[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37476-37494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE53


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of Mitracarpus polycladus From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 
4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify Mitracarpus polycladus (a plant, no common name) from 
endangered to threatened (downlist) under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). The proposed downlisting is based on our 
evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
which indicates that the species' status has improved such that it is 
not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, but that it is still likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. We also propose a rule under section 4(d) of the 
Act that provides for the conservation of M. polycladus.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 22, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public 
hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, by August 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275

[[Page 37477]]

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule, list of 
literature cited, and supporting documents, including the 5-year 
reviews and the Recovery Plan, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field 
Office, P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; telephone: (787) 851-
7297. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets 
the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Mitracarpus 
polycladus is listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify 
(downlist) M. polycladus as threatened. We have determined M. 
polycladus does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species, 
but it does meet the definition of a threatened species (likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range). Reclassifying a species as 
a threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through 
the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. This rule proposes to reclassify 
Mitracarpus polycladus as a threatened species on the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) and to establish provisions 
under section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of this species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We may reclassify a species if the best available 
commercial and scientific data indicate the species no longer meets the 
applicable definition in the Act. In our April 2011 and September 2018 
5-year status reviews, we recommended reclassifying this plant from 
endangered to threatened based on our evaluation of these same five 
factors. Based on the status review, the current threats analysis, and 
evaluation of conservation measures discussed in this proposed rule, we 
conclude that the plant M. polycladus no longer meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species and should be reclassified to a 
threatened species. The species is no longer in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but is likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future. We determined that M. 
polycladus is affected by the following current and ongoing threats to 
the extent that the species meets the definition of a threatened 
species under the Act: habitat destruction and modification due to road 
and trail maintenance, trampling by humans; human-caused fires; 
nonnative, invasive species; urbanization and tourism development; and 
the effects of climate change.
    The status of Mitracarpus polycladus has improved since the time of 
listing with an increased range, number of localities and individuals. 
At the time of listing, the known range of M. polycladus consisted of 
an undetermined number of individuals located in a single population in 
southern Puerto Rico and from one record on Saba Island. Currently, 
there are 3 populations of M. polycladus with more than 20,000 adult 
individuals in 11 localities in southern Puerto Rico and multiple 
localities on Saba Island and Anegada Island. In the largest 
population, 89 percent of individuals occur in areas managed for 
conservation. Despite ongoing threats from habitat destruction and 
modification, all three populations exhibit high or moderate resiliency 
and have demonstrated ability to maintain occurrences through changing 
environmental conditions. Furthermore, the current number of localities 
buffers the species from catastrophic events (drought and fire). For 
these reasons, we determined that the species is not in danger of 
extinction, and, thus, we conclude that M. polycladus no longer meets 
the Act's definition of an endangered species.
    Although population numbers and abundance of M. polycladus have 
increased, our analysis indicates that magnitude of threats will remain 
into the foreseeable future. As the effects of habitat destruction and 
modification and climate change continue into the future, the abundance 
of each of the three populations may be reduced, thereby exacerbating 
the impacts from these stressors. Thus, we find that M. polycladus is 
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, and 
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species.
    We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule. We propose to 
prohibit the activities under section 9(a)(2) of the Act for endangered 
plant species as a means to provide protections to Mitracarpus 
polycladus. We also propose specific exceptions from these prohibitions 
for our State or Territorial agency partners, so that they may continue 
with certain activities covered by an approved cooperative agreement to 
carry out conservation programs that will facilitate the conservation 
and recovery of the species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not downlist Mitracarpus polycladus 
as a threatened species.
    (2) Information on the historical and current status, range, 
distribution, and population size of Mitracarpus polycladus.
    (3) Information on the known and potential threats to Mitracarpus 
polycladus including habitat modification, habitat loss, or climate 
change.
    (4) Information regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat 
use of Mitracarpus polycladus.

[[Page 37478]]

    (5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
Mitracarpus polycladus that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on 
the species.
    (6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of Mitracarpus polycladus and that the 
Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species.
    (7) Information concerning the extent to which we should include 
any of the Act's section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we 
should consider any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in the 
4(d) rule (to the extent permitted by Commonwealth law).
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is 
an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis 
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be available 
for public inspection at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this 
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain 
listed as endangered instead of being reclassified as threatened, or we 
may conclude that the species no longer warrants listing as either an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we may change 
the parameters of the proposed prohibitions or the proposed exceptions 
to those prohibitions if we conclude it is appropriate in light of 
comments and new information we receive. For example, we may expand the 
proposed prohibitions to include prohibiting additional activities if 
we conclude that those additional activities are not compatible with 
conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional 
exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that 
the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation 
and recovery of the species.

Public Hearing

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

Peer Review

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

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 9, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 
46715) a final rule listing listing Mitracarpus polycladus as an 
endangered species. On October 6, 1998, we completed the recovery plan 
(Service 1998, entire). An amendment to the M. polycladus recovery plan 
was signed on September 24, 2019.
    On September 27, 2006, and August 22, 2016, we initiated 5-year 
reviews for the species (71 FR 56545 and 81 FR 56692, respectively) and 
completed them on April 27, 2011 (Service 2011, entire), and September 
25, 2018 (Service 2018a, entire). In those two reviews, we determined 
the species no longer met the definition of an endangered species and 
should be reclassified to threatened. The 5-year reviews are available 
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0058.
    For additional details on previous Federal actions, see Recovery, 
below. See https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/206 for the species profile 
for this plant.

I. Proposed Reclassification Determination

Background

Species Information

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of Mitracarpus polycladus is presented in the 5-year 
status reviews (Service 2011, entire; Service 2018a, entire). Below, we 
present a summary of the biological and distributional information 
described in the 5-year status reviews and new information published or 
obtained since.

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Mitracarpus polycladus is a small shrub in the Rubiaceae family and 
the Spermacoce clade. This large family of flowering plants in the 
coffee family contains over 640 genera and 10,000 species with a mainly 
tropical distribution (Bremer 1996, p. 23). Mitracarpus polycladus was 
first collected in Puerto Rico in 1886 and described in 1903 as a new 
species (Urban 1903, p. 389; Lioger 1997, p. 124).
    Mitracarpus polycladus is frequently confused with other genera of 
the Spermacoce clade, due to the similarity in morphological characters 
of herbarium specimens (Nu[ntilde]ez-Florentin et al. 2017, p. 96; 
Service 2018a, p. 22).
    Mitracarpus polycladus may reach up to 45 centimeters (cm) (17.7 
inches (in)) in height and its stems grow either erect

[[Page 37479]]

or along the ground (Proctor 1991, p. 127; Lioger 1997, p. 125). The 
leaves are smooth and narrow, approximately 2-4.5 cm (0.8-1.8 in) long 
and 0.3-0.5 cm (0.1-0.2 in) wide. The inflorescence is surrounded by 
three bract-like leaves on the ends of branches and is made up of 
smaller white flowers. The seed capsule is very small (1.5 millimeter 
(mm) (0.06 in) diameter) and contains black seeds (Proctor 1991, p. 
127).

Biology

    The reproductive biology of Mitracarpus polycladus had not been 
thoroughly studied at the time it was listed. Phenology of M. 
polycladus is closely related to the dry and rainy seasons. Flower 
production occurs just after the peak of rainfall, which may start as 
early as May and end as late as December, and seed availability occurs 
during the dry season, which is December to March (Service 2018a, p. 
8). The species shows a large reproductive output after the rainy 
season (high number of seedlings) followed by a low number of mature 
adults counted during the next rainy season. Seed germination has been 
observed a few days after a rain event, producing numerous seedlings 
within 0.9 meter (m) (3 feet (ft)) surrounding mature plants, denoting 
a clumped spatial distribution (Service 2018b, p. 6). Seedlings and 
adults categories in our analysis are consistent with those used in 
recent survey reports (Service 2018b, p. 4).
    The timing and spatial distribution of seedlings indicate the 
species produces viable seeds that stay in the soil seedbank until the 
next rain event (Service 2018b, p. 6). Mitracarpus polycladus colonizes 
on exposed limestone where aggregations of sediment and water provide 
necessary conditions for seed germination and seedling rooting (Medina 
et al. 2012, p. 203). Although a large number of seedlings (e.g., 1,500 
and 13,680 in 2011 and 2018, respectively) have been documented in 
Puerto Rico, seedling estimates are not included as part of the 
population abundance estimates because surveyors have been unable to 
determine seedling survival rates and effective recruitment (Service 
2011, p. 24; Service 2018b, p. 8). Survival of seedlings to maturity is 
uncertain due to natural thinning of the seedlings and environmental 
variables (drought stress). High mortality of seedlings is observed 
during the driest period (Service 2018b, p. 8). Additionally, the 
clumping distribution of seedlings near the mature flowering plant is 
likely related to the lack of an animal dispersal agent (e.g., bird, 
small mammal) to carry the seeds farther away. Experts conclude that 
seeds are dependent on water or wind as a dispersal mechanism, with 
seeds that are not dispersed by water or wind clumping near the mature 
plant (Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 25; Service 2018a, p. 9).
    We have little information about Mitracarpus polycladus's 
pollinators. However, two insect groups (Hymenopterous and 
Lepidopterous) have been identified as visiting M. polycladus flowers 
and may act as effective pollinators of the species (Monsegur 2017, 
unpublished data). During 2017, bee species Apis mellifera, Megachile 
lanata, and M. rufipennis, and the hanno blue butterfly (Hemiargurs 
hanno watsoni) visited M. polycladus plants (Monsegur 2017, unpublished 
data). Similar insects (e.g., the Great Southern butterfly (Ascia 
monuste), honeybees, and the hanno blue butterfly) have been documented 
visiting M. maxwelliae and are understood to pollinate the species 
(Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 34). Although further research on the M. 
polycladus's breeding system and reproductive biology is needed to 
confirm its pollinators, available information indicates the species is 
cross-pollinated by these insects. The observations of multiple insect 
groups visiting M. polycladus support our rationale for defining 
localities in the Gu[aacute]nica Commonwealth Forest (GCF) area as a 
single population as it is very likely that insect-facilitated cross-
pollination is taking place.

