

Populations Along the Northern Coast of 

Puerto Rico 

Palo de rosa also occurs in the 

northern limestone belt in the karst 

region of Puerto Rico. This area along 

the northern coast is important to the 

conservation of palo de rosa (USFWS 

2017, p.11). Despite deforestation for 

agriculture in the 1930s, a west-to-east 

band of continuous forested landscape 

extends from Aguadilla to San Juan, and 

additional limestone outcrops extend to 

the northeast corner of Puerto Rico in 

the municipalities of Loı ́za and Fajardo 

(Lugo et al. 2001, pp. 1–2; Miller and 

Lugo 2009, p. 95). The southern and 

northern limestone belts differ in 

climate, with wet and moist life zones 

(sensu Holdridge 1967) characterizing 

the environmental conditions along the 

north coast of Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 

2001, p. 5). The karst area is 

characterized by a steep topography and 

a dense concentration of haystack hills 

or mogotes, with valleys and sinkholes 

between the hills (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 

11). The steep topography and low 

agricultural value provide refugia and 

serve as a seed source for natural 

regeneration on adjacent forested lands 

following the abandonment of 

agricultural lands. 

Aguadilla-Quebradillas (including the 

Rı ́o Guajataca): Fourteen 

subpopulations make up the AguadillaQuebradillas population. The 

westernmost subpopulation of palo de 

rosa occurs in the municipality of 

Aguadilla (USFWS 2017, p. 7). The two 

subpopulations in this municipality are 

single trees, with no evidence of 

recruitment (see table, above) 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; UPR 

unpubl. data). Rare endemic plants 

along the cliff areas from Aguadilla to 

Quebradillas highlight the good habitat 

quality; hence, more individuals of palo 

de rosa may occur in this area and in 

suitable habitat south and east of the 

municipality of Aguadilla, along an area 

known as Cordillera Jaicoa, a rough 

karst region between the municipalities 

of Moca and Isabela (Caraballo and 

Santiago-Valentı ́n 2011, p. 2; AcevedoRodrı ́guez 2014, p. 7). 

Cordillera Jaicoa extends east to the 

Guajataca Commonwealth Forest 

(GuCF), which is in the municipality of 

Isabela and covers about 2,357 ac (953.8 

ha) (PRDNER 2008, p. 1). Palo de rosa 

is known from one subpopulation at the 

GuCF with no evidence of recruitment 

(USFWS 2017, p. 7). Fifty-two 

individuals in seven subpopulations of 

palo de rosa occur in or near the Rı ́o 

Guajataca (Guajataca Gorge), with 

natural recruitment recorded in the two 

largest subpopulations (see table, above) 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1996, p. 4; 

Monsegur-Rivera 2003–2018, pers. obs.; 

PRHTA 2007, pp. 16–18; USFWS 2017, 

p. 7). 

Four additional scattered 

subpopulations with 16 palo de rosa 

individuals occur in the municipality of 

Quebradillas and Camuy (PRHTA 2007, 

pp. 16–18; PRDNER 2015, p. 16; UPR, 

unpubl. data), just east of Lago 

Guajataca (Guajataca Reservoir). Thus, 

the current number of individuals for 

the subpopulations in Aguadilla, the 

GuCF, the Guajataca Gorge, and 

neighboring lands is at least 72 

individuals distributed along variable 

size classes, and with evidence of 

recruitment in at least two 

subpopulations (see table, above). 

Camuy-Hatillo (Rı ́o Camuy): Another 

population of palo de rosa occurs along 

the margins of the Rı ́o Camuy, between 

the municipalities of Camuy and 

Hatillo. Five subpopulations have been 

discovered since 2006 (see table, above) 

(Sustache-Sustache 2010, p. 7; 

Monsegur-Rivera 2015, pers. obs.; 

MAPR, unpubl. data). Two 

subpopulations have seedlings and 

evidence of recruitment (see table, 

above) (PRHTA 2007, p. 19; Morales 

2014, unpubl. data; USFWS 2017, p. 8). 

One subpopulation was recorded during 

the evaluation for a proposed quarry 

expansion and noted in association with 

other endemic trees (e.g., Manilkara 

pleeana (mameyuelo) and Polygala 

cowellii (a ́rbol de violeta)) (SustacheSustache 2010, p. 7). As the Guajataca 

Gorge and the Rı ́o Camuy areas remain 

relatively unexplored, we expect 

additional individuals of palo de rosa 

may occur there. The current estimated 

number of palo de rosa individuals in 

the Camuy-Hatillo population is 68 

adults (see table, above). 

Arecibo (including Rı ́o Tanama ́ and 

Rı ́o Abajo Commonwealth Forest): 

Farther east, three palo de rosa 

subpopulations occur in the Arecibo 

municipality. Two of the three 

subpopulations occur in the 159-ha 

(392-ac) natural areas of El Tallonal and 

Mata de Pla ́tano with an approved 

Private Forest Stewardship Management 

Plan (PRDNER 2005, entire). Available 

information indicates that at least 15 

individuals occur on El Tallonal, Mata 

de Pla ́tano, and the Rı ́o Abajo 

Commonwealth Forest (RACF) (see 

table, above). Additional 

subpopulations may occur along the 

margins of the Rı ́o Tanama ́ (Tanama ́

River) and the steep cliff areas in the 

RACF. The forested corridor of the Rı ́o 

Tanama ́ connects Mata de Pla ́tano and 

El Tallonal to the RACF between the 

municipalities of Arecibo and Utuado, 

where palo de rosa also occurs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37099 

Although palo de rosa is known only 

from one individual in the RACF 

collected in 1994, suitable habitat 

occurs within the RACF and the species 

may be found within the forest 

boundaries (Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez and 

Axelrod 1999, p. 277). 

Utuado-Ciales (Rı ́o Encantado): Palo 

de rosa subpopulations extend east of 

Lago Dos Bocas (Dos Bocas Reservoir) 

from Finca Opiola east to the town of 

Ciales (Rı ́o Encantado), in habitat 

similar to the RACF. The general area is 

known as the Rı ́o Encantado Natural 

Protected Area, a mosaic of forested 

habitat among the municipalities of 

Florida, Manatı ́, and Ciales, occupying 

736 ha (1,818 ac) managed by PLN (PLN 

2011b, p. 5). At least 37 palo de rosa 

individuals occur in four 

subpopulations, with one subpopulation 

(Las Abras) showing some evidence of 

recruitment. The Rı ́o Encantado area 

remains botanically unexplored due to 

the remoteness and steepness of the 

terrain; thus, we anticipate that 

additional palo de rosa subpopulations 

may occur in the Rı ́o Encantado area. 

Additional subpopulations of this 

species extend north to a low (west to 

east) chain of mogotes at Miraflores 

Ward, in Arecibo. 

Arecibo-Vega Baja (including 

Cambalache Commonwealth Forest 

(CCF), Laguna Tortuguero Natural 

Reserve (LTNR), and Hacienda La 

Esperanza Natural Reserve): The 

Arecibo-Vega Baja population includes 

10 subpopulations, 3 of which show 

evidence of recruitment (see table, 

above). Subpopulations occur within 

the protected areas of the CCF, the 

LTNR between the municipalities of 

Manatı ́ and Vega Alta, and at Hacienda 

La Esperanza Natural Reserve in the 

municipality of Manatı ́ (see table, 

above) (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 

4; PLN 2011a, p. 3). Hacienda La 

Esperanza Natural Reserve is managed 

by PLN, and covers an area of 

approximately 925 ha (2,286 ac) 

between the CCF and the LTNR, 

including a coastal valley with 

cemented sand dunes and a series of 

mogotes that provide habitat for palo de 

rosa (PLN 2011a, p. 3). Additional palo 

de rosa individuals may occur in this 

subpopulation as the entire area with 

suitable habitat has not been surveyed. 

Five additional subpopulations of the 

species occur on private lands in the 

municipalities of Manatı ́ and Vega Baja 

(see table, above). Thus, the current 

number of individuals for the region 

between the CCF, Hacienda La 

Esperanza Natural Reserve, LTNR, and 

neighboring private lands is at least 185 

plants (see table, above). An historical 

specimen from Islote Ward in Arecibo 

indicates the species’ habitat extended 

to the sand dunes in the past (UPR, 

unpubl. data). However, this specimen 

is from the 1940s, and the area of Islote 

has been almost entirely deforested for 

agriculture and urban development, we 

have determined this subpopulation is 

extirpated (Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. 

obs.). 

Dorado (Mogotes de Higuillar): The 

area of Mogotes de Higuillar represents 

high-quality habitat for palo de rosa as 

evidenced by the two subpopulations 

with strong recruitment. The Hacienda 

Sabanera subpopulation (formerly 

known as Hacienda San Martı ́n) was 

assessed pre- and post-hurricane and 

showed no loss of individuals (84 and 

101, respectively) and had different size 

classes represented (see table, above) 

(USFWS 2017, p. 8; USFWS 2018, p. 

12). The higher number of palo de rosa 

individuals recorded during 2018 does 

not mean a population increase 

compared to previous surveys as neither 

assessment covered the entire area of 

suitable habitat. The subpopulation 

discovered in 2011 just south of the 

Hacienda Sabanera subpopulation 

shows strong evidence of recruitment as 

well with adult trees, saplings, and 

hundreds of seedlings (Monsegur-Rivera 

and Sustache 2011, p. 3; USFWS 2017, 

p. 8). Thus, the number of palo de rosa 

individuals for the area comprising 

Mogotes de Higuillar and neighboring 

lands is at least 124, with evidence of 

natural recruitment that includes 

seedlings and saplings (see table, 

above). 

La Virgencita: The distribution of palo 

de rosa extends south of Highway PR– 

22, to the area known as Cruce La 

Virgencita where the species was 

recorded in 2014. Of the four 

subpopulations, the La Virgencita south 

subpopulation habitat is highlighted by 

the presence of multiple endemic 

species and species with narrow 

distribution (PRDNER 2015, pp. 13–15). 

The four subpopulations in La 

Virgencita and adjacent mogotes are 

made up of at least 90 trees, with 

evidence of saplings and seedlings in 

the two La Virgencita subpopulations 

(see table, above). The presence of other 

rare species in adjacent mogotes is an 

indicator of potentially suitable palo de 

rosa habitat with little disturbance and 

highlights the possible occurrence of 

additional individuals. 

Mogotes de Nevares and Sabana Seca: 

The range of palo de Rosa extends west 

of Rı ́o La Plata (La Plata River) to an 

area known as Mogotes de Nevares and 

north to the former Sabana Seca Naval 

Station in the municipality of Toa Baja. 

