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

Availability and Summary of navigation, it is certified that this ANE NH E5 Portsmouth, NH [Amended] Documents for Incorporation by proposed rule, when promulgated, will Portsmouth International Airport at Pease, Reference not have a significant economic impact NH (Lat. 43°04′41″ N, long. 70°49′24″ W) This document proposes to amend on a substantial number of small entities FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace under the criteria of the Regulatory That airspace extending upward from 700 Flexibility Act. feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile Designations and Reporting Points, radius of Portsmouth International Airport at dated July 21, 2020, and effective Environmental Review Pease. September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed This proposal will be subject to an Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 8, environmental analysis in accordance 2021. in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists with FAA Order 1050.1F, Andreese C. Davis, Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, air traffic service routes, and reporting Procedures’’, prior to any FAA final Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. points. regulatory action. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 [FR Doc. 2021–14932 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] The Proposal BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The FAA proposes an amendment to Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Title 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D Navigation (air). airspace, increasing the radius to 4.7 The Proposed Amendment DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR miles from 4.5 miles, removing Class E In consideration of the foregoing, the airspace area designated as an extension Fish and Wildlife Service to Class D and Class E surface area, as Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as it is no longer necessary, and amend 50 CFR Part 17 Class E airspace extending upward from follows: 700 feet above the surface at Portsmouth PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059; International Airport at Pease, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] Portsmouth, NH, due to the TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND decommissioning of the PEASE VOR/ REPORTING POINTS RIN 1018–BE56 DME and cancellation of the associated approach procedures (SIAPs). This ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife action would update the airport name to continues to read as follows: and Plants; Reclassification of the Palo Portsmouth International Airport at de Rosa From Endangered to Pease, formerly Pease International Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule Tradeport. In addition, the FAA would 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. update the geographic coordinates of the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, airport and Littlebrook Air Park to § 71.1 [Amended] Interior. coincide with the FAA’s database. ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in ACTION: Proposed rule. Class D and E airspace designations 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, Administration Order 7400.11E, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Airspace Designations and Reporting reclassify palo de rosa (Ottoschulzia 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is rhodoxylon) from endangered to effective September 15, 2020, is threatened (downlist) under the incorporated by reference in 14 CFR amended as follows: 71.1. The Class E airspace designations Endangered Species Act of 1973, as listed in this document will be Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. amended (Act). The proposed published subsequently in the Order. * * * * * downlisting is based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace ANE NH D Portsmouth, NH [Amended] Designations and Reporting Points, is commercial information, which Portsmouth International Airport at Pease, indicates that the species’ status has published yearly and effective on NH September 15. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ improved such that it is not currently in (Lat. 43 04 41 N, long. 70 49 24 W) danger of extinction throughout all or a Regulatory Notices and Analyses Eliot, Littlebrook Air Park, ME (Lat. 43°08′35″ N, long. 70°46′24″ W) significant portion of its range, but that it is still likely to become so in the The FAA has determined that this That airspace extending upward from the proposed regulation only involves an surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL foreseeable future. We also propose a established body of technical within a 4.7-mile radius of the Portsmouth rule under section 4(d) of the Act that regulations for which frequent and International Airport at Pease, excluding that provides for the conservation of palo de routine amendments are necessary to airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of the rosa. keep them operationally current. It, Littlebrook Air Park. DATES: We will accept comments therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace received or postmarked on or before regulatory action’’ under Executive Designated as an Extension to Class E September 13, 2021. Comments Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Surface Area. submitted electronically using the rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies * * * * * Federal eRulemaking Portal (see and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant ANE NH E4 Portsmouth, NH [Removed] 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas date. We must receive requests for a as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Extending Upward from 700 feet or More public hearing, in writing, at the address Since this is a routine matter that will Above the Surface of the Earth. shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION only affect air traffic procedures and air * * * * * CONTACT by August 30, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37092 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments an endangered species or a threatened closed canopy until a natural on this proposed rule by one of the species based on any of the five factors: disturbance induces favorable following methods: (A) The present or threatened conditions for their development. (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal destruction, modification, or Although natural disturbances (e.g., eRulemaking Portal: http:// curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) tropical storms or hurricanes) can www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, overutilization for commercial, promote the recruitment of saplings into