Distribution and Abundance

    Mitracarpus polycladus was known to occur only in Puerto Rico and 
on Saba Island in the Lesser Antilles at the time of listing (59 FR 
46715; September 9, 1994). Although the species was discovered on 
Anegada Island in 1970, we were not aware of this occurrence at the 
time of listing (Service 2011, p. 9; Hamilton and B[aacute]rrios 2017, 
p. 1).
    In Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus was first collected in 1886 
on coastal rocks near Ca[ntilde]a Gorda in the municipality of 
Gu[aacute]nica (Sintenis 1886, p. 1; Proctor 1991, p. 126). The species 
was first collected on Saba Island (approximate 289.6 kilometers (km) 
(180 miles (mi)) from the southeast coast of Puerto Rico) in 1906 
(Bolding 1906, p. 1; Service 1998, p. 1). On Anegada Island, M. 
polycladus was first collected in 1970 on an area adjacent to Deep Bay 
(Woodbury 1970, p. 1). Anegada is approximately 144.8 km (90 mi) from 
the northeast coast of Puerto Rico (Hamilton 2016, p. 26).
    When listed, Mitracarpus polycladus was known in Puerto Rico only 
from the Mesetas trail in the GCF (DNR 1976, pp. 56-58; 59 FR 46715, 
September 9, 1994). No abundance estimates were available for the 
species in Puerto Rico and no information was available on the status 
of the species on Saba Island. When the 1998 recovery plan was 
finalized, there was little information on M. polycladus's historical 
and current abundance, distribution, ecology, and reproductive biology. 
At that time, we described M. polycladus occurrences in Puerto Rico and 
Saba Island as two populations (Proctor 1991, p. 2; Service 1998, p. 
2).
    At the time of listing and in the subsequent 5-year status reviews, 
occurrences of Mitracarpus polycladus in Puerto Rico were referred to 
as localities, and the occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands were 
referred to as populations due to their distant geographic location. 
This approach did not consider the species-specific characteristics of 
clumped spatial distribution, distance among localities, natural 
geographic barriers, or the species' need for cross-pollination. 
Additional information about M. polycladus's geographic and spatial 
distribution and biological and ecological aspects of the species' life 
history (e.g., pollinators, seed dispersion, phenology) has since 
become available. We concluded that the following are natural physical 
barriers and preclude cross-pollination among populations and 
localities: coastal plains; dense, extensive forest patches; and bays. 
Connectivity among localities is important to maximize the likelihood 
of cross-pollination and gene flow, and to increase fruit production, 
viable seeds, and the chances of natural recruitment to support viable 
M. polycladus populations. Based on the factors described, we now 
identify three natural populations of M. polycladus: (1) Gu[aacute]nica 
forest in south Puerto Rico (composed of at least 10 localities within 
the GCF, which is managed for M. polycladus conservation, and adjacent 
lands that provide suitable habitat and connectivity); (2) Saba Island; 
and (3) Anegada Island. Additionally, a separate locality, Cerro Toro, 
resulted from a private translocation effort. This population is 
disjunct (no connectivity nor cross-pollination) from the GCF 
population; thus, we consider it a separate, introduced population.
    Since the time of listing and the recovery plan development, new 
information on abundance and distribution has been gained through 
targeted surveys (Service 2007 and 2017, unpubl. data) and incidental 
observations. By 2011, seven M.

[[Page 37480]]

polycladus localities were documented within the GCF with an estimated 
abundance of 1,400 adult individuals in four localities with no 
occupied area estimated (Service 2011, pp. 8, 14). By 2018, 2 
additional localities were documented within the GCF with an estimated 
12,472 adult individuals in 9 localities in a 0.42-hectare (ha) (1.02 
acres (ac)) area (Service 2018a, p. 22). The most recent abundance 
estimate is 17,637 adult individuals occupying 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) 
(Service 2018b, p. 9). These are underestimates of the population 
abundance and spatial extent as they did not include three natural 
localities due to time constraints. Because changes in the habitat have 
not been observed in the three localities, we expect the abundance 
(number) and spatial extent (ha) to be similar to the previous 
assessments. Therefore, the information from these three localities is 
unlikely to substantially change the estimates of abundance and extent 
of occupied area for the population; however, we recognize the 
potential for slight underestimation of the extent of areas with M. 
polycladus occurrences.
    To date, 10 natural localities and 1 introduced locality comprise 
the Puerto Rico population; 8 of these are within the GCF and 3 are on 
private properties (Ballena beach, Cerro Toro, and Monte de la Ventana, 
which extends into the GCF). Based on the surrounding vegetation 
structure and the presence of exposed limestone observed in aerial 
images of the GCF, additional suitable habitat for the species has been 
identified and may contain unknown localities of M. polycladus, but it 
has not been quantified or surveyed. Therefore, we expect the species 
may extend beyond surveyed areas (Service 2018b, p. 8).
    The increase in the number of localities recorded in Puerto Rico 
reflects additional survey efforts since the time of listing, while the 
increase in the number of individuals likely reflects the species' 
seasonal response to rain events (Service 2018b, p. 3). The species 
shows a large reproductive output after the rainy season (high number 
of seedlings) followed by a low number of mature adults counted during 
the next rainy season. Therefore, timing and seasonality of surveys 
affects abundance estimates.
    On Saba Island, current information indicates the species occurs in 
several localities along the road between The Bottom and Windward Side 
towns in the southern section of the island (Rojer 1997, p. 19); 
however, no population estimate is available and the 1997 assessment 
does not include a population estimate. On Anegada Island, surveys for 
M. polycladus were conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (B[aacute]rrios 
and Hamilton 2018, p. 3). Based on these data, the estimated population 
abundance is no more than 2,500 individuals in the north central region 
of the island between Windlass Point and Cooper Rock (B[aacute]rrios 
and Hamilton 2018, p. 4).

        Table 1--Current Abundance and Areal Extent of Mitracarpus Polycladus per Locality in Puerto Rico
                                              [Service 2018b, p. 9]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Abundance  (# of   Area occupied **
                  Locality                     adult plants)    in hectares/acres            Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ca[ntilde]a Gorda..........................       Undetermined  .................  Puerto Rico Department of
                                                                                    Natural and Environmental
                                                                                    Resources (Department).
Jaboncillo.................................       Undetermined  .................  Department.
Mesetas Trail..............................             13,064         0.255/0.63  Department.
Ballena Trail..............................              1,048         0.036/0.09
La Cueva...................................                310         0.016/0.04
Hoya Onda..................................                246         0.004/0.01
State road PR 333..........................                653         0.028/0.07
Las Picuas.................................                336         0.024/0.06
Monte de la Ventana........................              1,967         0.077/0.19  Department and Private.
Ballena Beach..............................       Undetermined  .................  Private.
Cerro Toro *...............................                 13         0.004/0.01  Private.
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................             17,637           0.44/1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Introduced individuals.
** Area occupied reflects area surveyed by circular plots of 29.2 square meters (314 square feet) (Service
  2018b, p. 3).

Habitat

    Throughout its range in Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus polycladus occurs 
only on exposed limestone with sediment and water accumulation in holes 
and crevices. M. polycladus is restricted to geographical areas with 
unique substrate and climate features in dry forest habitat types that 
serve as corridors for pollinators and facilitate cross-pollination 
among M. polycladus localities within contiguous habitats. The species 
occurs among three major types of plant communities: coastal shrub 
forest, cactus scrub forest, and coastal scrub on sandy soil (DNR 1976, 
p. 53; Lugo et al. 1978, p. 282; Service 2018b, p. 11). Although these 
forest types cover about 582 ha (1,438 ac), or about 15 percent of the 
3,882 ha (9,593 ac) GCF, (DNR 1976 p. 53; Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278), 
known occurrences of M. polycladus occupy only an area of 0.44 ha (1.1 
ac), where the habitat and microhabitat features (i.e., exposed 
limestone and aggregation of sediment and water) essential for the 
species are present (Service 2018b, p. 8). However, surveys have not 
been conducted throughout the suitable forest types; thus, the species 
may occur elsewhere within this area. All known M. polycladus 
localities in Puerto Rico fall in the subtropical dry forest life zone. 
This life zone occupies an area of 121,640 ha (300,576 ac) (Ewel and 
Whitmore 1973, p. 9) and is the driest life zone in Puerto Rico. It 
receives a mean annual rainfall of 60-100 cm (24-40 in), experiences 
high temperatures, and has high evapotranspiration when sufficient 
water is available (Murphy and Lugo 1986, p. 90; C[aacute]ceres-
Charneco 2018, p. 27). The climate in this region is seasonal, with 
most precipitation occurring in September and October (Lugo et al. 
1978, p. 278) and another small peak of rainfall in May and June (Sloan 
et al. 2006, p. 196; C[aacute]ceres-Charneco 2018, p. 28).
    On Saba Island, the best available information indicates the 
species occurs on Gile's cherty sandy loam soil found between The 
Bottom and Windward Side towns. This arid section of the island is 
located in the south portion of

[[Page 37481]]

Saba Island (Rojer 1997, p. 19; Freitas et al 2016, p. 10). On Anegada 
Island, Mitracarpus polycladus currently grows on limestone plain and 
coastal sandy habitats located in the north-central area of this island 
where the species is restricted to two localities situated between 
Windlass Point and Cooper Rock (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, p. 
4). This area has similar environmental conditions and soil 
characteristics to M. polycladus localities in Puerto Rico.