There are scattered records of the 

species from the area of Mogotes de 

Nevares, but early collections do not 

estimate abundance. The five 

subpopulations in Mogotes de Nevares 

include three subpopulations (Mogotes 

de Navares, Primate Center, and Sabana 

Seca) with evidence of recruitment (see 

table, above). A subpopulation occurs 

on the former Sabana Seca Naval Station 

and a second on an adjacent area near 

the Primate Research Center (SantiagoValentı ́n and Rojas Va ́zquez 2001, p. 57; 

Monsegur-Rivera 2006, pers. obs.). The 

best available information and recent 

survey data in the area of Mogotes de 

Nevares account for at least 65 

individuals of different size classes, 

including seedlings (see table, above). 

Due to the good quality of the habitat 

and the presence of remnants of native 

vegetation, it is very likely additional, 

undetected subpopulations of palo de 

rosa occur along these mogotes. 

San Juan Metropolitan Area 

(including neighboring municipalities of 

Bayamo ́n and Guaynabo, and east to 

Fajardo): In the metropolitan area of San 

Juan, palo de rosa occurs at four 

subpopulations in the municipalities of 

Bayamo ́n (2) and Guaynabo (2) (see 

table, above). Five of the subpopulations 

in the San Juan-Fajardo population 

show evidence of recruitment; only the 

El Convento subpopulation does not. 

The Parque Monagas subpopulation 

occurs in a small, forested area managed 

for recreation and shows evidence of 

recruitment post-Hurricane Marı ́a 

(USFWS 2018, p. 21). The palo de rosa 

subpopulation in Fort Buchanan is 

noted in the 1994 recovery plan, and 

saplings and new seedlings were noted 

in a post-Hurricane Marı ́a assessment 

(USFWS 2018, p. 25). The Fort 

Buchanan and Mogotes de Caneja 

subpopulations are part of a larger chain 

of mogotes known as Mogotes de Caneja 

that were fragmented due to the 

construction of Highway PR–22. Two 

subpopulations (Monte Picao and El 

Convento) occur east of the 

municipality of San Juan in small 

limestone outcrops (see table, above). 

Based on the available information, the 

palo de rosa subpopulations at Parque 

de las Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and 

Fort Buchanan (including the entire area 

of Mogotes de Caneja), and the scattered 

subpopulations along northeast Puerto 

Rico, are estimated at least 211 

individuals, including saplings, and 

with evidence of seedling recruitment 

(see table, above). 

Palo de rosa occurs in variable 

habitats but is dependent on the specific 

microhabitat conditions. On dry 

limestone forest like the GCF, the 

species occurs at the bottom of 

drainages that provide moisture, 

whereas at the SCF, palo de rosa occurs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37100 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

along the borders of rivers. The 

subpopulations along the northern karst 

of Puerto Rico are found on the top of 

limestone hills, possibly because those 

areas have no agricultural value, and so 

were not impacted by conversion to 

agricultural lands. Such variability in 

habitats indicates the species’ current 

fragmented distribution and lack of 

connectivity between populations are 

the result of earlier land-clearing and 

habitat modification. Information from 

specimens deposited at multiple 

herbaria (i.e., New York Botanical 

Garden, Smithsonian Institution, UPR, 

UPRRP, and MAPR) suggests palo de 

rosa was originally more common and 

widespread throughout Puerto Rico. 

Recruitment and Population Structure 

At least 25 subpopulations of the 66 

subpopulations show evidence of fruit 

production and seedling or sapling 

recruitment (see table, above) (USFWS 

2017, pp. 8, 11–12). Fruit production 

and seed germination have been 

documented in several subpopulations 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2016, pers. obs.). 

However, individual palo de rosa trees 

grow extremely slowly and the growth 

of the saplings is also quite slow, with 

an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 

ft) after 20 years growth. Therefore, it is 

estimated that, under natural 

conditions, individuals of palo de rosa 

may require at least 40 years to reach a 

reproductive size, and the currently 

known subpopulations are experiencing 

slow recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera 

2018, pers. obs.). In addition, seeds of 

this species are not dispersed by any 

discernible method other than gravity. 

Thus, recruitment is limited to the 

proximity of the parental tree, limiting 

the species’ potential to colonize further 

suitable habitat, and limiting the 

survival of clustered seedlings due to 

closed canopy conditions and 

competition with the parental tree. 

Palo de rosa is a late successional 

species and requires several decades to 

reach a reproductive size under natural 

conditions. Evidence from herbarium 

specimens suggests that palo de rosa 

once extended to the coastal lowlands of 

Puerto Rico, including dune ecosystems. 

Population dynamics and survey 

assessments support the hypothesis that 

palo de rosa is a late successional 

species, whose saplings may remain 

dormant under closed canopy 

conditions, until there is some natural 

disturbance that provides favorable 

conditions for the development of the 

saplings. Thus, the species may require 

an open canopy to promote seedling 

growth and is adapted to natural 

disturbances such as hurricanes 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under 

this scenario, the natural populations 

show a slow natural recruitment that 

requires stable habitat conditions with a 

regime of natural disturbance (i.e., 

tropical storms or hurricanes). 

Reproductive events (i.e., flowering 

and fruiting) have been associated with 

bigger trees as observed in four 

subpopulations, where tree diameters 

reach 13–20.5 cm (5.1–8.1 in) and 

canopies are higher (at least 10 m) (32.8 

ft) (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8; 

USFWS 2009, p. 4). For example, one 

large tree in the El Costillar-Rı ́o 

Guajataca (subpopulation had an 

estimated 1,000 seedlings under one 

tree with an almost 90 percent 

survivorship of 156 monitored seedlings 

after 18 months (Breckon and Kolterman 

1992, p. 8). Further visits to this 

subpopulation indicate the survival of 

seedlings and saplings remains high, 

with evidence of additional recruitment 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2007, 2012, and 2014, 

pers. obs.). 

Recruitment may be intermittent in 

some subpopulations. For example, a 

subpopulation with no seedling survival 

following a fruiting event in 2004 was 

noted to contain about 30 small saplings 

in the post-Hurricane Marı ́a assessment 

in 2018, suggesting the subpopulation is 

slowly recruiting (USFWS 2018, p. 25). 

Since 2009, hundreds of seedlings have 

been recorded in the Fort Buchanan 

subpopulation (Monsegur-Rivera 2009– 

present, pers. obs.). In 2018, at least 12 

saplings ranging from 0.3–1.0 m (0.9–3.3 

ft) were observed. Saplings this size can 

withstand seasonal drought stress, and 

individuals are likely to persist in the 

long term if the habitat remains 

unaltered. Cross-pollination between 

subpopulation maximizes the likelihood 

of fruit production and contributes to 

recruitment, which underscores the 

importance of conserving the species 

through a landscape approach. 

Of the 26 subpopulations currently 

showing evidence of natural 

recruitment, 9 of the 26 occur in areas 

that are managed for conservation. The 

9 subpopulations constitute 36 percent 

of subpopulations showing natural 

recruitment and contain nearly 300 

individuals in total. There is no 

evidence of natural recruitment at this 

time for the remaining 40 

subpopulations, although the species’ 

life history implies that recruitment may 

still occur in these populations when a 

canopy opening is created and suitable 

conditions for recruitment are present. 

Forest cover in Puerto Rico has 

increased since the widespread 

deforestation in the 1930s–1950s 

(Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but 

the availability of suitable habitat prior 

to deforestation and habitat 

fragmentation implies palo de rosa may 

have had greater abundance and wider 

distribution. Although current 

information on population structure 

indicates the species requires some 

open canopy areas to promote 

recruitment, widespread deforestation 

fragments habitat and creates edges 

(habitat transition zones). The possible 

long-term negative effects of habitat 

fragmentation and edge effect on 

subpopulations with recruitment 

adjacent to habitat disturbance are still 

unknown. Current observations from the 

2018 post-hurricane assessment suggest 

subpopulations encroached by 

development or agriculture were 

negatively affected by weedy vegetation 

invading the habitat following 

Hurricane Marı ́a (e.g., Cayaponia 

americana (bejuco de torero), Dioscorea 

alata (n ̃ ame), and Thunbergia 

grandiflora (pompeya). However, the 

extent of such impact remains uncertain 

and further monitoring is needed. Such 

information highlights the effect of 

habitat fragmentation on the natural 

recruitment of palo de rosa. 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Recovery plans must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, include 

objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Act, that 

the species be removed from the list. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all criteria being fully met. For example, 

one or more criteria may be exceeded 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37101 

while other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. In 

other cases, we may discover new 

recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery. Parties seeking to 

conserve the species may use these 

opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, fully follow all of 

the guidance provided in a recovery 

plan. 

The following discussion provides an 

analysis of the recovery criteria and 

goals as they relate to evaluating the 

status of the taxon. The recovery plan 

for this species does not provide 

downlisting criteria (USFWS 1994, 

entire). The recovery plan for palo de 

rosa indicates the species could be 

considered for delisting when the 

following criteria are met: (1) 

Populations known to occur on 

privately owned land are placed under 

protective status; (2) an agreement 

between the Service and the U.S. Army 

concerning the protection of the species 

on their land (Fort Buchanan) has been 

prepared and implemented; and (3) 

mechanisms for the protection of palo 

de rosa have been incorporated into 

management plans for Maricao, 

Gua ́nica, Susu ́ a, and Cambalache 

Commonwealth Forests. Also, the plan 

notes that given the discovery of 

additional populations, priority should 

be given to enhancement and protection 

of existing populations in protected 

areas and the protection of palo de rosa 

on privately owned land (USFWS 1994, 

p. 13). At the time the recovery plan was 

written, only 200 individuals in 16 

populations (currently defined as 

subpopulations) were known. In 

addition, the lack of recruitment in palo 

de rosa populations was not known to 

be a concern; therefore, recovery criteria 

primarily address protection of palo de 

rosa habitat. We apply our current 

understanding of the species’ range, 

biology, and threats to these delisting 

criteria to support our rationale for why 

downlisting is appropriate. 

Delisting criterion 1 has been partially 

met. At the time the recovery plan was 

written, 4 of 16 populations (now 

defined as subpopulations) occurred on 

private lands. Currently, of the 66 

known palo de rosa subpopulations, 45 

are located within private lands. From 

those 45, 3 subpopulations (i.e., 7 

percent of subpopulations, or 65 

individuals) are under protective status 

(e.g., Hacienda Esperanza, El Tallonal, 

and Mata de Pla ́tano) (see table, above). 

The subpopulations on the private 

natural reserves of El Tallonal and Mata 

de Pla ́tano are protected from habitat 

modification, and each has an approved 

private forest stewardship management 

plan that includes measures for the 

protection of listed species within the 

property (PRDNER 2005, entire). The 

palo de rosa individuals found at 

Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve 

are protected, as this reserve also is 

managed for conservation by PLN, and 

the management plan considers palo de 

rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67). 