enter FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, which is recreational, scientific, or educational adulthood, the palo de rosa population the docket number for this rulemaking. purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) should be composed of different size Then, click on the Search button. On the the inadequacy of existing regulatory classes in order to be able to withstand resulting page, in the Search panel on mechanisms; or (E) other natural or such stochastic events. the left side of the screen, under the manmade factors affecting its continued Recovery actions such as propagation Document Type heading, click on the existence. In our August 2017 5-year and planting have shown to be feasible, Proposed Rule box to locate this status review, we recommended and the species is currently being document. You may submit a comment downlisting this species from propagated by the Puerto Rico by clicking on ‘‘Comment’’ endangered to threatened based on our Department of Natural and (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail: evaluation of these factors. We may Environmental Resources (PRDNER), Public Comments Processing, Attn: downlist a species if the best available and planted in the Susu´ a and Guajataca FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059, U.S. Fish and commercial and scientific data indicate Commonwealth Forests, as well as on Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W (JAO), the species no longer meets the lands within Fort Buchanan, owned by 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA applicable definition in the Act. We the U.S. Army. We have established a 22041–3803. have determined that palo de rosa is no memorandum of understanding (MOU) We request that you send comments longer in danger of extinction and, with Fort Buchanan and PRDNER to only by the methods described above. therefore, does not meet the definition address the conservation of the species We will post all comments on http:// of an endangered species. However, the within Fort Buchanan and to promote www.regulations.gov. This generally species meets the definition of a the propagation of palo de rosa for means that we will post any personal threatened species under the Act recovery purposes (U.S. Army, Fort information you provide us (see because it is affected by the following Buchanan 2015, entire). Information Requested, below, for more current and ongoing threats: Habitat We are proposing to promulgate a information). loss, degradation, and fragmentation Document availability: This proposed section 4(d) rule. We propose to adopt from urban development; agricultural the Act’s section 9(a)(2) prohibitions as rule, list of literature cited, and practices and rights-of-way supporting documents are available at a means to provide protective maintenance, coupled with habitat mechanisms to palo de rosa. We also http://www.regulations.gov under intrusion by exotics; other natural or Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. propose specific tailored exceptions to manmade factors, such as hurricanes; these prohibitions to allow certain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and this tree’s slow growth, limited Edwin Mun˜ iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. activities covered by a permit or by an dispersal, and low recruitment. approved cooperative agreement to Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean The information used for our 2017 5- carry out conservation programs, which Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. year review, and the best currently would facilitate the conservation and Box 491, Boquero´n, PR 00622; available information, indicate that telephone (787) 851–7297. Persons who there are at least 1,144 known recovery of the species. use a telecommunications device for the individuals (including adults and Information Requested deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay saplings) of palo de rosa. These We intend that any final action Service at (800) 877–8339. individuals are distributed in at least 66 resulting from this proposed rule will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subpopulations (which include the 16 based on the best scientific and known localities identified at the time Executive Summary of the recovery plan development) commercial data available and be as Why we need to publish a rule. Under throughout Puerto Rico. About 25 (38 accurate and effective as possible. the Act, a species may warrant percent) of those subpopulations show Therefore, we request comments or reclassification from endangered to evidence of reproduction or natural information from other concerned threatened if it no longer meets the recruitment (USFWS 2017, p. 6, table 1). governmental agencies, Native definition of endangered (in danger of The increase in the number of known American Tribes, the scientific extinction). The palo de rosa is listed as individuals and new localities reflects community, industry, or other endangered, and we are proposing to increased survey efforts but does not interested parties concerning this reclassify (downlist) palo de rosa as necessarily indicate that previously proposed rule. threatened, because we have determined known populations are naturally We particularly seek comments it is not currently in danger of expanding their range. Approximately concerning: extinction. Downlisting a species as a 70 percent of individuals occur in areas (1) Reasons we should or should not threatened species can only be managed under some conservation downlist palo de rosa as a threatened accomplished by issuing a rulemaking. status or in areas subject to little habitat species. What this document does. This rule modification due to the steep (2) New information on the historical proposes to reclassify palo de rosa as a topography in the northern karst region and current status, range, distribution, threatened species on the Federal List of of Puerto Rico. The remaining and population size of palo de rosa. Endangered and Threatened Plants and individuals occur within areas severely (3) New information on the known to establish provisions under section encroached and vulnerable to urban or and potential threats to palo de rosa, 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and infrastructure development. including habitat loss, degradation, and advisable to provide for the The slow growth of this tree and its fragmentation; habitat intrusion by conservation of this species. reproductive biology suggest that palo exotics; hurricanes; and this tree’s slow The basis for our action. Under the de rosa is a late successional species, growth, limited dispersal, and low Act, we may determine that a species is whose saplings may remain under recruitment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37093