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all criteria in a recovery plan being 
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while 
other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may 
determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we 
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the 
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The following discussion provides an analysis of the recovery 
criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of the 
taxon. The recovery plan for Mitracarpus polycladus does not provide 
downlisting criteria (Service 1998, p. 8). In 2019, we published an 
amendment to the recovery plan that provides three revised criteria for 
delisting M. polycladus (Service 2019, p. 4). The three recovery 
criteria for delisting the species as outlined in the amendment are: 
(1) Threat reduction and management activities have been implemented to 
a degree that the species will remain viable into the foreseeable 
future; (2) existing natural populations of M. polycladus show a stable 
or increasing trend, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple 
age classes; and (3) within the historical range, at least three new 
populations of M. polycladus showing a stable or increasing trend have 
been established on lands protected by conservation measures, as 
evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age classes (Service 
2019, entire). Based on the information gathered and analyzed, two of 
these criteria have been partially met and the third has been 
initiated. The following discussion provides an assessment of the 
delisting criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of M. 
polycladus.

Criterion 1 for Delisting

    Criterion 1 states that threat reduction and management activities 
have been implemented to a degree that the species will remain viable 
into the foreseeable future. This criterion has been partially met. 
Eighty-nine percent of the currently known Mitracarpus polycladus 
individuals in Puerto Rico occur within the GCF, which is managed for 
conservation by the Department as recommended by the Master Plan for 
the Commonwealth Forests of Puerto Rico (DNR 1976, p. 56). The 
management actions in the GCF protect M. polycladus from development 
activities and are compatible with the species' needs. In addition, M. 
polycladus is listed as critically endangered under Department 
regulations (DNRNA 2004, p. 52). Accordingly, the Department reviews 
all proposed actions in the GCF that may impact M. polycladus and its 
habitat within the forest. However the species is occasionally impacted 
by intense use of trails, human-caused fires, and nonnative invasive 
grasses encroaching on M. polycladus individuals and habitat. The 
species is also impacted by road maintenance activities (vegetation 
trimming) in 5 of the 11 localities where the species occurs (4 of 
these localities are within the GCF) (Service 2018b, p. 10). Each of 
the localities in the GCF has experienced some impact by one or more 
stressors including trail use, fires, nonnative invasive species, or 
road maintenance; these changes have resulted in loss of M. polycladus 
habitat available for the species. Although portions of the GCF 
localities have been impacted by these stressors, the threats do not 
have a substantive effect on the population and the protected and 
managed habitat in the GCF remains a stronghold for the species with 
the largest number of individuals and areal extent occurring along the 
Mesetas trail. Thus, although M. polycladus is legally protected in 
this forest, it is subject to actions that limit its abundance and 
distribution in impacted areas.
    Two localities on private lands are subject to potential 
development pressure. The Ballena beach locality is subject to 
development pressure in the past with proposals for the development of 
a hotel in that area. Although this project has not been constructed to 
date, the threat remains. In Monte de la Ventana, development of a wind 
farm project is expected to affect the species. This project and the 
effects to M. polycladus are discussed under ``Urbanization and 
Development,'' below.
    Evidence of fire has been recorded on or adjacent to Mitracarpus 
polycladus localities near State road PR 333 and GCF trails (Service 
2018a, p. 27). Moreover, we have observed that M. polycladus does not 
colonize previously burned areas on the GCF (Service 2018b, p. 12). 
Therefore, fire can be a threat to species viability, as M. polycladus 
is endemic to dry limestone forest where vegetation did not evolve 
under a natural fire regime.
    These threats of fire, development, nonnative and invasive species, 
and road and trail maintenance, coupled with competition with other 
plant species for specific habitat requirements such as holes and 
cracks for seed germination, and observed lack of dispersal mechanisms, 
reduce the species' ability to colonize other areas. Therefore, we 
determined that, while threat reduction and management activities at 
GCF have been implemented and have improved the species' viability, 
they have not been

[[Page 37482]]

implemented or improved viability to a degree that the species will 
maintain viability into the foreseeable future (criterion 1). 
Accordingly, this criterion has not been fully met.

Criterion 2 for Delisting

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

Criterion 3 for Delisting

    Criterion 3 states that at least three new populations of 
Mitracarpus polycladus showing a stable or increasing trend have been 
established within the historical range on lands protected by 
conservation, as evidenced by natural recruitment and multiple age 
classes. This criterion has been initiated. In Cerro Toro, an 
undetermined number of M. polycladus individuals were translocated from 
the Monte de la Ventana locality by the landowner to establish a new 
population of the species physically separated from the GCF population. 
As of 2018, 13 of the planted individuals were still alive (Service 
2018b, p. 9; see table 1, above), but no recruitment (seedlings or 
saplings) was observed. However, this recovery effort has not been 
expanded. The Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew), in collaboration with the 
National Park Trust of the Virgin Islands, is propagating material from 
M. polycladus on Anegada Island, but no planting efforts have been 
implemented. No further efforts of translocations or propagation and 
reintroduction are currently known. Greater emphasis has been placed on 
the search for and protection of newly discovered localities in 
southern Puerto Rico. To increase Mitracarpus polycladus's redundancy 
and long-term viability, additional populations should be established 
through translocation and/or propagation throughout the species' range.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The 
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five 
factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened (50 CFR 
424.11(c) and (d)).
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of

[[Page 37483]]

the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data 
available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant 
threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view 
of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant 
to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific 
factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain 
behaviors, and other demographic factors.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the 5-year 
review (Service 2018a, entire) documents our comprehensive biological 
status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The following is a summary of this status 
review and the best available information gathered since that time that 
have informed this decision.

Habitat Alteration and Destruction

    Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) were identified as 
factors affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus polycladus at 
the time of listing. Road and trail maintenance, human-caused fire, 
nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism development, 
and grazing continue to contribute to alteration of M. polycladus 
habitat and are described in detail below. Although changes to habitat 
conditions may affect pollinator abundance and distribution, we 
currently have no evidence that a loss of pollinators is occurring in 
M. polycladus habitat and expect that sufficient pollinators are 
present to cross-pollinate individuals if they occur within the flight 
distance of that pollinator species.
Road and Trail Maintenance
    Currently, Mitracarpus polycladus grows adjacent to or along paved 
and unpaved roads, parking areas, and trails that provide access to 
recreational areas in seven localities in the dry southern section of 
the GCF (Service 2018b, p. 5). These roads and trails are managed by 
the Department as scenic trails and natural areas. However, management 
and maintenance activities, primarily vegetation trimming, have 
affected M. polycladus individuals in these areas (Service 2018b, p. 
10). Similarly, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public 
Works right-of-way maintenance causes impacts to individuals and 
habitat in the State road PR 333 locality (Service 2018b, p. 10). 
Right-of-way maintenance activities have resulted in mortality of 
reproductive M. polycladus individuals in three localities and may 
reduce production of seeds and potential seedlings in these localities 
if the plants do not recover sufficiently to reproduce when conditions 
are suitable (Service 2018b, p. 10).
    The largest cluster of Mitracarpus polycladus occurs adjacent to 
the Mesetas trail in GCF with 13,064 individuals occupying an area of 
0.25 ha (0.63 ac). This trail is heavily used for recreation and is the 
only access to that section of the GCF. Therefore, roughly a quarter of 
the individuals along the trail in this locality are exposed to damage 
caused by trail maintenance and human trampling. Physical impacts to M. 
polycladus and its habitat are caused by the frequent use of the scenic 
trails and adjacent habitat in the GCF by residents and tourists for 
recreational activities (i.e., hiking, running, and mountain biking) 
throughout the year (Service 2018a, p. 12). Such habitat impacts also 
promote the intrusion of nonnative grasses along the trail corridor. 
Nonnative grass encroachment along trails follows a similar pattern to 
encroachment following fire and is described below. The Anegada and 
Saba Island populations do not occur adjacent to trails or roads and 
effects of road and trail maintenance on the M. polycladus population 
in Puerto Rico are limited. Although over half of localities and 
several thousand individuals are exposed to the threat of road and 
trail maintenance, the number of individuals impacted by this threat 
does not have a substantive effect on the population.
Human-Caused Fire
    Fires are not a natural event in the subtropical dry forests in 
Puerto Rico, and the native vegetation in the Caribbean is not adapted 
to this type of disturbance (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557; 
Santiago-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2008, p. 604). However, human-caused 
fires were identified as a threat to the species when listed (59 FR 
46715; September 9, 1994) and continue to occur throughout Mitracarpus 
polycladus habitat in Puerto Rico (Service 2018a, p. 27). Currently, 6 
of 10 natural localities of M. polycladus occur in areas vulnerable to 
or at high risk of human-caused fires, particularly during the dry 
season (Service 2018b, p. 10). Although the Department implements a 
fire prevention and management program in the GCF during the dry 
season, fires still occur and impact M. polycladus and its habitat 
(Service 2011, p. 13; Service 2018b, p. 11). Surveyors documented 
several fires along State road PR 333 that affected M. polycladus 
habitat and, consequently, could have affected an undetermined number 
of individuals (Service 2018b, p. 11).
    Fire affects Mitracarpus polycladus survival through impacts of 
heat and promotion of intrusion of invasive plant species. Nonnative 
plant species outcompete M. polycladus and serve as fuel for fires 
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, pp. 19, 33; Service 2018a, p. 27). The 
interaction of fire and nonnative species is described under 
``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below. Moreover, M. polycladus has not 
been observed growing in areas with evidence of past fires (Service 
2018b, p. 11). We expect this is due to the effects of fire on the 
seedbank, thus precluding the sprouting of the species and 
recolonization of an area from the seedbank after a fire.
    Human-caused fires lead to the destruction of native vegetation by 
direct impacts to individuals and to the seedbank (which is not fire-
adapted). Therefore, it is very likely that fires reduce or eliminate 
Mitracarpus polycladus seeds in the seedbank and promote favorable 
conditions for the establishment of nonnative plant species. These 
species, such as guinea grass, are adapted to a natural fire regime and 
serve as fuel for fires, thus promoting conditions for a more frequent 
fire regime that precludes the establishment of native vegetation 
(Thaxton et al. 2012, p. 9). The presence of guinea grass and other 
nonnative grass species (e.g., paj[oacute]n and buffel grass) increases 
the amount of fuel for the fire and the resultant intensity of the 
fire. This occurs in some areas of M. polycladus habitat in the GCF, 
where nonnative grasses are present and M. polycladus is not 
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Therefore, 
in habitats subject to fire, lack of seed availability is the primary 
factor limiting the recolonization of the forest with native species 
and compromises the long-term viability of native species, including M. 
polycladus (Wolfe 2009, p. 28). Other factors such as seed predation, 
seed intrinsic viability, and seedling survival also affect forest 
recovery after fire. In this and other habitat types, fires promote 
habitat fragmentation, return habitat to an earlier successional state, 
and slow forest recovery processes (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 557; 
Meddens et al. 2008, p. 569).
    Fire negatively impacts Mitracarpus polycladus and its habitat, and 
the