Additional conservation efforts have 

been implemented throughout 

coordination among the Service, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

and PRDNER resulting in the protection 

in perpetuity of approximately 257 acres 

of private forested habitat adjacent to 

the northern boundary of the GCF, 

which will benefit the Yauco Landfill 

palo de rosa subpopulation (PRDNER 

2015, p. 1). This conservation effort 

maintains the connectivity between 

subpopulations and maximizes the 

species’ viability. In addition, the 

PRDNER acquired private lands that 

included suitable habitat for palo de 

rosa and incorporated them into the 

GCF, increasing the protected area from 

the approximately 4,016 ha (9,923 ac) in 

1996, to at least 4,400 ha (10,872 ac) 

(Monsegur 2009, p. 8). 

While this criterion has only been 

partially met, with the identification of 

additional individuals, populations, and 

subpopulations, of the 1,144 palo de 

rosa individuals known, only 341 (29 

percent) occur on private lands with no 

protection. Currently, 407 individuals 

(representing 36 percent of known 

individuals or 32 percent of 

subpopulations) occur in areas managed 

for conservation. 

Together with our partners, we have 

met delisting criterion 2. In 2015, the 

Service signed an MOU with the U.S. 

Army and PRDNER for the protection, 

management, and recovery of palo de 

rosa at Fort Buchanan (U.S. Army, Fort 

Buchanan 2015, entire). As a result, the 

mogote where palo de rosa is found at 

the military base is managed for 

conservation, propagation and planting 

of palo de rosa has taken place, and the 

species is frequently monitored (USACE 

2014, p. 3). Nonetheless, the viability of 

the Fort Buchanan subpopulation is 

influenced by interaction with other 

individuals in neighboring private lands 

and areas subject to development. 

Lastly, we determine delisting 

criterion 3 to be obsolete. Although 

species-specific management plans do 

not exist for Commonwealth forests, the 

natural reserves are managed for 

conservation by PRDNER as 

recommended by the Master Plan for the 

Commonwealth Forests of Puerto Rico 

(DNR 1976, entire). These management 

efforts prevent adverse impacts to plants 

and animals, particularly listed species 

such as palo de rosa, and their habitats. 

Forest management protects palo de 

rosa along the southern coast of Puerto 

Rico where the GCF and SCF 

subpopulations (175 individuals) are 

located within the boundaries of these 

forests. The development of effective 

conservation mechanisms for the 

species outside Commonwealth forests 

also protects palo de rosa, as 

components of the resiliency of 

populations (e.g., effective crosspollination, fruit set, and natural 

recruitment) depend on the interactions 

among neighboring subpopulations. 

Thus, we continue working with 

PRDNER and other partners to monitor 

and survey suitable unexplored habitat 

for palo de rosa, to develop sound 

conservation strategies, and to 

proactively identify priority areas for 

conservation. Such conservation 

measures may include the maintenance 

and enhancement of effective forested 

buffer areas and corridors to provide 

connectivity between palo de rosa 

subpopulations, and to secure the 

microhabitat conditions necessary to 

promote the species’ recruitment. 

In conclusion, the implementation of 

recovery actions, in addition to the 

identification of numerous additional 

individuals and subpopulations, have 

reduced the risk of extinction for palo 

de rosa. Of the 1,144 adult palo de rosa 

individuals known, only 341 (29 

percent) occur on private lands with no 

protection. Currently, 407 individuals 

(representing 36 percent of known 

individuals or 32 percent of 

subpopulations) occur in areas managed 

for conservation. Although many 

individuals occur on protected lands, 

we have identified 20 subpopulations 

throughout Puerto Rico where habitat 

modification and fragmentation can still 

occur. Puerto Rico’s laws and 

regulations protect palo de rosa on both 

public and private lands, and other 

protection mechanisms (i.e., 

conservation easements) have been 

implemented, but impacts to palo de 

rosa subpopulations may occur due to 

lack of enforcement, misidentification of 

the species, agricultural practices, and 

unregulated activities (see Summary of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Biological Status and Threats, below). 

Based on the biology of palo de rosa and 

its dependence on cross-pollination, 

impacts that reduce connectivity 

between subpopulations may affect the 

breeding capacity of the species, and 

thus its long-term recruitment and 

viability. The recovery of palo de rosa 

will include collaboration and 

partnership efforts with PRDNER and 

private landowners to develop 

conservation strategies and 

recommendations when evaluating 

urban and infrastructure development 

projects that could affect these 

subpopulations. Recovery efforts should 

be directed towards landscape planning 

and management strategies that would 

ensure abundance and distribution of 

palo de rosa subpopulations to allow 

cross-pollination and recruitment and 

contribute to the long-term recovery of 

palo de rosa. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in downlisting a species from 

endangered to threatened or delisting a 

species (50 CFR 424.11(c)–(e)). 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

We consider 50 years to be the 

foreseeable future within which we can 

reasonably determine the threats, the 

magnitude of those threats, and the 

species’ response to those threats. The 

foreseeable future for the individual 

factors and threats vary. However, based 

on the available information from 

ongoing monitoring of populations 

known at the time of listing, it is 

estimated that under natural conditions, 

individuals of palo de rosa may require 

at least 40 years to reach a reproductive 

size, and the reproductive ecology of 

palo de rosa is consistent with late 

successional species. Within 50 years, 

an individual plant of palo de rosa 

would reach a reproductive size and 

effectively contribute to the next 

generation. Therefore, this timeframe 

accounts for maturation, the probability 

of flowering, effective cross-pollination, 

setting viable fruits, seed germination, 

and early seedling survival and 

establishment, taking into account 

environmental stochastic events such as 

drought periods. Some palo de rosa life 

stages are more sensitive to a particular 

threat (e.g., seedling and sapling 

susceptibility to drought conditions); 

therefore, the species’ response to 

threats in all life stages and the effects 

of these responses can be reasonably 

determined within the foreseeable 

future (50 years). We can also 

reasonably predict development and 

habitat fragmentation and modification 

within this timeframe based on current 

trends. Furthermore, the established 

timeframe for the foreseeable future 

provides for the design and 

implementation of conservation 

strategies to protect and enhance 

currently known populations. 

In terms of climate, we recognize that 

modelled projections for Puerto Rico are 

characterized by some divergence and 

uncertainty later in the century 

(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). However, 

we have reasonable confidence in 

projections within a 50-year timeframe 

representing the foreseeable future for 

palo de rosa because uncertainty is 

reduced within this timeframe. We 

assessed the climate changes expected 

in the year 2070 and determined that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37103 

downscaled future climate change 

scenarios indicate that Puerto Rico is 

predicted to experience changes in 

climate that will affect palo de rosa 

(Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). Thus, 

using a 50-year timeframe for the 

foreseeable future allows us to account 

for the effects of projected changes in 

temperature, the shifting of life zones, 

and an increase in droughts in the 

habitat. 

Analytical Framework 

The 5-year review (USFWS 2017, 

entire) documents the results of our 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the species, including an assessment 

of the potential threats to the species. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the 5-year 

review and the best available 

information gathered since that time. 

The 5-year review can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

Below, we review the biological 

condition of the species and its 

resources, and the threats that influence 

the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Habitat Destruction and Modification 

Habitat destruction and modification, 

including forest management practices, 

were identified as factors affecting the 

continued existence of palo de rosa 

when it was listed in 1990 (55 FR 

13488; April 10, 1990). At present, 

forest management practices within 

Commonwealth forests are not 

considered a threat to palo de rosa 

because of existing regulatory 

mechanisms and lack of evidence of 

direct impacts to the species due to 

forest management practices. For 

example, although there is evidence of 

palo de rosa individuals with multiple 

stems due to historical deforestation and 

harvesting for charcoal production in 

the GCF, selective harvesting and 

deforestation is no longer a threat to the 

GCF population. Similar to the GCF, the 

palo de rosa SCF population (i.e., 

Quebrada Peces, Quebrada Grande, and 

Rı ́o Loco subpopulations) is also 

entirely under conservation, and we 

have no evidence of adverse impacts to 

the species due to forest management 

practices. 

However, that is not necessarily the 

case on private lands; the 

subpopulations of Montes de Barinas 

and Guayanilla-CORCO remain 

vulnerable to deforestation and habitat 

modification. In Montes de Barinas, 

palo de rosa occurs on private 

properties subject to urban 

development, resulting in encroachment 

of native dry forest areas, and thus in 

the isolation of palo de rosa (see 79 FR 

53307, September 9, 2014, with 

reference to threats in the same area). 

These areas also are threatened by 

deforestation for cattle grazing and the 

extraction of timber for fence posts 

(Roma ́n-Guzman 2006, p. 40; see 79 FR 

53307, September 9, 2014). In fact, 

active extraction of timber for fence 

posts has been reported adjacent to the 

Montes de Barinas subpopulation and 

on a neighboring property with other 

endemic species, with palo de rosa 

individuals in the Montes de Barinas 

population likely to be cut if harvesting 

continued (Monsegur-Rivera 2003–2006, 

pers. obs.; Morales 2011, pers. comm.). 

In addition, the area of Montes de 

Barinas showed evidence of bulldozing 

and subdivision for urban development 

(Roma ́n-Guzman 2006, p. 40). 

The habitat at the Guayanilla-CORCO 

population is impacted on a regular 

basis by the Puerto Rico Energy and 

Power Authority (PREPA) for the 

maintenance of power lines and 

associated rights-of-way (USFWS 2017, 

p. 16). Impacts to the species’ habitat 

have been reported in that area as a 

result of construction of access roads to 

PREPA towers (Monsegur-Rivera 2014– 

2020, pers. obs.). Such habitat 

disturbance and modification affect the 

integrity of palo de rosa habitat and 

likely results in direct and indirect 

impacts to individuals. In fact, some 

access roads go through drainages that 

provide good habitat for palo de rosa 

and could affect microhabitat conditions 

necessary for seedling germination and 

recruitment. In addition, these dirt 

access roads provide corridors for the 

establishment of exotic plant species 

like guinea grass (Megathyrsus 

maximus) and zarcilla (Leucaena 

leucocephala), which outcompete the 

native vegetation (including palo de 

rosa) and promote favorable conditions 

for human-induced fires (USFWS 2017, 

p. 16). Moreover, these dirt roads are 

used to access the forested habitat for 

harvesting of timber for fence posts 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2014, pers. obs.). 

Similarly, the habitat in the 

municipalities of Pen ̃uelas and Ponce 

(i.e., Punta Cucharas) near the 

Guayanilla-Pen ̃uelas population has 

been severely fragmented by urban 

development (e.g., housing 

development, hotels, a jail, a landfill, 

rock quarries, and highway PR–2) (see 

79 FR 53307, September 9, 2014), and 

due to maintenance of PREPA power 

lines (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. obs.). 