(4) New information regarding the life endangered instead of being reclassified deforestation and urban development; history, ecology, and habitat use of palo as threatened, or we may conclude that forest management practices that do not de rosa. the species no longer warrants listing as take the species into consideration; (5) Current or planned activities either an endangered species or a inadequacy of existing regulatory within the geographic range of palo de threatened species. In addition, we may mechanisms; and the species’ rosa that may have adverse or beneficial change the parameters of the vulnerability to natural disturbances impacts on the species. prohibitions or the exceptions to those such as flash flooding along stream (6) Information on regulations that are prohibitions if we conclude it is beds. On September 20, 1994, we necessary and advisable to provide for appropriate in light of comments and completed the recovery plan for this the conservation of palo de rosa and that new information received. species (USFWS 1994, entire). We the Service can consider in developing Public Hearing completed a 5-year status review on a 4(d) rule for the species. August 9, 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). In (7) Information concerning the extent Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for that review, we recommended that palo to which we should include any of the a public hearing on this proposal, if de rosa be downlisted to threatened section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or requested. Requests must be received by because new occurrences of the species whether any other activities should be the date specified in DATES. Such have been located and a substantial excepted from the prohibitions in the requests must be sent to the address number of individuals have been 4(d) rule (to the extent permitted by shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION documented (i.e., 963 adult individuals Commonwealth law). CONTACT. We will schedule a public (not considering seedlings or saplings) Please include sufficient information hearing on this proposal, if requested, in 54 subpopulations). The 5-year with your submission (such as scientific and announce the date, time, and place review is available at http:// journal articles or other publications) to of the hearing, as well as how to obtain www.regulations.gov under Docket No. allow us to verify any scientific or reasonable accommodations, in the FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. commercial information you include. Federal Register and local newspapers Please note that submissions merely at least 15 days before the hearing. For For additional details on previous stating support for, or opposition to, the the immediate future, we will provide Federal actions, see Recovery, below. action under consideration without these public hearings using webinars See https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/ providing supporting information, that will be announced on the Service’s speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EK for the although noted, will not be considered website, in addition to the Federal species profile for this tree. in making a determination, as section Register. The use of virtual public I. Proposed Reclassification 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et hearings is consistent with our Determination seq.) directs that determinations as to regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). whether any species is an endangered or Species Information threatened species must be made Peer Review A thorough review of the taxonomy, ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific In accordance with our policy, life history, ecology, and overall and commercial data available.’’ ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative You may submit your comments and Policy for Peer Review in Endangered viability of the palo de rosa was materials concerning this proposed rule Species Act Activities,’’ which was presented in the 5-year review (USFWS by one of the methods listed in published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 2017, entire). Below, we present a summary of the biological and ADDRESSES. We request that you send 34270), and our August 22, 2016, comments only by the methods Director’s Memorandum ‘‘Peer Review distributional information discussed in the 5-year review and new information described in ADDRESSES. Process,’’ we will seek the expert If you submit information via http:// opinions of at least three appropriate published or obtained since. www.regulations.gov, your entire and independent specialists regarding Taxonomy and Species Description submission—including any personal the scientific data and interpretations identifying information—will be posted contained in this proposed rule. We will Palo de rosa is a small evergreen tree on the website. If your submission is send copies of this proposed rule to the that may reach up to 