[[Page 37484]]

capacity of the species to survive and recover from this type of 
catastrophic event over time is unknown. Moreover, M. polycladus occurs 
in areas with high vulnerability to fires, exacerbating the potential 
effects of fire on individuals and populations. The effects of climate 
change and nonnative invasive species may alter conditions in M. 
polycladus habitat to promote increased susceptibility to fire (as 
described under ``Nonnative, Invasive Species,'' below). Therefore, 
even with the Department's current fire prevention and management 
program efforts during the dry season, human-caused fires occur every 
year within the species' range. Fires in M. polycladus localities 
affect the survival and recruitment of individuals, population 
resiliency, and, potentially, the species' viability (Service 2018b, p. 
11). Information regarding the threat of fire to the Anegada and Saba 
Island populations is less extensive than the information for Puerto 
Rico; however, we expect the threat of human-caused fire is similar 
since the Anegada and Saba Island populations also occur along 
roadsides.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
    Caribbean dry forests generally have seedbanks with low numbers and 
variety of species, and forest regeneration in areas disturbed through 
mechanical vegetation removal or through burning is largely dependent 
on propagules or seeds from nearby habitats (Wolfe 2009, p. 28). 
Nonnative species typically become established more quickly and may 
have less specific habitat or life-history requirements than native 
species. When nonnative species become established in a disturbed 
habitat, they outcompete native species for resources including space, 
nutrients, water, and sunlight. The impacts of nonnative invasive 
species are second only to habitat loss and degradation as a threat to 
global biodiversity and are among the greatest threats to the 
persistence of native rare species and their habitats in Puerto Rico 
(Thomson 2005, p. 615, Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire). Nonnative 
species like guinea grass, buffel grass, paj[oacute]n, and African 
grass (Heteropogon contortus) aggressively colonize and compete with 
native species for sunlight, nutrients, water and ground cover (space), 
suppressing native vegetation (Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; 
Rojas-Sandoval and Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2016, p. 156; Service 
2018b, p. 12). Research on other listed plant species such as Harrisia 
portoricensis indicates that seedlings and juveniles are particularly 
susceptible to changes in microclimate conditions, and establishment is 
precluded by the presence of nonnative grasses (Rojas-Sandoval and 
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2012, pp. 35, 37; Rojas-Sandoval and 
Mel[eacute]ndez-Ackerman 2013, p. 489). This finding is consistent with 
observations indicating that Mitracarpus polycladus did not occur in 
areas occupied (or dominated) by these grasses at localities in the GCF 
(Garc[iacute]a-Cancel 2013, entire; Service 2018b, p. 12). Moreover, 
nonnative trees (e.g., lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala)) also colonize 
M. polycladus habitat, particularly after fire events, and suppress the 
growth of native vegetation (Wolfe and Van Bloem 2012, entire). Lead 
trees can remain as a dominant canopy species for at least 80 years 
(Wolfe 2009, p. 2), thus precluding recolonization of M. polycladus for 
long periods. The wind-aided broad seed dispersal and rapid growth of 
nonnative grasses can also negatively affect the establishment and 
persistence of M. polycladus. In areas where M. polycladus is 
established, nonnative species do not appear to reduce habitat directly 
by displacing existing individuals, but primarily impact M. polycladus 
populations by preventing or reducing colonization by the species when 
the area is disturbed. In summary, nonnative invasive species 
outcompete M. polycladus for required resources, promote increased 
frequency and intensity of fire, and prevent establishment of 
seedlings, thus impacting M. polycladus at the individual, population, 
and, potentially, species level.
Urbanization and Development
    As previously mentioned, 89 percent of the currently known 
Mitracarpus polycladus individuals in Puerto Rico occur within the GCF, 
which is managed for conservation by the Department (DNR 1976, p. 56). 
However, one Mitracarpus polycladus locality occurs within an area 
currently proposed for the construction of a wind generation project 
(San Francisco Wind Farm) in Monte de la Ventana. This project occupies 
79 ha (195 ac) of dry forest habitat with 1,967 M. polycladus 
individuals in the project area (Service 2018b, pp. 1, 11). Ninety-six 
percent of M. polycladus individuals on the site occur on and adjacent 
to now-abandoned roads opened in 2013 to access the proposed wind 
project site. The remaining 4 percent of individuals occur in areas 
that would not be impacted by the project.
    Since 2010, we have been working with the landowner on the 
development and implementation of conservation measures to avoid or 
minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat caused by the 
proposed development of the wind farm project. This wind farm project 
is covered by an incidental take permit (ITP) under a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that includes conservation measures to minimize 
adverse effects to listed species in the project area (Service 2013, p. 
3). Although a substantial portion of this property is identified as a 
conservation area under the HCP, the conservation areas do not include 
habitat for Mitracarpus polycladus (Service 2013, p. 3). Mitracarpus 
polycladus is vulnerable to effects from the wind farm project 
operations because the species usually grows in open areas (e.g., dirt 
roads and wind turbine pads in the project area), exposing it to 
impacts from maintenance activities, vehicle traffic, and habitat 
encroachment by nonnative invasive plants. To date, this wind farm 
project has not been constructed, but we have no indication that it is 
not being actively considered.
    The Ballena beach locality has been subject to development pressure 
in the past with proposals for the development of a hotel in that area. 
Although this hotel development project has not been constructed, we do 
not have evidence it will not be pursued in the future.
    Mitracarpus polycladus occurrences on Anegada and Saba Islands are 
also threatened by development. On Anegada Island, the potential for 
island-wide development exists, with local community support and road 
improvement works now underway (Hamilton 2016, p. 185). Anegada Island 
has been recognized by its government as an undeveloped island with 
high potential for tourism development due to the beauty of its natural 
resources (sandy beaches and coral reefs). In 2007, the Government of 
Anegada, under the authority of the Physical Planning Act No.15 of 2004 
(enacted in March 2005), developed a Land Use Plan (Plan) designating 
areas for commercial and residential purposes, as well for hotel 
development, agriculture, community parks and recreational areas, a 
business district, protection and conservation, and government offices 
and related facilities (IRF 2013, p. 24). The Plan proposes to set 
aside some areas for conservation (IRF 2013, p. 25); however, the 
proposed areas do not contain M. polycladus or the habitat it requires. 
If the Plan is enacted fully, we expect M. polycladus and its habitat 
to be reduced or eliminated by the proposed development of the island. 
Although urbanization and development plans for Saba Island are 
unknown, the potential for urbanization and tourism development is 
present.

[[Page 37485]]

Grazing
    On Anegada and Saba Islands, Mitracarpus polycladus habitat has 
been degraded by the grazing of feral livestock, such as goats and 
donkeys (Freitas et al 2016, p. 21; B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, 
p. 5; Hamilton 2020, pers. comm.). Livestock presence and grazing leads 
to an increase in soil erosion by disturbing soil with their hooves 
while foraging on the slopes, as has been observed on Saba Island 
(Freitas et al. 2016, p. 21). These animals also trample M. polycladus 
individuals, reduce its abundance, and affect the population structure. 
The best available information indicates feral livestock grazing may 
impact the species, although the extent of these impacts in the future 
is unclear.
    In summary, impacts associated with habitat destruction and 
modification due to vegetation clearance for maintenance and 
improvement activities of roads and trails, urbanization and tourism 
development, human-caused fires, and encroachment of nonnative plant 
species have been documented as current threats to Mitracarpus 
polycladus throughout its range. In Puerto Rico, although about 89 
percent of M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, the species 
and its habitat are still threatened by impacts from vegetation 
maintenance (trimming) along roads and trails, frequent human-caused 
fires, and encroachment of nonnative and invasive species after such 
disturbances. Human-caused fires have been documented in M. polycladus 
habitat even when fire management practices are implemented during the 
dry season. The remaining 11 percent of the individuals occur on 
private lands, not managed for conservation, where habitat destruction 
and modification resulting from road clearing and wind farm development 
and operation pose a threat to the species. All M. polycladus 
individuals on Saba Island and Anegada Island occur on private lands 
and are not purposefully managed for conservation. Occurrences on Saba 
island are subject to threats of grazing and human-induced fire, and 
potentially to the threat of urbanization and development. Anegada 
Island's M. polycladus are at risk due to grazing, urbanization and 
development, and human-induced fire.