In Sierra Bermeja and Cerro las Mesas, 

private forested lands also have been 

impacted through deforestation, mainly 

for agricultural practices (i.e., grazing by 

cattle and goats, and associated 

conversion of forested habitat to 

grasslands) and some urban 

development (i.e., construction of 

houses and roads) (Ceden ̃ o-Maldonado 

and Breckon 1996, p. 349; USFWS 1998, 

p. 6; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 6). Most 

of the Sierra Bermeja mountain range 

was zoned with specific restrictions on 

development activities to protect the 

natural resources of the area (JPPR 2009, 

pp. 151–153). This zoning allows for 

agricultural activities and construction 

of residential homes with the 

implementation of best management 

practices and some limitations (JPPR 

2009, p. 151; JPPR 2015, pp. 118–129). 

Nonetheless, landowners continue 

impacting the habitat through activities 

like cutting new access roads on their 

properties and conversion of forested 

land to pasture (Pacheco and MonsegurRivera 2017, pers. obs.). The palo de 

rosa population in Sierra Bermeja is 

limited to two isolated individuals on 

protected lands (LCNWR and PLN 

conservation easement), with no 

evidence of natural recruitment. 

Similarly, the other two palo de rosa 

individuals in Guaniquilla-Buye, also in 

southwest Puerto Rico, are found within 

private lands subject to urban and 

tourist development, although these 

plants are not yet impacted. 

Core subpopulations of palo de rosa 

occur in the northern karst belt of 

Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 1), 

where approximately 80 percent of the 

known sites for palo de rosa occur on 

private lands not managed for 

conservation. These private lands are 

encroached upon by development and 

subject to habitat modification activities 

(e.g., urban development) detrimental to 

palo de rosa. The palo de rosa 

subpopulation at GuCF is the 

westernmost record of the species in 

northern Puerto Rico that lies within an 

area managed for conservation. As 

previously discussed, the GuCF 

subpopulations extend to private lands 

along the Guajataca Gorge. Although the 

steep terrain and low agricultural value 

of this area has protected the 

subpopulations from habitat 

modification, some remain vulnerable to 

infrastructure development (e.g., 

possible expansion of Highway PR–22 

between the municipalities of Hatillo 

and Aguadilla). For example, three 

previously unknown subpopulations 

(including one showing recruitment) 

were located during the biological 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

assessments for the proposed expansion 

of Highway PR–22 (PRHTA 2007, p. 19). 

Another subpopulation vulnerable to 

habitat modification is the MerenderoGuajataca; this area is managed for 

recreation, and the habitat remains 

threatened by vegetation management 

activities (e.g., maintenance of green 

areas and vegetation clearing along 

trails). Habitat modification can also 

have implications beyond the direct 

impacts to a subpopulation. Although 

the palo de rosa in the MerenderoGuajataca subpopulation have produced 

flowers, there are no records of fruit 

production or seedlings (MonsegurRivera 2009–present, pers. obs.); this is 

likely due to habitat modification at the 

site. Nonetheless, this subpopulation 

may interact through cross-pollination 

with the nearby El Tu ́nel-Guajataca 

subpopulation and, thus, contribute to 

observed recruitment in other Guajataca 

Gorge subpopulations. A palo de rosa 

subpopulation was located during a 

biological assessment for the proposed 

expansion of an existing quarry adjacent 

to the Rı ́o Camuy (Sustache-Sustache 

2010, p. 7). We expect impacts to this 

subpopulation from the quarry activities 

will interfere with the natural 

recruitment of the species along the Rı ́o 

Camuy. 

Habitat encroachment is evident on 

private lands surrounding the CCF, 

Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve, 

and Tortuguero Lagoon Natural 

Preserve, where at least six known 

subpopulations occur within private 

lands adjacent to areas subject to 

development or infrastructure projects. 

The subpopulations at Hacienda 

Esperanza extend to private lands on 

their southern boundary, where 

development projects have been 

proposed (e.g., Ciudad Me ́dica del 

Caribe; PRDNER 2011, pp. 24–25). 

Habitat modification in those areas can 

result in direct impacts to palo de rosa 

individuals and can interrupt the 

connectivity between subpopulations 

(e.g., cross-pollination). In addition, the 

analysis of aerial images indicates four 

additional subpopulations occurring on 

private lands in the proximity of 

Hacienda Esperanza are encroached 

upon by urban development, rock 

quarries, and agricultural areas 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2018, pers. obs.). 

The palo de rosa subpopulations at 

Hacienda Sabanera in Dorado have been 

encroached upon by development. We 

prepared a biological opinion during the 

consultation process for the 

construction of Hacienda Sabanera and 

its associated impacts on palo de rosa 

(USFWS 1999, entire). The biological 

opinion indicates that approximately 83 

of the 200 acres (including forested 

mogote habitat) would be impacted, and 

6 adults, 12 saplings, and 35 seedlings 

of palo de rosa would be directly 

affected by the proposed project 

(USFWS 1999, p. 6). Although we 

concluded that the project would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

palo de rosa (USFWS 1999, p. 7), the 

project resulted in substantial loss of 

forested habitat, promoting edge habitat 

favorable for intrusion of weedy species. 

In addition, a series of mogotes along 

Higuillar Avenue, south of Hacienda 

Sabanera, are expected to be impacted 

by proposed road construction 

(PRDNER 2013, pp. 22–24), and we have 

no information that plans for the road 

have been discarded. Encroachment 

conditions similar to those in Hacienda 

Sabanera also occur in the areas of La 

Virgencita (north and south), Mogotes 

de Nevares, Sabana Seca, Parque de las 

Ciencias, Parque Monagas, and Fort 

Buchanan. For example, at La 

Virgencita, the population of palo de 

rosa is bisected by Highway PR–2 and 

could be further impacted if the road is 

widened in the future. Landslides have 

occurred in this area in the past and 

road maintenance in this vulnerable 

area may trigger slide events (PRDNER 

2015, pp. 13–15). In addition, palo de 

rosa individuals are found within the 

PREPA power line rights-of-way (Power 

Line 41500), and there is evidence the 

overall decrease or absence of saplings 

or juveniles in the La Virgencita south 

population may be the result of habitat 

modification and resulting edge habitat 

due to the maintenance of the PREPA 

power line rights-of-way (PRDNER 

2015, pp. 13–15; USFWS 2018, p. 33). 

In addition, the westernmost 

subpopulation of palo de rosa occurs in 

the municipality of Aguadilla in an area 

identified by the Puerto Rico Highway 

and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) 

as part of the proposed expansion of 

highway PR–22 (USFWS 2017, p. 7). 

The Mogotes de Nevares, Sabana 

Seca, Parque de las Ciencias, Parque 

Monagas, and Fort Buchanan 

subpopulations are also severely 

fragmented by urban development and a 

rock quarry (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Such 

fragmentation compromises the 

connectivity between subpopulations. 

Some of these areas are vulnerable to 

landslides due to changes in the contour 

of the terrain associated with a high 

density of urban development, 

encroachment, and quarry operations 

(e.g., Parque Monagas and Fort 

Buchanan) (U.S. Army 2014, p. 3). 

Although Fort Buchanan habitat is set 

aside for conservation, landslides have 

occurred within and near Fort 

Buchanan and the subpopulation 

remains threatened due to potential 

landslides. Fort Buchanan is evaluating 

a possible slope stabilization project for 

the site (U.S. Army 2014, pp. 4, 9–11). 

Palo de rosa occurs within several 

National Parks on Hispaniola 

(Dominican Republic and Haiti) (e.g., 

Parque Nacional del Este, Parque 

Nacional Los Haitises, and Parque 

Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco). Despite 

the occurrence of the species within 

areas managed for conservation (e.g., 

Parque del Este and Sierra de 

Bahoruco), these areas continue to be 

affected by illegal deforestation for 

agriculture and charcoal production, 

and enforcement of existing regulations 

is limited (Jime ́nez 2019, pers. comm.). 

The dependence of the human 

population of Haiti on wood-based 

cooking fuels (e.g., charcoal and 

firewood) has resulted in substantial 

deforestation and forest conversion to 

marginal habitat in both Haiti and 

adjacent regions of the Dominican 

Republic (e.g., Sierra de Bahoruco), and 

the expected increases in the human 

population in Haiti will result in an 

increase in the demand for such fuel 

resources (USFWS 2018, p. 4). In fact, 

there has recently been increasing 

amounts of deforestation and habitat 

degradation in the Sierra de Bahoruco 

and the surrounding region (Grupo 

Jaragua 2011, entire; Goetz et al. 2012, 

p. 5; Simons et al. 2013, p. 31). In 2013, 

an estimated 80 square kilometers 

(19,768.4 acres) of forest in the area was 

lost primarily due to illegal clearing of 

forested habitat for agricultural 

activities (Gallagher 2015, entire). Vast 

areas (including suitable habitat for palo 

de rosa) along the border between Haiti 

and Dominican Republic (including 

within National Parks) are being cleared 

and converted to avocado plantations 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). 

Such deforestation extends to other 

National Parks, such as Parque Nacional 

del Este and Isla Saona, where illegal 

vegetation clearing for agriculture and 

tourism development continue to occur 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2011, pers. obs.). For 

example, analysis of aerial images from 

Isla Saona (Parque Nacional del Este) 

show extensive deforestation and 

conversion of forested habitat to 

agricultural lands during the last decade 

(Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. obs.). 

Impacts to palo de rosa populations due 

to development and habitat destruction 

and modification in Hispaniola are not 

described in the final listing rule for the 

species (55 FR 13488; April 10, 1990), 

but current information indicates that 

palo de rosa and its habitat are being 

affected by deforestation for agricultural 

practices and extraction for fuel 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37105 

resources. To summarize, forest 

management practices within 

Commonwealth Forests are no longer 

considered a threat to palo de rosa. The 

palo de rosa populations at the CCF, 

GCF, GuCF, RACF, and SCF are 

protected, as these forest reserves are 

protected by Commonwealth laws and 

managed for conservation. Nonetheless, 

populations extending onto private 

lands in southern Puerto Rico are 

vulnerable to impacts from urban 

development, agricultural practices 

(e.g., harvesting fence posts), and 

maintenance of power lines and rightsof-way (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. 

obs.). In addition, the majority of the 

subpopulations along the northern karst 

of Puerto Rico occur on private lands, 

where habitat encroachment occurs and 

creates edge habitat conditions (habitat 

intrusion by exotics that precludes 

seedling establishment) and affects 

connectivity and natural recruitment. 

For example, despite the abundance of 

individuals at the palo de rosa 

subpopulation adjacent to the former 

CORCO in Guayanilla-Pen ̃uelas, 

recruitment is limited due to the 

multiple stressors, including 

maintenance of power line rights-ofway, fence post harvest, and intrusion of 

exotic plants species, as well as the 

changes in microhabitat conditions at 

these sites, which preclude seedling 

establishment. Furthermore, habitat 

fragmentation along the northern coast 

may affect cross-pollination among 

subpopulations, resulting in the lack of 

fruit production at isolated 

subpopulations with a smaller number 

of individuals (e.g., MerenderoGuajataca). 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

In the final listing rule (55 FR 13488; 

April 10, 1990), we identified the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms as one of the factors 

affecting the continued existence of palo 

de rosa. At that time, the species had no 

legal protection, because it had not been 

included in Puerto Rico’s list of 

protected species. Once palo de rosa 

was federally listed, legal protection 

was extended by virtue of an existing 

cooperative agreement (under section 6 

of the Act) with the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Federal listing assured the 

addition of palo de rosa to the 

Commonwealth’s list of protected 

species, and the Commonwealth 

designated palo de rosa as endangered 

in 2004 (DRNA 2004, p. 52). 