15 meters (m) (49 made via a hardcopy that includes peer reviewers immediately following feet (ft)) in height and is a member of personal identifying information, you publication in the Federal Register. We the Icacinaceae family (USFWS 1994, p. may request at the top of your document will ensure that the opinions of peer 1). The branches are smooth and dark that we withhold this information from reviewers are objective and unbiased by gray and have conspicuous small public review. However, we cannot following the guidelines set forth in the lenticels (raised pores on the stem of a guarantee that we will be able to do so. Director’s Memo, which updates and woody plant that allows gas exchange We will post all hardcopy submissions clarifies Service policy on peer review with the atmosphere and internal on http://www.regulations.gov. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, tissues) (Liogier 1994, p. 41). Leaves are Comments and materials we receive, as entire). The purpose of such review is ovate, are rounded or in some cases well as supporting documentation used to ensure that our decisions are based elliptic, and occasionally have an acute in preparing this proposed rule, will be on scientifically sound data, apex and short (6–8 millimeters (mm) available for public inspection at Docket assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, (0.2–0.3 inches (in)) petiolate; flowers No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059 on http:// our final decision may differ from this are solitary or grouped in a three to five www.regulations.gov. proposal. flower cluster. The fruit is about 2.5 Because we will consider all centimeters (cm) (0.98 in) long and up comments and information we receive Previous Federal Actions to 2.2 cm (0.86 in) wide and is smooth during the comment period, our final On April 10, 1990, we published a and with a thin outer layer that turns determination may differ from this final rule listing palo de rosa as an dark purple when ripe. The seed is proposal. Based on the new information endangered species in the Federal about 2 cm (0.8 in) long (Liogier 1994, we receive (and any comments on that Register (55 FR 13488). The final rule p. 41; Santiago Valentı´n and Viruet- new information), we may conclude that identified the following threats to palo Oquendo 2013, p. 62). Palo de rosa may the species should remain listed as de rosa: Loss of habitat due to past be difficult to identify when sterile.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Reproductive Biology hypothesized for the subpopulations in (MCF) (55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990, p. When the palo de rosa recovery plan the southern coast, as these 55 FR 13489). was written, information about the subpopulations are located at the At the time the recovery plan was flowering and fruiting pattern was bottom of small drainages. However, written in 1994, there was little limited due to the species not being observations in GCF indicate that information on the species’ distribution, well-studied and the infrequent establishment of seedlings in these ecology, and reproductive biology; observation of reproductive events, drainages is low, because seeds are therefore, in the recovery plan, species although flowering was observed in May buried by sediments and small plants experts considered each subpopulation and July 1993 (USFWS 1994, p. 5). A are uprooted by high flows during or cluster of individuals as a population. morphological description of the palo storms (Monsegur-Rivera 2007, pers. The recovery plan describes additional de rosa flower and fruit was completed obs.). individuals observed as a result of based on material collected from wild Due to the infrequency of fruit increased survey efforts in suitable individuals, cultivated material, and production, germination experiments habitat. In the 1994 recovery plan, we data from herbarium specimens have been limited. Attempts to estimated 200 palo de rosa individuals (Santiago-Valentı´n and Viruet-Oquendo germinate seeds from the Dorado in 16 populations (now defined as 2013, entire). The species bears (Mogotes de Higuillar) population subpopulations and noted with ‘‘(RP)’’ hermaphrodite flowers, flowers for a (northern Puerto Rico) have proven to in the table below). An additional short period at the beginning of the be difficult (10 percent success) as the population (now considered a rainy season and develops fruits majority of seeds were attacked by subpopulation) was reported in 1996, subsequently until November (Breckon insects (Coleoptera) (Ruiz Lebro´n 2002, increasing the total number of trees to and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; Santiago- p. 2). The species also has been 207 adult individuals (Breckon and Valentı´n and Viruet-Oquendo 2013, p. germinated by PRDNER and the Kolterman 1996, p. 4). 