Limited Distribution and Small Population Size

    At the time of listing, we identified the species' limited 
distribution (i.e., two isolated populations known at that time) 
coupled with an undetermined but presumably low number of individuals 
(i.e., no abundance information was available, combined with ongoing 
drought conditions at the time) as the primary threats to the species. 
Since listing, our knowledge concerning Mitracarpus polycladus's 
abundance and distribution has improved, and we are aware of increased 
numbers and occurrences throughout the southern section of the GCF 
(Service 2018a, p. 22). Currently, there are three known natural 
populations (Puerto Rico, Saba Island, Anegada Island) and one 
introduced population occurring on three Caribbean islands across the 
species' historical range. The species is restricted to small clusters 
on exposed limestone, occupying a total area of 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in 
southern Puerto Rico (no areal extent is estimated for the populations 
on Anegada and Saba Islands). The limited distribution of the four 
populations makes M. polycladus vulnerable to catastrophic events 
(e.g., widespread and severe drought and large-scale fires).
    Small population size can exacerbate other threats acting on the 
species. Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to 
various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. These 
factors have a relatively minor impact on a species with large, stable 
local populations and a wide and continuous distribution. However, 
populations that are small, isolated by habitat loss or fragmentation, 
or impacted by other factors are more vulnerable to extirpation by 
natural, randomly occurring events (such as predation or stochastic 
weather events), and to genetic effects that plague small populations, 
collectively known as small population effects (Purvis et al. 2000, p. 
1947). These effects can include genetic drift, founder effects (over 
time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow 
range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower 
genetic diversity, with consequent negative effects on adaptive 
capacity and reproductive success (Keller and Waller 2002, p. 235).
    The Mesetas trail locality in GCF, the most abundant locality with 
13,064 adults, is numerically strong; the remaining 9 natural 
localities on Puerto Rico are smaller localities with varying degrees 
of connectivity and cross-pollination between localities. The 
information regarding M. polycladus populations on Anegada and Saba 
Islands is more limited than that regarding the Puerto Rico population. 
Based on the best available information for Anegada and Saba Islands, 
these populations are currently small (2,500 on Anegada Island and 
unknown abundance on Saba Island) and in a few localities with limited 
distribution.

Effects of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, 
pp. 2, 40). Observed effects associated with climate change include 
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, increased extreme weather 
events including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, more 
intense tropical cyclones, and an increase in sea level (IPCC 2014, pp. 
40-44). Rather than assessing climate change as a single threat in and 
of itself, we examined the potential consequences to the species and 
its habitat that arise from changes in environmental conditions 
associated with various aspects of climate change (temperature, 
precipitation, and sea level rise). Climatic changes may affect the 
phenology, abundance, and distribution of many species (Walther et al. 
2002, p. 394). Thus, vulnerability to climate change impacts can be 
defined as a function of sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity 
of the species to those changes (IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 21; Glick and Stein 
2010, p. 19).
    The IPCC-modelled scenarios for the Caribbean islands predict 
precipitation declines, sea level rise, stronger and more frequent 
extreme weather events, and temperature increases by 2050 (Penn 2010, 
p. 45; Khalyani et al. 2016 p. 265; Gould et al. 2018, p. 813; Strauss 
and Kulp 2018, p. 3; USGCRP 2018, p.136). We examined a downscaled 
model for Puerto Rico and the British Virgin Islands based on global 
emissions scenarios from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 
(CMIP3) dataset. The more current CMIP5 dataset was not available for 
the species' range at the time of analysis. The Special Report on 
Emissions (SRES) scenarios using the CMIP3 dataset are generally 
comparable to the more recent representative concentration pathways 
(RCP) scenarios from RCP4.5 (SRES B1) to RCP8.5 (SRES A2) (Lorde 2011, 
entire; IPCC 2014, p. 57; Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279-280). 
Under both scenarios, emissions increase, precipitation declines, and 
temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in extreme drought 
conditions that convert subtropical dry forest into dry and very dry 
forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280).
    Modeling shows dramatic changes to Puerto Rico through 2100; 
however, the divergence in these projections increases after mid-
century (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). By 2050, Puerto Rico is 
predicted to be subject to a decrease

[[Page 37486]]

in rainfall, along with increased drought intensity (Khalyani et al. 
2016 p. 265; USGCRP 2018, p.136). As precipitation decreases, 
influenced by warming, it will tend to accelerate the hydrological 
cycles, resulting in wet and dry extremes (Cashman et al. 2010, pp. 1, 
51, 53; Jennings et al. 2014, pp. 1, 5-6). A reduction in precipitation 
in the subtropical dry forests, where rain events are already limited, 
will affect Mitracarpus polycladus viability through reduced seed 
viability and result in increased seedling mortality. Droughts 
compromise seedling recruitment as evidenced following dry periods, 
when seedling and adult mortality is the highest and other individuals 
show partial die-off (Service 2018b, p. 8). In fact, under experimental 
conditions, the germination and survival of seedlings of the closely 
related M. maxwelliae were negatively affected by reduced soil moisture 
(Buitrago-Soto 2002, p. 25). There are indications that the southern 
region of Puerto Rico, where M. polycladus occurs, has experienced 
negative trends in annual rainfall. Between 2000 and 2016, Puerto Rico 
had seven drought episodes concentrated around the south, east, and 
southeastern regions of the island. The most severe drought occurred 
between 2014 and 2016 when Puerto Rico experienced 80 consecutive weeks 
of moderate drought, 48 weeks of severe drought, and 33 weeks of 
extreme drought conditions (Alvarez-Berr[iacute]os et al. 2018, p. 1). 
Prolonged dry seasons may represent a bottleneck for seedlings and 
promote changes in the composition of recruits of plant species (Allen 
et al. 2017, p. 6). Additionally, prolonged droughts and associated 
changes in soil conditions (i.e., temperature and soil humidity) would 
result in conditions promoting fire throughout M. polycladus's range, 
impacting individuals and reducing seed viability, and therefore 
species' recruitment. Moreover, the absence of forest canopy on the 
exposed limestone substrate where M. polycladus occurs reduces suitable 
habitat conditions (i.e., hydrology and moisture retention) that buffer 
the severity of stress resulting from environmental perturbations, such 
as droughts.
    The IPCC global models and scenarios analyzed for the downscaled 
models apply to the Caribbean islands. Downscaled general circulation 
models predict dramatic shifts in the life zones of Puerto Rico with 
potential loss of subtropical rain, moist, and wet forest, and the 
appearance of tropical dry and very dry forests anticipated (Khalyani 
et al. 2016, p. 275). Some species may move to higher elevations in 
response to this shift in life zones; however, the extent of a species' 
ability to redistribute will depend on its dispersal capability and 
forest connectivity (Khalyani et al. 2019, p. 11). Due to the low 
dispersal capability of Mitracarpus polycladus, clumped spatial 
distribution, habitat requirements (exposed limestone), and the limited 
availability of the required habitat, a shift from dry to very dry 
forest is expected to affect species' viability because of a lack of 
suitable habitat and the species' inability to move to suitable 
habitat. Based on the similarity of habitat and geographic proximity, 
the effects of climate change on Anegada and Saba Islands are expected 
to be similar to Puerto Rico as emissions increase, precipitation 
declines, and temperature and total dry days increase, resulting in 
extreme drought conditions that convert subtropical dry forest into dry 
and very dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). In the subtropical 
dry forest habitat where M. polycladus occurs, climate change may 
impact the species through declines in natural recruitment and 
population expansion.
    Sea level rise is another expected effect of climate change that 
may affect coastal communities and habitat in the Caribbean islands 
(Penn 2010, entire; Lorde 2011, entire; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 1). 
Integrated sea level rise projection and flood risk analysis predict 
floods reaching 0.5 m (1.64 ft) above current high tide levels will 
become common events throughout most of the Caribbean by 2050 (Strauss 
and Kulp 2018, p. 2). Other scenarios using RCP4.5 and 8.5 forecast 
that by mid-century, sea level is expected to increase by 0.24 m (0.8 
ft) to 0.85 m (2.8 ft) (Church et al. 2013, p. 1182; Sweet et al. 2017, 
p. 75; Strauss and Kulp 2018, p. 14). Based on these sea level rise 
projections, coastal floods will negatively affect Mitracarpus 
polycladus habitat at or below the 1.0 m (3.3 ft) sea level near the 
coast or in areas with high coastal erosion through the effects of 
saltwater inundation. In Puerto Rico, M. polycladus occurs at 
elevations ranging from 1.5 m (5 ft) to 52 m (172 ft) from current sea 
level (Service 2018b, p. 5). On Saba Island, M. polycladus occurs at an 
elevation ranging from 12 m (40 ft) to 335 m (1,100 ft) (Rojer 1997, p. 
19; Freitas et al 2016, p. 10). On Anegada Island, M. polycladus occurs 
at elevations ranging from 1 m (3.2 ft) to 8 m (26 ft) from current sea 
level (Barrios 2021, pers. comm.; Hamilton 2021, pers. comm.). Across 
the range, the only known locality in an area with potential to be 
affected by flooding and sea level rise is the Windlass site on Anegada 
Island (approximately 200 M. polycladus individuals). The Windlass site 
is located in the sandy and rocky areas on the northern coast of the 
island where the habitat is subjected to high energy wave and coastal 
erosion (B[aacute]rrios and Hamilton 2018, p. 5). Mitracarpus 
polycladus individuals occur in elevations higher than those we expect 
to be impacted by sea level rise on Puerto Rico, Saba Island, and other 
localities on Anegada Island. Based on predicted sea level rise and the 
elevation where most individuals occur, we determined sea level rise 
does not pose a threat to the species in the foreseeable future. 
Nevertheless, sea level rise may indirectly impact the species, 
particularly on Anegada Island, through development associated with 
displacement of the human population from coastal areas to inland and 
urban areas where individuals of M. polycladus occur (Penn 2010, pp. 
21, 249; Hamilton 2016, p. 101).
    In summary, other natural and human-caused factors, such as the 
limited distribution of the three known natural populations and the 
effects of climate change (i.e., decreased rainfall, severe droughts, 
and shift in life zones), are current threats to Mitracarpus 
polycladus. The threats to the species will be exacerbated by the 
expected changes in climatic conditions by 2050. We expect the 
projected changes in habitat and microhabitat conditions of temperature 
and rainfall will have negative effects on M. polycladus. The ecology 
of M. polycladus appears closely linked to specific current climatic 
conditions of rain seasonality and drought periods. By 2050, sea level 
rise is expected to affect the Caribbean islands, including Puerto 
Rico, Anegada Island, and Saba Island. We do not expect significant 
effects to M. polycladus from sea level rise, although one coastal 
locality on Anegada Island has the potential to be affected. Overall, 
the effects of a changing climate on M. polycladus will be exacerbated 
by the relatively low number of populations and habitat degradation and 
fragmentation, which can affect the future viability of the species.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the final listing rule (59 FR 46715; September 9, 1994), we 
identified the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as one of 
the factors affecting the continued existence of Mitracarpus 
polycladus. At that time, the species had no legal protection, because 
it had not been included in Puerto Rico's list of protected species.