In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico approved Law No. 241, also known 

as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico 

(Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto 

Rico), and palo de rosa is legally 

protected under this law. The purpose 

of this law is to protect, conserve, and 

enhance both native and migratory 

wildlife species, and to declare as 

property of Puerto Rico all wildlife 

species within its jurisdiction, to 

regulate permits, to regulate hunting 

activities, and to regulate exotic species, 

among other activities. This law also has 

provisions to protect habitat for all 

wildlife species, including plants. In 

2004, the PRDNER approved Regulation 

6766 or Regulations to Govern the 

Management of Species Vulnerable and 

Danger of Extinction in the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las 

Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de 

Extincio ́n en el Estado Libre Asociado 

de Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of 

Regulation 6766 prohibits, among other 

activities, collecting, cutting, and 

removing of listed plant individuals 

within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico 

(DRNA 2004, p. 11). The provisions of 

Law No. 241–1999 and Regulation 6766 

extend to private lands. However, the 

protection of listed species on private 

lands is challenging, as landowners may 

be unaware that species are protected 

and may damage those species (e.g., by 

cutting, pruning, or mowing) (USFWS 

2017, p. 23), which might be the case if 

palo de rosa is cut for fence posts. 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law 

No. 133 (1975, as amended in 2000), 

also known as Puerto Rico Forests’ Law 

(Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico), 

protects the areas of the GCF, SCF, 

GuCF, RACF, and CCF, and, by 

extension, the palo de rosa individuals 

on them. Section 8(a) of this law 

prohibits cutting, killing, destroying, 

uprooting, extracting, or in any way 

hurting any tree or vegetation within a 

Commonwealth forest. The PRDNER 

also identified these Commonwealth 

forests as ‘‘critical wildlife areas.’’ This 

designation constitutes a special 

recognition with the purpose of 

providing information to 

Commonwealth and Federal agencies 

about the conservation needs of these 

areas, and to assist permitting agencies 

in precluding adverse impacts as a 

result of project endorsements or permit 

approvals (PRDNER 2005, pp. 211–216). 

In addition, Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico Law No. 292 (1999), also known as 

Puerto Rico Karst Physiographic 

Protection and Conservation Law (Ley 

para la Proteccio ́n y Conservacio ́n de la 

Fisiografı ́a Ca ́rsica de Puerto Rico), 

regulates the extraction of rock and 

gravel for commercial purposes, and 

prohibits the cutting of native and 

endemic vegetation in violation of other 

laws (e.g., Law No. 241–1999 and 

Regulation 6766). Law No. 292–1999 

applies to karst habitat in both southern 

and northern Puerto Rico. 

On the LCNWR, habitat is managed in 

accordance with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee, as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 [Improvement Act]), and collection 

of plants within refuge lands is 

prohibited by title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 27.51. 

The LCNWR has a comprehensive 

conservation plan that includes 

measures for the protection and 

recovery of endangered and threatened 

plant species (USFWS 2011a, p. 35). 

Furthermore, the Puerto Rico Planning 

Board (Junta de Planificacio ́n de Puerto 

Rico) classified most of the mountain 

range of Sierra Bermeja as a District of 

Conservation of Resources (Distrito de 

Conservacio ́n de Suelos) (JPPR 2009, p. 

151). This conservation category 

identifies lands with particular 

characteristics that need to be 

maintained or enhanced (e.g., provide 

habitat for species of concern), and 

establishes specific restrictions for 

development (JPPR 2009, p. 151). Also, 

in 2015, the Puerto Rico Planning Board 

approved the Land Use Plan for Puerto 

Rico, and categorized most of the Sierra 

Bermeja Mountains, including the 

LCNWR, as Rustic Soil Specially 

Protected (Suelo Rustico Especialmente 

Protegido) where no urban development 

is considered due to location, 

topography, aesthetic value, 

archaeological value, or ecological value 

of land (Puerto Rico Planning Board 

Interactive Map 2020). 

The palo de rosa individuals found at 

Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve 

are protected, as this reserve also is 

managed for conservation by PLN, and 

the management plan considers palo de 

rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67). 

The PLN also manages the Rı ́o 

Encantado Natural Protected Area, a 

mosaic of at least 1,818 ac (736 ha) of 

forested habitat (including extensive 

areas of suitable habitat for palo de rosa) 

in the municipalities of Florida, Manatı ́, 

and Ciales, and PLN plans to continue 

acquiring habitat at this geographical 

area (PLN 2011b, p. 5). Also, palo de 

rosa is protected and managed under an 

MOU among the U.S. Army Garrison, 

Fort Buchanan, the Service, and 

PRDNER (U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan 

2015, entire). This palo de rosa 

subpopulation is found in a mogote 

designated for conservation (USACE 

2014, p. 3). 

In addition, the private natural 

reserves of El Tallonal and Mata de 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37106 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Pla ́tano, which contain subpopulations 

of palo de rosa in the municipality of 

Arecibo, are protected from habitat 

modification and have approved private 

forest stewardship management plans 

that include measures for the protection 

of listed species within the properties 

(PRDNER 2005, 47 pp.). We have an 

extended history of collaboration with 

these two reserves, providing financial 

and technical assistance for the 

implementation of recovery actions to 

benefit listed species. 

In addition to protections provided by 

the Act, the species is protected from 

collection and provided management 

considerations by the Improvement Act 

within one national wildlife refuge 

(LCNWR). In addition, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally 

protects palo de rosa, including 

protections to its habitat, through 

Commonwealth Law No. 241–1999 and 

Regulation 6766, which prohibit, among 

other actions, collecting, cutting, and 

removing listed plants. If we downlist 

this species, we do not expect this 

species to be removed from legal 

protection by the Commonwealth. 

Although these protections extend to 

both public and private lands, as 

discussed above, protection of this 

species on private land is challenging. 

Habitat that occurs on private land is 

subject to pressures from agricultural 

practices (e.g., grazing, harvesting fence 

posts) and development. Accidental 

damage or extirpation of individuals has 

occurred because private landowners or 

other parties on the property may not be 

able to identify the species or may not 

be aware that palo de rosa is a protected 

species. Habitat modifications and 

fragmentation continue to occur on 

private lands, which can increase the 

likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic 

plants and human-induced fires and 

reduce connectivity between 

populations and the availability of 

suitable habitat for the species’ 

recruitment. In short, this plant is now 

more abundant and widely distributed, 

including within conservation land, so 

the threat due to inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms has been 

reduced. However, the occurrences of 

palo de rosa on private lands continue 

to need enforcement of existing 

prohibitions, as well as increased 

attention and associated outreach to 

highlight the species’ conservation and 

importance. 

Recruitment 

Here, we summarize the continuing 

threat of low recruitment on palo de 

rosa populations, and we describe this 

influence on palo de rosa viability in 

greater detail under Recruitment and 

Population Structure, above. 

Characteristics of palo de rosa’s life 

history may contribute to the slow or 

lack of recruitment observed in current 

subpopulations (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, 

pers. obs.). Individual palo de rosa trees 

grow extremely slowly, and the growth 

of the saplings is also quite slow, with 

an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 

ft) after 20 years of growth. It is 

estimated that, under natural 

conditions, individuals of palo de rosa 

may require at least 40 years to reach a 

reproductive size. In addition, seeds of 

this species are not dispersed by any 

discernible method other than gravity 

and concentrate under the parental tree. 

Thus, recruitment is limited to the 

proximity of the parental tree, limiting 

the species’ potential to colonize further 

suitable habitat, and limiting the 

survival of clustered seedlings due to 

closed canopy conditions and 

competition with the parental tree. 

Population dynamics and survey 

assessments support the conclusion that 

palo de rosa is a late successional 

species, whose saplings may remain 

dormant under closed canopy 

conditions, until there is some natural 

disturbance that provides favorable 

conditions for the development of the 

saplings. Thus, the species requires an 

open canopy to promote seedling 

growth and is adapted to natural 

disturbances such as hurricanes 

(Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under 

this scenario, the natural populations 

show a slow natural recruitment that 

requires stable habitat conditions with a 

regime of natural disturbance (i.e., 

tropical storms or hurricanes). 

Reproductive events (i.e., flowering 

and fruiting) have been associated with 

larger, more mature trees (Breckon and 

Kolterman 1992, p. 8; USFWS 2009, p. 

4). Cross-pollination between or among 

subpopulations maximizes the 

likelihood of fruit production and 

contributes to recruitment, which 

underscores the importance of 

conserving the species through a 

landscape approach to promote natural 

recruitment. Although current 

information on population structure 

indicates the species requires some 

open canopy areas to promote 

recruitment, widespread deforestation 

fragments habitat and creates edges 

(habitat transition zones). 

There is no evidence of natural 

recruitment at this time for 40 of the 66 

known subpopulations, although the 

species’ life history implies that 

recruitment may still occur in these 

populations when a canopy opening is 

created and suitable conditions for 

recruitment are present. Forest cover in 

Puerto Rico has increased since the 

widespread deforestation in the 1930s 

(Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but 

the species was likely more widespread 

prior to deforestation and habitat 

fragmentation. A life history 

requirement for a closed canopy forest 

for adult individuals with canopy 

openings to promote seedling and 

sapling recruitment was likely more 

sustainable in populations with greater 

abundance and distribution than the 

species currently exhibits. Smaller and 

more isolated subpopulations are less 

able to provide closed canopy 

conditions with small pockets of 

openings; thus, inherent palo de rosa 

life history characteristics have an effect 

on recruitment, and this effect is 

expected to continue in the future. 

Hurricanes and Related Threats 

At the time of listing, we considered 

individuals of palo de rosa vulnerable to 

flash flood events (see 55 FR 13490, 

April 10, 1990). Flash floods remain a 

moderate threat and may compromise 

the natural recruitment of seedlings, 

particularly on subpopulations along 

the southern coast of Puerto Rico where 

the species occurs at the bottom of 

drainages (USFWS 2017, p. 17). Below, 

we describe these threats and other 

natural and human-caused factors 

affecting the continued existence of palo 

de rosa. 