62). Few buds and flowers occurred University of Puerto Rico (Caraballo The current understanding of palo de from April to May, with an explosive 2009, pers. comm.). In February 2007, a rosa’s biological and ecological flowering in June, coinciding with the preliminary germination trial of palo de requirements has led us to define a beginning of the rainy season in May. rosa obtained a 50 percent germination population as a geographical area with Herbarium specimens demonstrated success (Monsegur-Rivera, unpubl. unique features (substrate or climate) flowering and fruiting between May and data). The germination starts with the and continuous forested habitat that July, with an exception of one specimen development of a long taproot, probably provides for genetic exchange among with flowers collected in December an adaptation to secure the subpopulations (i.e., cross-pollination) (Santiago-Valentin and Viruet-Oquendo establishment of the seedlings under where the species occurs. We further 2013, p. 62). Flower and fruit closed canopy conditions with a thick considered natural barriers (e.g., production are documented in bed of leaf litter. Despite damage to the mountain ranges and river valleys) and individuals with diameters at breast apical meristem (tissue in which new extensive gaps of forested habitat to high greater than 5 in (12.7 cm). Despite stem and root growth occurs) of the discern the boundaries of these broader the high number of adult individuals seedlings, seedlings were able to regrow populations because connectivity reported, only a few reach that stem size and produced a new stem (Monsegur- between subpopulations is critical to (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15; Rivera, unpubl. data). This finding support a functional population of palo USFWS 2009, unpubl. data). indicates that propagation of the species de rosa due to the cross-pollination The cluster distribution of seedlings is feasible and may be used in palo de requirement of the species. under the parent trees indicates that rosa recovery efforts. Palo de rosa is not Furthermore, the flowering of palo de seeds are dispersed by gravity. known to reproduce vegetatively, rosa is sporadic and not synchronized, Subpopulations in northern Puerto Rico although multiple stems may regrow thus prompting us to further define a are located on top of limestone hills from a tree that has been cut. population as groups of subpopulations that show connectivity to secure cross- indicating that some disperser (e.g., Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat animal vector) took them there in the pollination. Based on the above past (USFWS 2017, p. 12). Fruit-eating Palo de rosa was described by Ignatius information, we have determined palo bats are a possible seed disperser Urban (1908) from material collected by de rosa to be distributed across Puerto (Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 15). Leopold Krug near the municipality of Rico in 14 populations composed of 66 However, camera monitoring of a tree Mayagu¨ ez in 1876 (Liogier 1994, p. 42). subpopulations containing 1,144 bearing mature fruits at the Gua´nica Based on the description of the type individuals (not including seedlings). Commonwealth Forest (GCF) showed locality (area from where the species Following this approach, 8 of the 14 that despite the high availability of was originally collected and described), current populations (containing 47 mature fruits, bats ignored them the collection site may correspond to an subpopulations with approximately 804 (Monsegur-Rivera 2004, pers. obs.). The area known as Cerro Las Mesas. At the individuals) occur in the geographical Puerto Rican flower bat (Phyllonycteris time of listing, palo de rosa was known areas associated with the 16 populations major) is an extirpated frugivorous bat from nine individuals in three areas and (now defined as subpopulations) (Rodrı´guez-Dura´n and Kunz 2001, p. considered endemic to Hispaniola and included in the Service’s 1994 recovery 358), and could have acted as a natural Puerto Rico (55 FR 13488, April 10, plan. Since 1994, we have identified 6 disperser of palo de rosa (Monsegur- 1990, p. 55 FR 13489). Subpopulations additional populations (as currently Rivera 2004–present, pers. obs.). and populations were not defined or defined) composed of 19 Another hypothesis is that bats no identified at the time of listing. The subpopulations (342 individuals) longer recognize palo de rosa fruit as a species was known from the limestone ranging in size from 5 to 124 individuals food source due to the small size of the hills near the municipality of Bayamo´n in areas associated with remnants of currently known subpopulations when in northern Puerto Rico, several sites in forested habitat suitable for the species. compared to other food sources the GCF in southwest Puerto Rico, and Thus, these additional occurrences are (Monsegur-Rivera 2004–present, pers. one individual on the southern slopes of key in understanding the current obs.). Dispersal by water has been the Maricao Commonwealth Forest condition of the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37095