[[Page 37487]]

After M. polycladus was listed under the Act, the Commonwealth 
designated the species as endangered in 2004 (DRNA 2004, p. 56).
    Presently, Mitracarpus polycladus is legally protected under 
Commonwealth Law No. 241-1999 (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto Rico at 
sections 107-107u), known as Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto Rico 
(New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico). The purpose of this law is 
multifaceted: to protect, conserve, and enhance both native and 
migratory wildlife species; to declare as property of Puerto Rico all 
wildlife species within its jurisdiction; to regulate permits and 
hunting activities; and to regulate exotic species, among other 
activities. This law also has provisions to protect habitat for all 
wildlife and plant species. In 2004, the Department approved Regulation 
6766 or Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las Especies Vulnerables y 
en Peligro de Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto 
Rico (Regulation 6766: To govern the management of threatened and 
endangered species in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of 
Regulation 6766 prohibits collecting, cutting, and removing, among 
other activities, listed plant individuals within the jurisdiction of 
Puerto Rico (DRNA 2004, p. 11). The provisions of Commonwealth Law No. 
241-1999 and Regulation 6766 extend to private lands.
    Mitracarpus polycladus that occur in the GCF are further protected 
under Commonwealth Law No. 133-1975 (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto 
Rico at sections 191-204), known as Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico 
(Forest Act of Puerto Rico), as amended in 2000. Section 8(a) of this 
law prohibits cutting down, killing, causing the deterioration of, bud 
pruning, uprooting, or otherwise injuring or deteriorating any tree or 
vegetation within a Commonwealth forest without authorization of the 
Department Secretary (title 12 of the Laws of Puerto Rico at section 
198). The Department also identified the GCF as a Critical Wildlife 
Area. The designation is intended to provide information to 
Commonwealth and Federal agencies about the conservation needs of these 
areas, and assist permitting agencies in precluding adverse impacts as 
a result of project endorsements or permit approvals (DNR 2005, pp. 
211-216).
    Although there are legal mechanisms in place (e.g., laws or 
regulations) for the protection of Mitracarpus polycladus, the 
enforcement of such mechanisms on private and public land is sometimes 
challenging. For example, accidental damage by cutting, pruning, 
mowing, or trampling, or even loss of M. polycladus individuals, may 
occur when land managers or private landowners are not aware it is a 
protected species. Land managers, landowners, and law enforcement 
officers are not always aware of the localities occupied by the species 
throughout its range or may have difficulty correctly identifying the 
plant (Service 2018b, p. 10). Therefore, limited public awareness of 
the species and its status exacerbates the challenge of implementation 
of existing laws and regulations and affects conservation of M. 
polycladus and its habitat.
    On Anegada Island, various conservation and education efforts are 
taking place for the protection of rare plant and animal species 
(Gardner et al. 2008, entire; IRF 2013, p. 29). However, we are unaware 
of any formal regulatory mechanism that protects Mitracarpus polycladus 
on Anegada Island. Similarly, no terrestrial areas on Saba Island are 
legally protected (Geelhoed et al. 2013, p. 12). A draft Island Nature 
Protection Ordinance must be approved by each island's government in 
the former Netherlands Antilles to facilitate the creation of island-
specific conservation legislation (Collier and Brown 2008, p. 259). 
This process is ongoing within the Saba Island government, but to our 
knowledge, no current legislation is in place for the designation of 
terrestrial protected areas or conservation of species.
    Outside of the protections provided by the Act, as previously 
indicated, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally protects Mitracarpus 
polycladus as an endangered species, including protections to its 
habitat, through Commonwealth Law No. 241-1999 and Regulation 6766, 
which prohibit collecting, cutting, and removal, among other actions, 
of listed plants. If this species is reclassified as a threatened 
species under the Act, we do not expect this species to be removed from 
legal protection by the Commonwealth. Although these protections extend 
to both public and private lands, as discussed above, protection of 
this species is challenging. Mitracarpus polycladus habitat on private 
land is subject to pressures from urbanization and tourism development. 
Additionally, accidental damage or loss of individuals has occurred 
because public land managers, private landowners, or other parties may 
not be aware that it is a protected species. Nevertheless, this plant 
is now more abundant, is widely distributed, and largely occurs within 
conserved lands. Despite the existing regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation efforts, the threats discussed above are still affecting 
the species to the extent that it does not meet the criteria for 
delisting. However, additional opportunities exist to engage the public 
and provide information about M. polycladus and support the enforcement 
of existing protective mechanisms.

Summary

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats faced by Mitracarpus 
polycladus in developing this proposed rule. Limited distribution and a 
low number of individuals were considered a threat to M. polycladus 
when we listed the species in 1994, but recent information indicates 
the species is more abundant and widely distributed than was known at 
the time of listing and most individuals occur in protected lands where 
threats, although they still occur, are reduced. We determined that 
habitat destruction and modification (e.g., vegetation clearance with 
trail and road maintenance activities, human-caused fires, encroachment 
by nonnative and invasive species, urbanization and tourism 
development), as well as other natural or manmade factors such as 
limited distribution and the effects of climate change, will continue 
to pose threats to M. polycladus populations over the foreseeable 
future.
    Species viability, or the species' ability to sustain populations 
over time, is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic 
events (redundancy), to adapt to changing environmental conditions 
(representation), and to withstand stochastic disturbance of varying 
magnitude and duration (resiliency). The viability of a species is also 
dependent on the likelihood of new stressors or continued threats, now 
and in the future, that act to reduce a species' redundancy, 
representation, and resiliency.
    We evaluated the biological status of this species, both currently 
and into the future, considering the species' viability as 
characterized by its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. 
Mitracarpus polycladus has demonstrated some level of resiliency to 
natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the past. Adult individuals 
have overcome disturbances such as droughts and habitat modification, 
road and trail maintenance, and fires. However, seedlings are 
susceptible to the effects of drought and to the invasion of nonnative 
plant species after fire events. The lack of or reduced seedling 
recruitment can affect population demographics and long-term viability 
of the species.

[[Page 37488]]