As an endemic species to the 

Caribbean, palo de rosa is expected to be 

well adapted to tropical storms and 

associated disturbances such as flash 

floods. Under natural conditions, 

healthy populations with robust 

numbers of individuals and recruitment 

should withstand tropical storms, and 

these weather and climatic events may 

be beneficial for the population 

dynamics of palo de rosa by creating 

small openings in the closed canopy to 

allow seedling and sapling growth. The 

islands of the Caribbean are frequently 

affected by hurricanes. Puerto Rico has 

been directly affected by four major 

hurricanes since 1989. Successional 

responses to hurricanes can influence 

the structure and composition of plant 

communities in the Caribbean islands 

(Lugo 2000, p. 245; Van Bloem et al. 

2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 

572; Van Bloem et al. 2006, p. 517). 

Examples of the visible effects of 

hurricanes on the ecosystem includes 

massive defoliation, snapped and windthrown trees, large debris 

accumulations, landslides, debris flows, 

and altered stream channels, among 

others (Lugo 2008, p. 368). Hurricanes 

can produce sudden and massive tree 

mortality, which varies among species 

but averages about 41.5 percent (Lugo 

2000, p. 245). Hence, small populations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37107 

of palo de rosa may be severely 

impacted by hurricanes, resulting in 

loss of individuals or extirpation. The 

impact of catastrophic hurricanes is 

exacerbated in small populations. 

There is evidence of damage to 

individuals of palo de rosa due to 

previous hurricane events (e.g., 

Hurricane Georges in 1998) at the 

Hacienda Sabanera and Hacienda 

Esperanza subpopulations (USFWS 

2017, p. 17). A post-hurricane 

assessment of selected populations of 

palo de rosa was conducted to address 

the impact of Hurricane Marı ́a (USFWS 

2018, entire). Even though Hurricane 

Marı ́a did not directly hit the GCF, 

evidence of damage to palo de rosa trees 

was recorded at Can ̃ on Las Trichilias 

(e.g., uprooted trees and main trunk 

broken) (USFWS 2018, p. 3). Additional 

evidence of direct impacts (including 

mortality) due to Hurricane Marı ́a were 

recorded in the Hacienda Esperanza, 

Hacienda Sabanera, Parque Monagas, 

and La Virgencita subpopulations 

(USFWS 2018, entire). An analysis of 

high-resolution aerial images from these 

sites following Hurricane Marı ́a shows 

extensive damage and modification to 

the forest structure, with 

subpopulations in southern Puerto Rico 

exposed to less wind damage (Hu and 

Smith 2018, pp. 1, 17). When comparing 

affected subpopulation abundance, the 

evidence of direct impacts to 

individuals of palo de rosa due to 

Hurricane Marı ́a appear to be 

discountable. However, this posthurricane assessment focused on 

previously surveyed robust 

subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire). 

Overall, the subpopulations along the 

northern coast of Puerto Rico suffered 

severe defoliation, with trees showing 

mortality of the crown apex, but some 

trees showing regrowth 6 months posthurricane (USFWS 2018, entire). 

However, hurricane damage extends 

beyond the direct impacts to individual 

palo de rosa trees. As mentioned above, 

the subpopulations along the northern 

coast of Puerto Rico are severely 

fragmented due to prior land-use 

history. Disturbance and edge effects 

associated with urban development and 

infrastructure corridors may promote 

the establishment and spread of 

invasive, nonnative plant species, and 

lianas (woody vines) typical of early or 

intermediate successional stages, which 

may result in rare and endemic plant 

species being outcompeted (Hansen and 

Clevenger 2005, p. 249; Madeira et al. 

2009, p. 291). Hurricanes may not 

introduce nonnative species to the forest 

structure, but they can promote 

favorable conditions for these species 

and therefore increase the relative 

abundance of nonnatives. 

Habitat intrusion by exotics is 

positively correlated to the distance of 

the disturbance gap (Hansen and 

Clevenger 2005, p. 249). Thus, the 

adverse effects from human-induced 

habitat disturbance (e.g., deforestation 

and urban development) can be 

exacerbated by hurricanes by creating or 

increasing this disturbance gap. A posthurricane assessment provided evidence 

that all palo de rosa subpopulations 

along the north coast of Puerto Rico 

showed habitat intrusion by weedy 

vines (e.g., Dioscorea alata (n ̃ ame), 

Thunbergia grandiflora (pompeya), 

Cissus erosa (caro de tres hojas), and 

Cayaponia americana (bejuco de 

torero)) following Hurricane Marı ́a 

(USFWS 2018, entire). In the same 

assessment, weedy vegetation and vines 

densely covered an area in the Hacienda 

Esperanza subpopulation, where palo de 

rosa occurs at a low-elevation mogote, 

and Hacienda Sabanera, where the 

habitat that harbors the palo de rosa 

population was cut to the edge of the 

population of the species due to urban 

development (USFWS 2018, pp. 8–18). 

Examination of aerial images of the 

habitat shows a flattened forest structure 

indicative of hurricane damage, with 

standing trees missing main branches 

and canopy. Competition with 

nonnative species and weedy vines for 

necessary resources (space, light, water, 

nutrients) may reduce the natural 

recruitment by inhibiting germination 

and outcompeting seedlings of native 

species (Rojas-Sandoval and Mele ́ndezAckerman 2013, p. 11; Thomson 2005, 

p. 615). Palo de rosa seedlings at 

Hacienda Esperanza were covered (and 

outcompeted) by weedy vines following 

Hurricane Marı ́a (USFWS 2018, p. 8). At 

Fort Buchanan, 6 months after 

Hurricane Marı ́a, the vegetation at the 

base of the mogote on that property was 

overgrown and dominated by weedy 

species. However, weedy vegetation had 

not reached palo de rosa individuals at 

the top of the mogote, and there was 

little evidence of adverse impacts to 

seedlings and saplings due to 

competition with exotics (USFWS 2018, 

p. 8). 

The GCF subpopulations of palo de 

rosa are surrounded by a large tract of 

intact native forest, providing a buffer 

zone that precludes habitat invasion by 

exotics. Despite the overall evidence of 

canopy opening and some impacts to 

individuals of palo de rosa due to 

Hurricane Marı ́a, there was no evidence 

of habitat intrusion by exotics at Can ̃ on 

Las Trichilias and Can ̃ on Hoya Honda 

(USFWS 2018 pp. 3–8), which 

highlights the importance of 

maintaining native forested habitat that 

provides a buffer for palo de rosa 

subpopulations. 

The above discussion indicates that 

the potential adverse impacts due to 

hurricanes and the associated habitat 

intrusion by exotic plant species are 

variable, depending on habitat 

fragmentation, topography, distance to 

disturbance, and the size of the 

subpopulation. It further highlights the 

importance of having healthy 

populations with robust numbers of 

individuals and a stratified population 

structure (i.e., seedlings, saplings, and 

adults) to allow for recovery following 

hurricanes and associated habitat 

disturbance. 

Climate Change 

Regarding the effects of climate 

change, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Observed 

effects associated with climate change 

include widespread changes in 

precipitation amounts and aspects of 

extreme weather including droughts, 

heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the 

intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 

2014, p. 4). Rather than assessing 

climate change as a single threat in and 

of itself, we examined the potential 

effects to the species and its habitat that 

arise from changes in environmental 

conditions associated with various 

aspects of climate change. 

We examined a downscaled model for 

Puerto Rico based on three IPCC global 

emissions scenarios from the CMIP3 

data set—mid-high (A2), mid-low (A1B), 

and low (B1)—as the CMIP5 data set 

was not available for Puerto Rico at that 

time (Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279– 

280). These scenarios are generally 

comparable and span the more recent 

representative concentration pathways 

(RCP) scenarios from RCP 4.5 (B1) to 

RCP 8.5 (A2) (IPCC 2014, p. 57). The B1 

and A2 scenarios encompass the 

projections and effects of the A1B 

scenario; we will describe our analyses 

for the B1 (RCP 4.5) and A2 (RCP 8.5) 

scenarios and recognize the A1B (RCP 

6.0) projections and effects fall into this 

range. 

The modelling of climate projections 

expected in Puerto Rico used in our 

analysis extends to 2100. We 

acknowledge inherent divergence in 

climate projections based on the model 

chosen, with uncertainty increasing 

later in the century (Khalyani et al. 

2016, p. 275). However, we assessed the 

climate changes expected in the year 

2070, a 50-year timeframe representing 

the foreseeable future for palo de rosa 

(as described in Regulatory Framework, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37108 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

above). Under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 

scenarios, precipitation declines while 

temperature and total dry days increase, 

resulting in extreme drought conditions 

that would result in the conversion of 

subtropical dry forest into dry and very 

dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280). 

Downscaled future climate change 

scenarios indicate that by 2070, Puerto 

Rico is predicted to experience a 

decrease in rainfall, along with 

increased drought intensity under RCP 

4.5 and 8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 265; 

Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 133; U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP) 

2018, 20:820). The western region of 

Puerto Rico has already experienced 

negative trends in annual rainfall (PRCC 

2013, p. 7). Temperatures are also 

expected to rise between 2020 and 2070. 

Under RCP 4.5, a mean temperature 

increase of 4.6–5.4 degrees Celsius (°C) 

(40.3–41.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) is 

projected, and an increase of 7.5–9 °C 

(45.5–48.2 °F) is projected under RCP 

8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). As 

precipitation decreases influenced by 

warming, it will tend to accelerate the 

hydrological cycles, resulting in wet and 

dry extremes (Jennings et al. 2014, p. 4; 

Cashman et al. 2010, p. 1). Downscaled 

general circulation models predict 

dramatic shifts in the life zones of 

Puerto Rico with potential loss of 

subtropical rain, moist, and wet forests, 

and the appearance of tropical dry and 

very dry forests are anticipated under 

both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios 

(Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). 

Nonetheless, such predicted changes in 

life zones may not severely affect palo 

de rosa due to its distribution 

throughout Puerto Rico, which includes 

different life zones and habitat types. 

Vulnerability to climate change 

impacts is a function of sensitivity to 

those changes, exposure to those 

changes, and adaptive capacity (IPCC 

2007, p. 89; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19). 

As described earlier, palo de rosa is a 

species with low recruitment and seed 

dispersal limited to gravity, limiting its 

potential to reach areas with suitable 

microhabitat conditions for its 

establishment. Despite the evidence of 

multiple reproductive events (fruit 

production) in one subpopulation, low 

recruitment of saplings and a 

population structure dominated by 

adult trees could be the result of 

mortality and thinning of individuals at 

the seedling stage due to drought stress. 

The projected prolonged droughts 

expected with climate change may affect 

the phenology of palo de rosa, resulting 

in the loss of developing flowers and 

fruits, or reduce the viability of the few 

produced seeds, reducing the likelihood 

of natural recruitment. In addition, 

hurricanes followed by extended 

periods of drought caused by climate 

change may result in microclimate 

alterations that could allow other plants 

(native or nonnative) to become 

established and become invasive (Lugo 

2000, p. 246), which would preclude the 

recruitment of palo rosa seedlings. 

Based the distribution of palo de rosa 

and its habitat, we have determined that 

conditions associated with climate 

change could impact this species. 