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

Evidence of Population Subpopulation Municipality reproduction or Number of Development Source 2 name recruitment adults threat

Gua´nica Commonwealth Forest La Cobana Yauco ...... No ...... 7 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. (GCF). (GCF) (RP) 2. Hoya Honda Gua´nica ...... Yes ...... 16 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; (GCF) (RP) 2. USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; Monsegur 591, MAPR her- barium.3 Can˜on Los Gua´nica ...... Yes ...... 5 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. Murcie´lagos (GCF) (RP) 2. Can˜on Las Yauco ...... No ...... 3 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs. Eugenias (GCF). Can˜on Las Gua´nica ...... Yes ...... 49 2 Breckon and Kolterman 2003, p. 4; Trichilias USFWS 2018, unpubl. data; (GCF). Monsegur 240, 252 and 880, MAPR herbarium 3; Breckon 7012, MAPR herbarium.3 Yauco Landfill .... Yauco ...... Yes ...... 40 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2015; Monsegur 1591, MAPR herbarium.3 Montes de Barinas ...... Montes de Yauco ...... No ...... 5 0 Morales 2011, pers. comm. Barinas. Guayanilla-Pen˜uelas ...... Guayanilla- Guayanilla ...... Yes ...... 53 0 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; CORCO (RP) 2. Monsegur-Rivera 2014, unpubl. data; Breckon 4590 and 5201, MAPR herbarium 3; Monsegur 1586, MAPR herbarium.3 Susu´a Commonwealth Forest Quebrada Peces- Yauco ...... No ...... 11 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. (SCF). SCF (RP) 2. Quebrada Yauco ...... Yes ...... 59 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. Grande-SCF (RP) 2. Rı´o Loco-SCF Yauco ...... No ...... 25 2 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. (RP) 2. Cerro Las Mesas and Sierra Sierra Bermeja Cabo Rojo-Lajas No ...... 2 2 Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016; Monsegur Bermeja. (RP) 2. 1583, MAPR herbarium.3 Guaniquilla-Buye Cabo Rojo ...... No ...... 2 0 Monsegur-Rivera 2009, pers. obs. (RP) 2. Aguadilla-Quebradillas ...... Aguadilla Road Aguadilla ...... No ...... 1 0 PRHTA 4 2007, entire. PR–2. Ramey Solar Ob- Aguadilla ...... No ...... 1 1 Acevedo-Rodrı´guez 2014; servatory. Acevedo-Rodrı´guez 15931, U.S. herbarium.5 Guajataca Com- Isabela ...... No ...... 2 2 Monsegur-Rivera 2009; Monsegur monwealth For- 1051, MAPR herbarium.3 est. El Costillar-Rı´o Isabela ...... Yes ...... 14 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4; Guajataca Monsegur 1578, MAPR her- (RP) 2. barium.3 Rı´o Guajataca Isabela ...... No ...... 1 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. (RP) 2. Cara del Indio- Isabela ...... No ...... 5 1 PRHTA 4 2007, entire; Monsegur Guajataca. 1559, MAPR herbarium.3 El Tu´nel- Isabela ...... Yes ...... 24 1 Breckon and Kolterman 1993, p. 4. Guajataca (RP) 2. Quebrada Quebradillas ...... No ...... 5 1 PRHTA 4 2007, entire. Columbiana. Guajataca Gorge Quebradillas ...... No ...... 1 1 PRHTA 4 2007, entire. south. Merendero- Quebradillas ...... No ...... 2 1 PRDNER 2009, entire; Monsegur Guajataca. 1087, MAPR herbarium.3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37096 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued