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

  Table 2--Definitions for Mitracarpus polycladus Population Resiliency
                               Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            High                    Moderate                 Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Abundance is high;.  <bullet> Abundance    <bullet> Abundance
<bullet> Number of             is moderate;.         is low;
 localities is high, and      <bullet> Number of    <bullet> Number of
 they occupy a greater         localities is         localities is
 spatial extent within         moderate, and they    limited to one, and
 suitable habitat;.            occupy a limited      it occupies a very
<bullet> Reproduction and      spatial extent        restricted spatial
 recruitment are such that     within suitable       extent;
 the population remains        habitat;.            <bullet> No
 stable or increases;.        <bullet>               reproduction or
<bullet> Abundant suitable     Reproduction and/or   recruitment is
 habitat occurs outside        recruitment is        occurring;
 known localities; and.        occurring at some    <bullet> Mortality
<bullet> Connectivity occurs   localities;.          exceeds recruitment
 among most localities..      <bullet> Recruitment   such that the
                               and mortality are     population is
                               equal such that the   declining;
                               population does not  <bullet> Limited or
                               grow or the           no suitable habitat
                               population trend is   occurs outside
                               unknown;.             known locality; and
                              <bullet> Some         <bullet> There is no
                               suitable habitat      connectivity
                               occurs outside        between localities
                               known localities;     (single locality
                               and.                  population).
                              <bullet>
                               Connectivity occurs
                               between at least
                               two localities..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, three Mitracarpus polycladus natural populations are 
known from three islands in the Caribbean (i.e., Puerto Rico, Anegada 
Island, and Saba Island). In Puerto Rico, many M. polycladus adult 
individuals occur in small clusters, and seedlings have been 
documented, particularly after rain events. Information from Anegada 
Island and Saba Island is very limited, making it difficult to 
determine the level of population resiliency. However, both of those 
populations of M. polycladus demonstrate some level of resiliency as 
they are still present on both islands and have presumably overcome 
historical disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, including 
habitat modification.
    The short time it takes M. polycladus to reach reproductive size 
and the extent of seed production facilitates population-level 
resiliency. However, resiliency is limited by the small size of 
clusters of individuals, species' seasonality, low dispersal capacity, 
and high seedling mortality. We have no evidence that known M. 
polycladus clusters are expanding or colonizing suitable habitat away 
from roads and trails. The lack of expansion and colonization results 
in isolated clusters with an increased chance of reduced genetic 
variation due to genetic drift, potentially resulting in inbreeding 
depression and lower resiliency. In addition, M. polycladus has been 
displaced by nonnative, invasive species after habitat disturbance by 
fire, which further precludes the effective recruitment of the species. 
The M. polycladus population in Puerto Rico occurs on 0.44 ha (1.1 ac) 
of habitat in 10 naturally occurring and 1 introduced locality. 
Suitable habitat connects some, but not all, localities. Habitat 
protection and enhancement to increase connectivity between scattered 
localities in Puerto Rico is important to maximize the resiliency of 
the M. polycladus population. The Saba and Anegada Islands populations 
occur in limited areas as well and although the species has persisted 
in these locations, the population trend and extent are not known. 
Overall, the limited areal extent of M. polycladus contributes to its 
susceptibility to stochastic and catastrophic events. Based on these 
factors, we determined the Puerto Rico population currently exhibits 
moderate resiliency and the Anegada and Saba Islands populations 
exhibit unknown or likely low resiliency.
    The species' viability is also affected by its ability to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions. We have no information on the 
genetic variability of Mitracarpus polycladus nor information on 
variation in adaptive life-history traits, and, therefore, we evaluated 
the species' ability to adapt based on its likelihood of maintaining 
the breadth of genetic diversity and gene flow. This species occurs in 
small patches of suitable habitat within subtropical dry forest in 
three islands of the Caribbean with little variation in habitat 
conditions between populations. Historically, genetic diversity may 
have contributed to the species' ability to adapt to changing 
conditions (to adapt or shift in place). We expect that the species has 
maintained some underlying genetic diversity, but as threats affect the 
species' viability in the future, this genetic diversity may be 
reduced, and the species will be less able to adapt. Currently, M. 
polycladus representation relies on the genetic contribution of only 
three disconnected and distinctive populations: Puerto Rico, Saba 
Island, and Anegada Island. In Puerto Rico, the natural population 
occurs in scattered clusters along approximately 5 miles of 
southwestern Puerto Rico coastline. Although on protected land, some 
localities are subject to human-caused fires and habitat encroachment 
by invasive grasses, which increase the distance between clusters and 
further affect cross-pollination. On Anegada

[[Page 37489]]

and Saba Islands, M. polycladus individuals are also clustered in a 
small area vulnerable to the effects of urbanization and development, 
as well as human-caused fires and encroachment by invasive grasses. 
Rangewide, all populations are vulnerable to the effects of climate 
change (i.e., decreased rainfall, severe droughts, and shift in life 
zones), which could result in the extirpation of clusters of 
individuals and the loss of genetic representation.
    The ability of the species to adapt is also a function of the level 
of gene flow between populations. The three populations are 
disconnected; thus, gene flow is limited to individuals within 
populations. Small, isolated populations are susceptible to the loss of 
genetic diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding, which will affect the 
ability of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions 
over time. At this time, the most updated information shows that the 
species' occurrences remain stable; thus, the species does not appear 
to be affected by genetic drift at present. However, gene flow is 
limited to individuals within populations due to the lack of 
connectivity that would allow cross-pollination among populations. As 
fragmentation increases, gene flow will be reduced further, and the 
populations will become more vulnerable to genetic drift and 
inbreeding, thereby reducing the species' ability to adapt to changing 
conditions. We determined M. polycladus representation is likely 
somewhat reduced from historical representation due to reduced or 
fragmented habitat conditions, but maintains moderate adaptive capacity 
for the species.
    Lastly, the species' viability depends on its ability to withstand 
catastrophic events, which is a function of the number and distribution 
of M. polycladus populations. The more sufficiently resilient 
populations, and the wider the distribution of those populations, the 
more redundancy the species will exhibit. The number and distribution 
of localities in each population continue to occur in the same 
geographic area and are exposed to naturally occurring levels of 
catastrophic events. The primary catastrophic risks include drought and 
fire. These factors are expected to increase with the subtropical dry 
forest shifting to very dry forest habitat within the foreseeable 
future. Hence, we expect the risk of catastrophic events to increase in 
the foreseeable future. The species' largest population (Puerto Rico) 
is moderately resilient and the species now occurs in a wider rangewide 
distribution than was known historically; therefore, we have determined 
M. polycladus has maintained moderate species redundancy.
    In summary, the current abundance of Mitracarpus polycladus has 
increased and some of the identified threats have decreased since 
listing in 1994. However, our analysis indicates that threats and 
stressors continue to affect the species. We based our analyses on 
biological factors, expert judgments regarding the consequences of 
interacting stressors to the species' viability, and our assessment of 
likely future habitat conditions.

Determination of Mitracarpus polycladus's Status

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

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we have determined that Mitracarpus polycladus' current 
viability is higher than was known at the time of listing (current 
abundance estimate of more than 20,000 adult individuals in three 
populations) and most individuals occur on protected lands where 
threats are reduced. Accordingly, we find that the species is not in 
danger of extinction and no longer meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species.
    At the time of listing, the known range of Mitracarpus polycladus 
consisted of an undetermined number of individuals located in a single 
population in southern Puerto Rico and from one record on Saba Island. 
The primary threats were habitat destruction and modification, 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and limited distribution 
(59 FR 46715, September 9, 1994, pp. 46716-46717). Currently, M. 
polycladus is known to occur in 11 localities within an areal extent of 
0.44 ha (1.1 ac) in southern Puerto Rico and several localities on Saba 
Island and Anegada Island. In Puerto Rico, about 89 percent of the 
known M. polycladus individuals occur within the GCF, a forest managed 
for conservation by the Department in a manner compatible with M. 
polycladus's needs and protected by Commonwealth regulations.
    However, although now known to be more widespread and abundant than 
previously thought, the remaining 11 percent of individuals on Puerto 
Rico and individuals on Saba and Anegada Islands occur on private lands 
and are at risk due to habitat destruction and modification from wind 
farm projects, urbanization, and tourism development. Accidental damage 
to M. polycladus also occurs because private landowners and road and 
trail maintenance crews may not be aware it is a protected species or 
may not be able to identify it. Information from Puerto Rico also 
indicates that threats from human-caused fires, human trampling, and 
nonnative and invasive species are acting on M. polycladus on both 
public and private lands. Some of these threats could be more severe 
for the populations on private lands, since there are no fire 
management prevention practices implemented, making the species more 
vulnerable to impacts. On both Saba and Anegada Islands, the species 
also faces threats due to residential and commercial development and 
degradation due to uncontrolled grazing of feral livestock. Information 
from Anegada Island and Saba Island is very limited, making it 
difficult to determine the level of population resiliency; however, 
both populations demonstrate some level of resiliency as they are still 
present on both islands and have presumably overcome historical 
disturbances of varying magnitude and duration, including habitat 
modification. Thus, we determined the Puerto Rico population currently 
exhibits moderate resiliency and the resiliency of the Anegada and Saba 
Islands populations is unknown or likely low.
    Furthermore, the species' distribution is wider than known at the 
time of listing, and the species' listing by the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico provides some level of protection to Mitracarpus polycladus. 
However, there continues to be concern about present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range 
(specifically, maintenance of existing roads and trails, human 
trampling, human-caused fires, encroachment of

[[Page 37490]]

nonnative and invasive species after fires and other habitat 
modification activities, and urbanization and tourism development) 
(Factor A); and other natural or manmade factors affecting the 
continued existence of Mitracarpus polycladus throughout its range 
(specifically, limited distribution and the effects of climate change) 
(Factor E). The species is not affected by stressors related to 
overutilization. The best available information does not indicate that 
diseases are affecting the species or feral livestock are specifically 
targeting this species and consuming it. Despite the identification of 
these threats that currently continue to act upon the species, the 
species overall--and the Puerto Rico population in particular--appears 
sufficiently resilient to the current magnitude and scope of threats 
acting upon it.
    In summary, Mitracarpus polycladus is distributed across a narrow 
range, but the number of localities within populations and 
environmental conditions have improved since the time of listing. Given 
the species' current resiliency and ability to withstand catastrophic 
events and adapt to changing conditions, the species is not currently 
in danger of extinction throughout its range. Therefore, we proceed 
with determining whether M. polycladus is threatened (i.e., is likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future) throughout all of 
its range.
    Based on biological factors and stressors to the species' 
viability, we determined 25 years to be the foreseeable future within 
which we can reasonably project threats and the species' response to 
those threats. The foreseeable future for the individual factors and 
threats varies. We reviewed available information including forest 
management plans, proposed development projects, and fire history 
within the range of the species, to inform our assessment of likely 
future levels for each threat. Projections out to the year 2050 predict 
increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation (Khalyani et 
al. 2016, pp. 274-275). However, divergence in temperature and 
precipitation projections increases dramatically after mid-century 
among climate change scenarios (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275), making 
late-century projections more uncertain. Therefore, our ability to 
reliably predict stressors associated with climate change is reduced 
beyond mid-century. In addition, observation of threats and the effects 
of those threats on the species since listing more than 25 years ago 
has given us a baseline to understand how threats described above may 
impact the species. For example, we have observed the effects of 
habitat destruction and modification (such as vegetation clearance for 
maintaining or improving trails and access roads, human trampling, 
human-caused fires, invasive species, and urban and tourist 
development), and climate change (predicted changes in temperature, 
increased droughts, and life zones shifting) on the species since its 
listing and can reliably predict the species' response to these 
threats.
    The 25-year period includes multiple generations of the species and 
allows adequate time for impacts from conservation efforts or changes 
in threats to be observed through population responses. For example, 
this timeframe accounts for the species' reproductive biology, and thus 
the time required by multiple generations of Mitracarpus polycladus to 
reach a reproductive size and effectively contribute to the viability 
of the species. It accounts for reaching maturity, flowering, setting 
viable fruits and seeds, seed germination, and seedling survival and 
establishment, and allows environmental stochastic events such as 
severe drought periods to affect the species. Furthermore, the 
established timeframe provides an opportunity to analyze the 
implications of the Department's forest management actions, and 
existing laws and regulations to protect currently known populations.
    Although population numbers and abundance of M. polycladus have 
increased and the species' occurrences appear stable, threats remain in 
magnitude, scope, and impact over time. Habitat destruction and 
modification, such as vegetation clearance for maintaining or improving 
trails and access roads, human trampling, human-caused fires, invasive 
species, and urban and tourist development (Factor A), and other 
natural or manmade factors such as the effects of climate change 
(Factor E) may limit the species' abundance and distribution of 
occurrences. Gene flow will continue to be limited to individuals 
within populations due to the lack of connectivity that would allow 
cross-pollination among populations; populations may become more 
vulnerable to genetic drift and inbreeding thereby reducing the 
species' ability to adapt to changing conditions. Although much of the 
Puerto Rico population occurs in the GCF, which is managed for 
conservation, actions that benefit the species will not eliminate the 
threats of trail maintenance, trampling, nonnative and invasive 
species, and human-caused fires and these threats are expected to 
continue to affect the species in the foreseeable future. Proposed 
urbanization and tourism development projects may be completed in the 
foreseeable future. Furthermore, under climate change projections, the 
risk of catastrophic drought and fire is expected to increase with the 
subtropical dry forest shifting to very dry forest habitat within the 
foreseeable future. The magnitude of effects associated with habitat 
destruction and modification and with climate change are expected to 
continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Despite 
the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts, the 
threats discussed above are still affecting the species to the extent 
that it does not meet the criteria for delisting. Thus, after assessing 
the best available information, we conclude that M. polycladus is not 
currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological 
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered 
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened 
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Service 
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' 
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of 
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity, 
we now

