37476 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

■ 1. The authority citation for parts 213, 

229, 232, and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 2. Amend section 213.301 by 

redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 

(5) and adding a new paragraph (4) to 

read as follows: 

213.301 Governmentwide commercial 

purchase card. 

* * * * * 

(4) The contracting officer shall not 

authorize the Governmentwide 

commercial purchase card as a method 

of payment during any contract period 

of performance if the contract includes 

the clause at FAR 52.229–12, Tax on 

Certain Foreign Procurements, unless 

the contract also includes the clause at 

252.229–70XX, Full Exemption from 

Two-Percent Excise Tax on Certain 

Foreign Procurements, indicating that 

the contractor is fully exempt from the 

tax. 

* * * * * 

PART 229—TAXES 

■ 3. Add subpart 229.2, consisting of 

section 229.204, to read as follows: 

SUBPART 229.2—FEDERAL EXCISE 

TAXES 

229.204 Federal excise tax on specific 

foreign contract payments. 

The contracting officer shall not 

authorize the Governmentwide 

commercial purchase card as a method 

of payment during any contract period 

of performance if the contract includes 

the clause at FAR 52.229–12, Tax on 

Certain Foreign Procurements, unless 

the contract also includes the clause at 

252.229–70XX, Full Exemption from 

Two-Percent Excise Tax on Certain 

Foreign Procurements, indicating that 

the contractor is fully exempt from the 

tax. 

■ 4. Amend section 229.402–70 by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

229.402–70 Additional provisions and 

clauses. 

* * * * * 

(k) Use the clause at 252.229–70XX, 

Full Exemption from Two-Percent 

Excise Tax on Certain Foreign 

Procurements, in contracts that include 

the clause at FAR 52.229–12, Tax on 

Certain Foreign Procurements, when the 

contractor has— 

(1) Represented that it is a foreign 

person in response to the provision at 

FAR 52.229–11, Tax on Certain Foreign 

Procurements—Notice and 

Representation; and 

(2) Indicated that it is fully exempt 

from the tax for reasons cited on their 

IRS Form W–14, Certificate of Foreign 

Contracting Party Receiving Federal 

Procurement Payments. 

PART 232—CONTRACT FINANCING 

■ 5. Add sections 232.1108 and 

232.1108–70 to subpart 232.11 to read 

as follows: 

232.1108 Payment by Governmentwide 

commercial purchase card. 

232.1108–70 Prohibition of 

Governmentwide commercial purchase 

card as a method of payment when the tax 

on certain foreign procurements applies. 

The contracting officer shall not 

authorize the Governmentwide 

commercial purchase card as a method 

of payment during any contract period 

of performance if the contract includes 

the clause at FAR 52.229–12, Tax on 

Certain Foreign Procurements, unless 

the contract also includes the clause at 

252.229–70XX, Full Exemption from 

Two-Percent Excise Tax on Certain 

Foreign Procurements, indicating that 

the contractor is fully exempt from the 

tax. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 6. Add section 252.229–70XX to read 

as follows: 

252.229–70XX Full Exemption from TwoPercent Excise Tax on Certain Foreign 

Procurements. 

As prescribed in 229.402–70(k), use 

the following clause: FULL 

EXEMPTION FROM TWO–PERCENT 

EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN FOREIGN 

PROCUREMENTS (DATE) 

(a) As the Contractor represented in its 

offer, any item, including any item delivered 

under subcontract; any service; or any 

combination thereof delivered under this 

contract is fully exempt from the 2-percent 

excise tax withholding imposed by 26 U.S.C. 

5000C and implemented by Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.229–12, Tax 

on Certain Foreign Procurements. 

(b) If the full exemption no longer applies 

due to a change in circumstances during the 

performance of the contract, causing the 

Contractor to become subject to the 

withholding for the 2-percent excise tax as 

imposed by 26 U.S.C. 5000C, then the 

Contractor shall immediately comply with 

the notification and billing requirements of 

FAR clause 52.229–12. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2022–13370 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 Mun ̃iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. 

Box 491, Boquero ́n, PR 00622; 

telephone: (787) 851–7297. 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-ofcontact 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37478 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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 (Nun ̃ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 Gua ́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 Ba ́rrios 2017, p. 1). 

In Puerto Rico, Mitracarpus 

polycladus was first collected in 1886 

on coastal rocks near Can ̃ a Gorda in the 

municipality of Gua ́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) Gua ́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 crosspollination) 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37480 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

(Ba ́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 (Ba ́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] 

Locality Abundance 

(# of adult plants) 

Area occupied ** 

in hectares/acres Ownership 

Can ̃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; Ca ́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; Ca ́ceresCharneco 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 (Ba ́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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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 rightof-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-Garcı ́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 (Garcı ́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., pajo ́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 (Garcı ́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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37484 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, Garcı ́a-Cancel 2013, 

entire). Nonnative species like guinea 

grass, buffel grass, pajo ́n, and African 

grass (Heteropogon contortus) 

aggressively colonize and compete with 

native species for sunlight, nutrients, 

water and ground cover (space), 

suppressing native vegetation (Garcı ́aCancel 2013, entire; Rojas-Sandoval and 

Mele ́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 Mele ́ndezAckerman 2012, pp. 35, 37; RojasSandoval and Mele ́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 (Garcı ́aCancel 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 nowabandoned 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 islandwide 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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; Ba ́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. Humancaused 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 crosspollination 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37486 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-Berrı ́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 

(Ba ́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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

Extincio ́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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37488 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

• Abundance is high; .........................................

• Number of localities is high, and they occupy 

a greater spatial extent within suitable habitat; 

• Reproduction and recruitment are such that 

the population remains stable or increases; 

• Abundant suitable habitat occurs outside 

known localities; and 

• Connectivity occurs among most localities. 

• Abundance is moderate; ..............................

• Number of localities is moderate, and they 

occupy a limited spatial extent within suitable habitat; 

• Reproduction and/or recruitment is occurring at some localities; 

• Recruitment and mortality are equal such 

that the population does not grow or the 

population trend is unknown; 

• Some suitable habitat occurs outside known 

localities; and 

• Connectivity occurs between at least two localities. 

• Abundance is low; 

• Number of localities is limited to one, and it 

occupies a very restricted spatial extent; 

• No reproduction or recruitment is occurring; 

• Mortality exceeds recruitment such that the 

population is declining; 

• Limited or no suitable habitat occurs outside known locality; and 

• There is no connectivity between localities 

(single locality population). 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 humancaused 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 midcentury. 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, humancaused 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, humancaused 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 otherwiseprohibited 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 § 17.72 unless a special 

rule applicable to the plant is provided 

in §§ 17.73 to 17.78. Therefore, permits 

for threatened species are governed by 

the provisions of § 17.72 unless a 

species-specific 4(d) rule provides 

otherwise. However, under our recent 

revisions to § 17.71, the prohibitions in 

§ 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 § 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 § 17.72 

unless a species-specific 4(d) rule 

provides otherwise would likely avoid 

substantial duplication. Moreover, this 

interpretation brings § 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 § 17.32 

unless a special rule applicable to the 

wildlife, appearing in 50 CFR 17.40 to 

17.48, provides otherwise. Under 50 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened 

plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and 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

* * * * * * * 

■ 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), § 17.73 

is further amended by adding paragraph 

(l) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 17.61(d) for endangered plants. 

(iv) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1