Evidence of Population Subpopulation Municipality reproduction or Number of Development Source 2 name recruitment adults threat

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37097

TABLE OF CURRENTLY KNOWN NATURAL POPULATIONS, SUBPOPULATIONS, AND NUMBER OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF PALO DE ROSA IN PUERTO RICO—Continued

Evidence of Population Subpopulation Municipality reproduction or Number of Development Source 2 name recruitment adults threat

Monte Picao ...... Cano´vanas ...... Yes ...... 46 0 PRDNER 2013, entire. El Convento...... Fajardo ...... No ...... 1 2 PRDNER 2009; Liogier 32299, UPR herbarium.6

Totals ...... 66 Subpopula- ...... 26 Yes ...... 1,144 adults 20 Vulnerable. tions. 40 No ...... 25 Low. 21 Protected. 1 In the Development Threats column, 0 = Vulnerable to development; 1 = Low vulnerability due to topography; and 2 = Protected. 2 (RP) indicates subpopulations known at the time the recovery plan was finalized (1994). 3 ‘‘MAPR herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the Department of Biology at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. 4 ‘‘PRHTA’’ is the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority. 5 ‘‘U.S. herbarium’’ is the United States National Herbarium. 6 ‘‘UPR herbarium’’ is the Botanical Garden of the University of Puerto Rico. 7 ‘‘UPRRP herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras. 8 ‘‘SJ herbarium’’ is the herbarium of the University of Puerto Rico at San Juan. 9 ‘‘PREPA’’ is the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37098 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37099

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37100 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