[[Page 37491]]

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

Determination of Status

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

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

    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. Because we are proposing to reclassify 
this species as a threatened species, the prohibitions in section 9 
would not apply directly. We are, therefore, proposing below a set of 
regulations to provide for the conservation of the species in 
accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, which also authorizes us to 
apply any of the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act to a threatened 
species. The proposal, which includes a description of the kinds of 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation, complies 
with this policy.

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally,

[[Page 37492]]

the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the 
Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened 
species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 
or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the 
combination of the two sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary 
with wide latitude of discretion to select and promulgate appropriate 
regulations tailored to the specific conservation needs of the 
threatened species. The second sentence grants particularly broad 
discretion to us when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. 
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such 
species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but 
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote the 
conservation of M. polycladus by encouraging management of the 
landscape in ways that meet both land management considerations and the 
conservation needs of M. polycladus. The provisions of this proposed 
rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote the 
conservation of M. polycladus. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only 
if and when we make final the reclassification of M. polycladus as a 
threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    Exercising this authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 
developed a proposed rule that is designed to address Mitracarpus 
polycladus' specific threats and conservation needs. As discussed above 
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that 
Mitracarpus polycladus is likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future primarily due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (specifically, human-caused fires, nonnative and invasive 
species, and urbanization and tourism development); and other natural 
or manmade factors (specifically, the effects of climate change). 
Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as she 
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each 
threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those 
protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(2) of 
the Act prescribes for endangered species. We find that, if finalized, 
the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this proposed rule as 
a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of M. polycladus.
    The protective regulations we are proposing for Mitracarpus 
polycladus incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(2) to address the 
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(2) prohibits the following 
activities for endangered plants: importing or exporting; certain acts 
related to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving, 
carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce 
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce. These proposed protective 
regulations include all of these prohibitions for M. polycladus because 
the species is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and 
putting these prohibitions in place will help to protect the species' 
remaining populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease 
synergistic, negative effects from other threats. For example, 
modifying the habitat of the species on Federal lands without 
authorization (e.g., unauthorized opening of trails, etc.) would be 
considered a violation of this rule. Also, removing, cutting, digging 
up, or damaging or destroying of the species on any non-Federal lands 
in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the Territory or in 
the course of any violation of the Territory's criminal trespass law 
would be considered a violation. As a whole, the proposed 4(d) rule for 
this species would help in the efforts to recover M. polycladus.
    In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the 
conservation of Mitracarpus polycladus by prohibiting the following 
activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are 
otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; certain acts 
related to removing, damaging, and destroying; delivering, receiving, 
transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce. The exceptions to the prohibitions 
would include all of the general exceptions to the prohibition against 
removing and reducing to possession endangered plants, as set forth in 
50 CFR 17.61.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The 
regulations that govern permits for threatened plants state that the 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species (50 CFR 17.72). Those 
regulations also state that the permit shall be governed by the 
provisions of Sec.  17.72 unless a special rule applicable to the plant 
is provided in Sec. Sec.  17.73 to 17.78. Therefore, permits for 
threatened species are governed by the provisions of Sec.  17.72 unless 
a species-specific 4(d) rule provides otherwise. However, under our 
recent revisions to Sec.  17.71, the prohibitions in Sec.  17.71(a) 
will not apply to any plant listed as a threatened species after 
September 26, 2019. As a result, for threatened plant species listed 
after that date, any protections must be contained in a species-
specific 4(d) rule. We did not intend for those revisions to limit or 
alter the applicability of the permitting provisions in Sec.  17.72, or 
to require that every species-specific 4(d) rule spell out any 
permitting provisions that apply to that species and species-specific 
4(d) rule. To the contrary, we anticipate that permitting provisions 
would generally be similar or identical for most species, so applying 
the provisions of Sec.  17.72 unless a species-specific 4(d) rule 
provides otherwise would likely avoid substantial duplication. 
Moreover, this interpretation brings Sec.  17.72 in line with the 
comparable provision for wildlife at 50 CFR 17.32, in which the second 
sentence states that the permit shall be governed by the provisions of 
Sec.  17.32 unless a special rule applicable to the wildlife, appearing 
in 50 CFR 17.40 to 17.48, provides otherwise. Under 50

[[Page 37493]]

CFR 17.72 with regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for 
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation 
or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural 
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other activities 
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act. Additional 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 
10 of the Act.
    We recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of activities 
with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the 
propagation of the species and, therefore, would satisfy permit 
requirements under the Act. We intend to monitor the interstate and 
foreign commerce and import and export of these specimens in a manner 
that will not inhibit such activities, providing the activities do not 
represent a threat to the species' survival in the wild. In this 
regard, seeds of cultivated specimens would not be subject to the 
prohibitions above, provided that a statement that the seeds are of 
``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or their container (50 CFR 
17.71(a)).
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State and 
Territorial natural resource agency partners in contributing to 
conservation of listed species. State and Territorial agencies often 
possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and 
distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of 
wildlife and plants. State and Territorial agencies, because of their 
authorities and their close working relationships with local 
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in 
implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the 
Act provides that the Service shall cooperate to the maximum extent 
practicable with the States and Territories in carrying out programs 
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a 
Territorial conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative 
agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is 
designated by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able to 
conduct activities designed to conserve Mitracarpus polycladus that may 
result in otherwise prohibited activities without additional 
authorization.
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to 
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of 
Mitracarpus polycladus. However, interagency cooperation may be further 
streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the species 
between us and other Federal agencies, where appropriate. We ask the 
public, particularly State and Territorial agencies and other 
interested stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, 
to provide comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance and 
methods that the Service could provide or use, respectively, to 
streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see 
Information Requested, above).

Required Determinations

Clarity of This Proposed Rule

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under 
the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons 
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 
FR 49244). We also determine that 4(d) rules that accompany regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are not subject to the 
National Environmental Policy Act.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.12 in paragraph (h) amend the table by revising the 
entry for ``Mitracarpus polycladus'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

[[Page 37494]]

Sec.  17.12   Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Listing citations and
        Scientific name            Common name        Where listed       Status           applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Mitracarpus polycladus........  No common name...  Wherever found...  T             59 FR 46715, 9/9/1994;
                                                                                     [Federal Register citation
                                                                                     of final rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                     17.73(l).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. As proposed to be amended at 85 FR 58224 (September 17, 2020), 85 FR 
61684 (September 30, 2020), 86 FR 18014 (April 7, 2021), 85 FR 66906 
(October 21, 2020), 86 FR 3976 (January 15, 2021), 86 FR 33159 (June 
24, 2021), and 86 FR 37091 (July 14, 2021), Sec.  17.73 is further 
amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.73   Special rules--flowering plants.

* * * * *
    (l) Mitracarpus polycladus (no common name)
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered plants also apply to Mitracarpus polycladus. Except as 
provided under paragraph (l)(2) of this section, it is unlawful for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to 
attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be 
committed, any of the following acts in regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(b) for endangered 
plants.
    (ii) Remove and reduce to possession the species from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy the species on any 
such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the species on 
any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the 
Territory or in the course of any violation of a Territorial criminal 
trespass law.
    (iii) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(d) for endangered plants.
    (iv) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.61(e) for 
endangered plants.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by permit under Sec.  17.72.
    (ii) Remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy on areas not under 
Federal jurisdiction if you are a qualified employee or agent of the 
Service or Territorial conservation agency which is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, and you have been designated by that agency for such 
purposes, when acting in the course of official duties.
    (iii) Engage in any act prohibited under paragraph (l)(1) of this 
section with seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement 
that the seeds are of ``cultivated origin'' accompanies the seeds or 
their container.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-13229 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P