Climate change is almost certain to 

affect terrestrial habitats and palo de 

rosa; however, the future extent and 

timing of those effects beyond the 

foreseeable future is uncertain. Some 

terrestrial plant populations are able to 

adapt and respond to changing climatic 

conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire), 

but the ability of palo de rosa to do so 

is unknown. A sound, long-term 

monitoring of known palo de rosa 

populations is needed to understand the 

effects on the species’ viability. 

In summary, other natural and 

manmade factors, such as hurricanes 

and related threats due to habitat 

fragmentation, edge habitat, habitat 

intrusion by exotic plant species, and 

the low recruitment and limited 

dispersal of palo de rosa, are current 

threats to the species. Hurricanes and 

post-hurricane habitat encroachment 

and nonnative plant invasion have 

affected subpopulations along the 

northern coast of Puerto Rico (USFWS 

2018, entire). Invasive species can 

preclude the establishment of new palo 

de rosa individuals through competition 

for sunlight, nutrients, water, and space 

to grow. Although climate change is 

almost certain to affect terrestrial 

habitats, there is uncertainty about how 

predicted future changes in 

temperature, precipitation, and other 

factors will influence palo de rosa. 

Small Population Size 

At the time of listing (55 FR 13488; 

April 10, 1990), we considered small 

population size as a threat affecting the 

continued survival of palo de rosa, 

based on the species’ limited 

distribution and low number of 

individuals (i.e., only 9 individuals 

throughout the species’ range in Puerto 

Rico). Based on this information, we 

considered the risk of extinction of palo 

de rosa very high. New distribution and 

abundance information available since 

the species was listed reflects that palo 

de rosa is more abundant and widely 

distributed than previously thought 

(USFWS 2017, entire); thus, we no 

longer consider limited distribution as 

an imminent threat to this species. 

However, at least 37 (56 percent) of the 

known subpopulations are composed of 

10 or fewer individuals. The effect of 

small population size exacerbates other 

threats and makes these subpopulations 

vulnerable to extirpation by stochastic 

and catastrophic events. 

Overall Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the threats faced by 

palo de rosa in developing this 

proposed rule. Limited distribution and 

a low number of individuals were 

considered a threat to palo de rosa when 

we listed the species (55 FR 13488; 

April 10, 1990), but recent information 

indicates the species is more abundant 

and widely distributed than known at 

the time of listing. However, other 

threats are still affecting palo de rosa. 

Based on the analysis above, although 

we no longer consider limited 

distribution as an imminent threat to 

this species, we conclude that habitat 

destruction and modification on 

privately owned lands (particularly 

along the northern coast of Puerto Rico), 

and other natural or manmade factors 

(e.g., hurricanes, habitat fragmentation 

resulting in lack of connectivity 

between individuals, and habitat 

encroachment by invasive species) have 

been greatly reduced but continue to 

threaten palo de rosa populations. In 

addition, low recruitment related to 

sporadic flowering and fruit production, 

and the slow growth of seedlings under 

close canopy conditions (e.g., species 

reproductive biology and ecology), 

coupled with the threats discussed 

above, are expected to remain threats to 

palo de rosa. It is also expected that palo 

de rosa will be affected by climate 

change within the foreseeable future, 

particularly by generalized changes in 

precipitation and drought conditions. 

Climate change is expected to result in 

more intense hurricanes and extended 

periods of drought. Increased hurricanes 

are expected to cause direct mortality of 

adult trees downed due to high winds, 

whereas more intense drought 

conditions are expected to reduce the 

species’ reproductive output (reduced 

flowering and fruiting events) and also 

preclude seedling and sapling 

recruitment. However, based on the best 

available data, we do not consider 

climate change to represent a current or 

an imminent threat to this species 

across its range. 

Species viability, or the species’ 

ability to sustain populations over time, 

is related to the species’ ability to 

withstand catastrophic population- and 

species-level events (redundancy), to 

adapt to novel changes in its biological 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37109 

and physical environment 

(representation), and to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity and disturbances 

(resiliency). The viability of a species is 

also dependent on the likelihood of new 

stressors or continued threats, now and 

in the future, that act to reduce a 

species’ redundancy, representation, 

and resiliency. A highly resilient palo 

de rosa population should be 

characterized by sufficient abundance 

and connectivity between reproductive 

individuals to allow for reproductive 

events and cross-pollination, an age 

class structure representative of 

recruitment greater than mortality, 

multiple subpopulations within the 

population, and the availability of highquality habitat to allow for recruitment. 

High representation for the species is 

characterized by multiple populations 

occurring within a wide range of 

environmental conditions (e.g., 

substrate and precipitation) that allow 

for sufficient genetic variability. 

Multiple resilient populations across the 

range of the species characterize high 

redundancy for palo de rosa. 

We evaluated the biological status of 

palo de rosa both currently and into the 

future, considering the species’ viability 

as characterized by its resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation. Based 

on the analysis of available herbarium 

specimens, we have determined the 

species’ distribution and abundance was 

once more common and widespread, 

and was likely a dominant late 

successional species of coastal to 

middle elevation (500 m (1,640 ft)) 

habitats, and even extended to coastal 

valleys and sand dunes (see table, 

above) (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. 

obs.). The current known palo de rosa 

subpopulations are remnants of the 

species’ historical distribution, 

persisting on areas of low agricultural 

value (e.g., top of the mogotes) that were 

affected by deforestation for charcoal 

production, as evidenced by individuals 

with multiple trunks of palo de rosa 

sprouting from the same base. Based on 

the available information on palo de 

rosa’s natural distribution at the time of 

listing, and considering that 40 of the 

known 66 subpopulations currently 

show no recruitment and no 

subpopulations appear to be expanding 

due to natural dispersal, palo de rosa 

populations exhibit reduced resiliency. 

No subpopulations appear to be 

dispersing, and no populations are 

highly resilient. None of the currently 

known subpopulations of palo de rosa 

are considered a recent colonization 

event or natural expansion of the 

species within its habitat. The species 

persisted through the almost entire 

deforestation of Puerto Rico with less 

than 6 percent of remaining forested 

habitat across the island by the 1930s 

(Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), when the low 

elevation coastal valleys habitat of palo 

de rosa was extensively deforested for 

agricultural practices (e.g., sugar cane 

and tobacco plantations). There are 

broad accounts regarding the extensive 

deforestation and habitat modification 

that occurred in Puerto Rico until the 

1950s (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), which 

resulted in changes in forest structure 

and diversity, pollinators’ assemblages, 

seed dispersers, and the prevailing 

microhabitat conditions in which palo 

de rosa evolved. Despite the return from 

such deforestation, known 

subpopulations show a clustered and 

patchy distribution, and are 

characterized by a population structure 

dominated by adults. Moreover, the 

species faces a low recruitment rate and 

slow growth, resulting in few saplings 

reaching a reproductive size; in 

addition, the species shows minimal or 

no dispersal (limited to gravity). Based 

on our observations, it has taken about 

60 years from the peak of deforestation 

(1930s) for palo de rosa to show some 

initial evidence of recruitment. 

We consider that palo de rosa has 

limited redundancy, as it is known from 

multiple subpopulations (66) 

throughout its geographical range, 

representing 14 natural populations 

distributed throughout the southern and 

northern coasts of Puerto Rico. 

Nonetheless, about 37 (56 percent) of 

the known subpopulations are 

composed of 10 or fewer individuals 

and show little or no recruitment and, 

thus, reduced resiliency (see table, 

above). As described above, the species 

faces a low recruitment rate, slow 

growth and limited dispersal, and 

patchy and small subpopulations, 

resulting in an increased vulnerability 

to extirpation of these subpopulations. 

All these characteristics are limiting 

factors and make the species vulnerable 

to catastrophic and stochastic events, 

such as hurricanes and droughts, that 

can cause local extirpations. The best 

available information indicates that palo 

de rosa is not naturally expanding into 

or colonizing habitats outside the areas 

where it is known to occur. 

In terms of the representation of palo 

de rosa, we have no data on its genetic 

variability. Although the species occurs 

in a wide range of habitats and 

environmental conditions, it has a 

fragmented distribution, scattered 

(sporadic) flowering events, and a low 

recruitment rate. Thus, little or no 

genetic exchange is thought to occur 

between extant subpopulations, likely 

resulting in outbreeding depression, 

which may explain the lack of effective 

reproduction and recruitment 

(Frankham et al. 2011, p. 466). The low 

recruitment rate results in little transfer 

of genetic variability into future 

generations, limits the expansion of the 

species outside its current locations, 

and limits its ability to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions. For 

example, the loss or reduction of 

connectivity between subpopulations in 

areas like Arecibo-Vega Baja, Dorado, La 

Virgencita, Mogotes de Nevares, and 

San Juan-Fajardo can be detrimental to 

the long-term viability of the species as 

it affects cross-pollination and, 

therefore, gene flow. In fact, the only 

populations that occur entirely within 

native forest areas managed for 

conservation are GCF and SCF. This 

continued protected habitat provides for 

an effective cross-pollination (gene 

flow) that can secure the long-term 

viability of the species. However, the 

overall representation of palo de rosa is 

reduced, as the GCF and SCF 

populations are restricted to the 

southern coast and the genetic 

representation of palo de rosa in the 

northern karst area, a different 

ecological environment, is vulnerable 

because that habitat is threatened by 

destruction or modification. 

Determination of Palo de Rosa’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. For a more detailed 

discussion on the factors considered 

when determining whether a species 

meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ and 

our analysis on how we determine the 

foreseeable future in making these 

decisions, please see Regulatory and 

Analytical Framework, above. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we have determined that palo de 

rosa’s current viability is higher than 

was known at the time of listing 

(population current estimate of 1,144 

individuals in 66 subpopulations) based 

on the best available information. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37110 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Currently, the number of palo de rosa 

individuals has changed from 9 

individuals in protected lands at the 

time of listing to 407 individuals (32 

percent of subpopulations) currently 

occurring in areas managed for 

conservation (e.g., Commonwealth 

Forest and Federal lands). Furthermore, 

396 individuals (38 percent of 

subpopulations) occur in areas subject 

to little habitat modification due to the 

steep topography in the northern karst 

region of Puerto Rico. The remaining 30 

percent of the subpopulations 

(containing approximately 341 

individuals) occur within areas severely 

encroached and vulnerable to urban or 

infrastructure development. 

Nonetheless, habitat destruction and 

modification on privately owned lands 

(particularly along the northern coast of 

Puerto Rico) and other natural or 

manmade factors (such as hurricanes, 

habitat fragmentation, lack of 

connectivity between populations, 

habitat intrusion by invasive species, 

and the species’ reproductive biology) 

continue to threaten the viability of palo 

de rosa. Although population numbers 

and abundance of palo de rosa have 

increased, and some identified threats 

have decreased, our analysis indicates 

that threats remain. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that palo de rosa no longer 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. We therefore proceed with 

determining whether palo de rosa meets 

the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species (i.e., is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future) throughout all of its range. 

In terms of habitat destruction and 

modification, we can reasonably 

determine that 70 percent of 

subpopulations (71 percent of 

individuals) are not expected to be 

substantially affected by habitat 

destruction and modification in the 

foreseeable future. This majority occurs 

within protected lands managed for 

conservation (36 percent of the known 

individuals or 32 percent of 

subpopulations) or on private lands 

with low probability of modification 

due to steep topography (35 percent of 

the known individuals or 38 percent of 

subpopulations). However, for the 30 

percent of subpopulations occurring in 

areas severely encroached and 

vulnerable to urban or infrastructure 

development now and into the future 

(30 percent of the known individuals), 

we are reasonably certain these 

subpopulations will continue to have a 

lower resiliency (due to reduced 

connectivity (cross-pollination) and lack 

of recruitment), and, in some cases, may 

experience the loss of individuals or 

subpopulations adjacent to critical 

infrastructure such as highways or other 

development within the foreseeable 

future (e.g., Hacienda Sabanera, PR–2 

and PR–22 maintenance and expansion, 

Islote Ward extirpation). 

We have evidence that some 

populations are showing signs of 

reproduction and recruitment. However, 

due to the slow growth of the species it 

may take several decades to ensure 

these recruitment events effectively 

contribute to a population’s resiliency 

(new individuals reach a reproductive 

size). Despite no longer considering 

limited distribution as an imminent 

threat to this species, we have identified 

factors associated with habitat 

modification and other natural or 

manmade factors that still have some 

impacts on palo de rosa and affect the 

species’ viability and effective natural 

recruitment. The species still faces 

dispersal problems, and the recruitment 

is still limited to the proximity of parent 

trees; we have no evidence of a 

population of palo de rosa that is the 

result of a recent colonization event or 

a significant population expansion. This 

renders the known subpopulations 

vulnerable to adverse effects related to 

habitat fragmentation and lack of 

connectivity, which may preclude 

future recruitment and the population’s 

resiliency. 

In addition, despite the presence of 

regulations protecting the species both 

on public and private lands, the 

protection of palo de rosa on private 

lands remains challenging. Habitat 

modifications and fragmentation 

continue to occur on private lands, 

which can increase the likelihood of 

habitat intrusion by exotic plants and 

human-induced fires, and reduce 

connectivity between populations 

(affecting cross-pollinations) and the 

availability of suitable habitat for the 

natural recruitment of the species. Still, 

none of these is an imminent threat to 

the species at a magnitude such that the 

taxon warrants endangered status across 

its range. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

palo de rosa is not currently in danger 

of extinction, but it is likely to become 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided that the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant, and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for palo de 

rosa, we choose to address the status 

question first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the species and the threats that 

the species faces to identify any 

portions of the range where the species 

is may be endangered. Kinds of threats 

and levels of threats are more likely to 

vary across a species’ range if the 

species has a large range rather than a 

very small natural range, such as the 

palo de rosa. Species with limited 

ranges are more likely to experience the 

same kinds and generally the same 

levels of threats in all parts of their 

range. 

For palo de rosa, we considered 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in any portion of the 

species’ range at a biologically 

meaningful scale in the context of its 

small natural range. We examined the 

following threats: Habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and modification; 

invasive species; hurricanes; and the 

effects of climate change, including 

cumulative effects. We have identified 

that habitat destruction and 

modification is threatening known 

populations in three of the five areas 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37111 

along the southern coast of Puerto Rico 

and eight of nine populations along the 

northern coast of Puerto Rico, 

particularly on privately owned lands 

throughout the range of the species. In 

addition, habitat destruction and 

modification are occurring within the 

species’ range in Hispaniola. Habitat 

encroachment by invasive plant species 

and habitat fragmentation caused by 

harvesting of timber for fence posts and 

maintaining rights-of-way are also 

considered to be further stressors to the 

viability of palo de rosa across the 

species’ range. Changes in climatic 

conditions are expected to result in 

more intense hurricanes and extended 

periods of drought under RCPs 4.5 and 

8.5, but the effect of these changes on 

palo de rosa is unknown. The expected 

changes in climatic conditions will 

affect all populations of palo de rosa 

uniformly across the range of the 

species. Lastly, palo de rosa populations 

across the range experience low 

recruitment rates, slow growth, and 

limited dispersal. 

We found no concentration of threats 

in any portion of palo de rosa’s range at 

a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, 

there are no portions of the species’ 

range where the species has a different 

status from its rangewide status. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. This is consistent with 

the courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors 

v. Department of the Interior, No. 16– 

cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that palo de rosa meets the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species. 

Therefore, we propose to reclassify palo 

de rosa as a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. We are proposing to reclassify 

palo de rosa as a threatened species, and 

if we adopt this rule as proposed, the 

prohibitions in section 9 would no 

longer apply directly to the palo de rosa. 

We are therefore proposing below a set 

of regulations to provide for the 

conservation of the species in 

accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, 

which also authorizes us to apply any 

of the prohibitions in section 9 of the 

Act to a threatened species. The 

proposal, which includes a description 

of the kinds of activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation, 

complies with this policy. 

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary of the Interior shall issue 

such regulations as he deems necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or 9(a)(2), in the case of 

plants. Thus, the combination of the two 

sentences of section 4(d) provides the 

Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting the 

prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address palo de rosa’s specific threats 

and conservation needs. Although the 

statute does not require us to make a 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding with 

respect to the adoption of specific 

prohibitions under section 9, we find 

that this rule as a whole satisfies the 

requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to 

issue regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of palo de rosa. As 

discussed above under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, we have 

concluded that palo de rosa is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future primarily due to 

habitat destruction and modification, 

particularly by urban development, 

right-of-way maintenance, rock quarries, 

and grazing. Additionally, other natural 

or manmade factors like hurricanes, 

invasive species, and landslides still 

threaten the species. The provisions of 

this proposed 4(d) rule would promote 

conservation of palo de rosa by 

encouraging conservation programs for 

the species and its habitat and 

promoting additional research to inform 

future habitat management and recovery 

actions for the species. The provisions 

of this proposed rule are one of many 

tools that we would use to promote the 

conservation of palo de rosa. This 

proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if 

and when we make final the 

reclassification of palo de rosa as a 

threatened species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of palo de 

rosa by prohibiting the following 

activities, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: Importing or 

exporting; certain acts related to 

removing, damaging, and destroying; 

delivering, receiving, transporting, or 

shipping in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37112 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

activity; or selling or offering for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

As discussed above under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range (specifically, 

urban development, maintenance of 

power lines and associated rights-ofway, infrastructure development, rock 

quarries, grazing by cattle, and 

extraction of fence posts), inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms, and 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence (specifically, hurricanes, 

invasive plant species, landslides, and 

habitat fragmentation and lack of 

connectivity between subpopulations) 

are affecting the status of palo de rosa. 

A range of activities have the potential 

to impact this plant, including 

recreational and commercial activities. 

Regulating these activities will help 

preserve the species’ remaining 

populations, slow their rate of potential 

decline, and decrease synergistic, 

negative effects from other stressors. As 

a whole, the regulation would help in 

the efforts to recover the species. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened 

plants, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

botanical or horticultural exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

and policy of the Act. Additional 

statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 

10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State and 

Territorial natural resource agency 

partners in contributing to conservation 

of listed species. State and Territorial 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State and Territorial agencies, 

because of their authorities and their 

close working relationships with local 

governments and landowners, are in a 

unique position to assist the Services in 

implementing all aspects of the Act. In 

this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 

that the Services shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

States in carrying out programs 

authorized by the Act. Therefore, any 

qualified employee or agent of a 

Territorial conservation agency that is a 

party to a cooperative agreement with 

the Service in accordance with section 

6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his 

or her agency for such purposes, would 

be able to conduct activities designed to 

conserve palo de rosa that may result in 

otherwise prohibited activities for 

plants without additional authorization. 

We also recognize the beneficial and 

educational aspects of activities with 

seeds of cultivated plants, which 

generally enhance the propagation of 

the species, and therefore would satisfy 

permit requirements under the Act. We 

intend to monitor the interstate and 

foreign commerce and import and 

export of these specimens in a manner 

that will not inhibit such activities, 

providing the activities do not represent 

a threat to the survival of the species in 

the wild. In this regard, seeds of 

cultivated specimens would not be 

regulated provided a statement that the 

seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ 

accompanies the seeds or their 

container. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or our ability 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of palo de 

rosa. However, interagency cooperation 

may be further streamlined through 

planned programmatic consultations for 

the species between us and other 

Federal agencies, where appropriate. We 

ask the public, particularly State and 

Territorial agencies and other interested 

stakeholders that may be affected by the 

proposed 4(d) rule, to provide 

comments and suggestions regarding 

additional guidance and methods that 

the Service could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined in the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), need not be prepared in 

connection with determining a species’ 

listing status under the Endangered 

Species Act. In an October 25, 1983, 

notice in the Federal Register (48 FR 

49244), we outlined our reasons for this 

determination, which included a 

compelling recommendation from the 

Council on Environmental Quality that 

we cease preparing environmental 

assessments or environmental impact 

statements for listing decisions. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

Tribal lands affected by this proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES– 

2020–0059 and upon request form the 

Caribbean Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37113 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the 

entry ‘‘Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon’’ under 

FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened 

plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon ............... Palo de rosa .............. Wherever found ......... T 55 FR 13488, 4/10/1990; [Federal Register 

citation of final rule]; 50 CFR 17.73(g).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: 

§ 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. 

(a) through (f) [Reserved] 

(g) Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de 

rosa). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

plants also apply to Ottoschulzia 

rhodoxylon (palo de rosa). Except as 

provided under paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section, it is unlawful for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to commit, to attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or cause to 

be committed, any of the following acts 

in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.61(b) for endangered plants. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 17.61(c)(1). 

(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy 

the species on any areas under Federal 

jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy the species on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

law or regulation of the Territory or in 

the course of any violation of a 

Territorial criminal trespass law, as set 

forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.61(d) for endangered plants. 

(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo 

de rosa): 

(i) The prohibitions described in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section do not 

apply to activities conducted as 

authorized by a permit issued in 

accordance with § 17.72. 

(ii) Any employee or agent of the 

Service or of a Territorial conservation 

agency that is operating under a 

conservation program pursuant to the 

terms of a cooperative agreement with 

the Service in accordance with section 

6(c) of the Act, who is designated by 

that agency for such purposes, may, 

when acting in the course of official 

duties, remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction 

members of palo de rosa that are 

covered by an approved cooperative 

agreement to carry out conservation 

programs. 

(iii) You may engage in any act 

prohibited under paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section with seeds of cultivated 

specimens, provided that a statement 

that the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ 

accompanies the seeds or their 

container. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14661 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1