along the borders of rivers. The this scenario, the natural populations fragmentation implies palo de rosa may subpopulations along the northern karst show a slow natural recruitment that have had greater abundance and wider of Puerto Rico are found on the top of requires stable habitat conditions with a distribution. Although current limestone hills, possibly because those regime of natural disturbance (i.e., information on population structure areas have no agricultural value, and so tropical storms or hurricanes). indicates the species requires some were not impacted by conversion to Reproductive events (i.e., flowering open canopy areas to promote agricultural lands. Such variability in and fruiting) have been associated with recruitment, widespread deforestation habitats indicates the species’ current bigger trees as observed in four fragments habitat and creates edges fragmented distribution and lack of subpopulations, where tree diameters (habitat transition zones). The possible connectivity between populations are reach 13–20.5 cm (5.1–8.1 in) and long-term negative effects of habitat the result of earlier land-clearing and canopies are higher (at least 10 m) (32.8 fragmentation and edge effect on habitat modification. Information from ft) (Breckon and Kolterman 1992, p. 8; subpopulations with recruitment specimens deposited at multiple USFWS 2009, p. 4). For example, one adjacent to habitat disturbance are still herbaria (i.e., New York Botanical large tree in the El Costillar-Rı´o unknown. Current observations from the Garden, Smithsonian Institution, UPR, Guajataca (subpopulation had an 2018 post-hurricane assessment suggest UPRRP, and MAPR) suggests palo de estimated 1,000 seedlings under one subpopulations encroached by rosa was originally more common and tree with an almost 90 percent development or agriculture were widespread throughout Puerto Rico. survivorship of 156 monitored seedlings negatively affected by weedy vegetation after 18 months (Breckon and Kolterman invading the habitat following Recruitment and Population Structure 1992, p. 8). Further visits to this Hurricane Marı´a (e.g., Cayaponia At least 25 subpopulations of the 66 subpopulation indicate the survival of americana (bejuco de torero), Dioscorea subpopulations show evidence of fruit seedlings and saplings remains high, alata (n˜ ame), and Thunbergia production and seedling or sapling with evidence of additional recruitment grandiflora (pompeya). However, the recruitment (see table, above) (USFWS (Monsegur-Rivera 2007, 2012, and 2014, extent of such impact remains uncertain 2017, pp. 8, 11–12). Fruit production pers. obs.). and further monitoring is needed. Such and seed germination have been Recruitment may be intermittent in information highlights the effect of documented in several subpopulations some subpopulations. For example, a habitat fragmentation on the natural (Monsegur-Rivera 2016, pers. obs.). subpopulation with no seedling survival recruitment of palo de rosa. However, individual palo de rosa trees following a fruiting event in 2004 was grow extremely slowly and the growth noted to contain about 30 small saplings Recovery Criteria of the saplings is also quite slow, with in the post-Hurricane Marı´a assessment Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 in 2018, suggesting the subpopulation is develop and implement recovery plans ft) after 20 years growth. Therefore, it is slowly recruiting (USFWS 2018, p. 25). for the conservation and survival of estimated that, under natural Since 2009, hundreds of seedlings have endangered and threatened species conditions, individuals of palo de rosa been recorded in the Fort Buchanan unless we determine that such a plan may require at least 40 years to reach a subpopulation (Monsegur-Rivera 2009– will not promote the conservation of the reproductive size, and the currently present, pers. obs.). In 2018, at least 12 species. Recovery plans must, to the known subpopulations are experiencing saplings ranging from 0.3–1.0 m (0.9–3.3 maximum extent practicable, include slow recruitment (Monsegur-Rivera ft) were observed. Saplings this size can objective, measurable criteria which, 2018, pers. obs.). In addition, seeds of withstand seasonal drought stress, and when met, would result in a this species are not dispersed by any individuals are likely to persist in the determination, in accordance with the discernible method other than gravity. long term if the habitat remains provisions of section 4 of the Act, that Thus, recruitment is limited to the unaltered. Cross-pollination between the species be removed from the list. proximity of the parental tree, limiting subpopulation maximizes the likelihood Recovery plans provide a roadmap for the species’ potential to colonize further of fruit production and contributes to us and our partners on methods of suitable habitat, and limiting the recruitment, which underscores the enhancing conservation and minimizing survival of clustered seedlings due to importance of conserving the species threats to listed species, as well as closed canopy conditions and through a landscape approach. measurable criteria against which to competition with the parental tree. Of the 26 subpopulations currently evaluate progress towards recovery and Palo de rosa is a late successional showing evidence of natural assess the species’ likely future species and requires several decades to recruitment, 9 of the 26 occur in areas condition. However, they are not reach a reproductive size under natural that are managed for conservation. The regulatory documents and do not conditions. Evidence from herbarium 9 subpopulations constitute 36 percent substitute for the determinations and specimens suggests that palo de rosa of subpopulations showing natural promulgation of regulations required once extended to the coastal lowlands of recruitment and contain nearly 300 under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A Puerto Rico, including dune ecosystems. individuals in total. There is no decision to revise the status of a species, Population dynamics and survey evidence of natural recruitment at this or to delist a species is ultimately based assessments support the hypothesis that time for the remaining 40 on an analysis of the best scientific and palo de rosa is a late successional subpopulations, although the species’ commercial data available to determine species, whose saplings may remain life history implies that recruitment may whether a species is no longer an dormant under closed canopy still occur in these populations when a endangered species or a threatened conditions, until there is some natural canopy opening is created and suitable species, regardless of whether that disturbance that provides favorable conditions for recruitment are present. information differs from the recovery conditions for the development of the Forest cover in Puerto Rico has plan. saplings. Thus, the species may require increased since the widespread There are many paths to an open canopy to promote seedling deforestation in the 1930s–1950s accomplishing recovery of a species, growth and is adapted to natural (Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but and recovery may be achieved without disturbances such as hurricanes the availability of suitable habitat prior all criteria being fully met. For example, (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under to deforestation and habitat one or more criteria may be exceeded

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37101

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37103

downscaled future climate change modification. In Montes de Barinas, due to maintenance of PREPA power scenarios indicate that Puerto Rico is palo de rosa occurs on private lines (Monsegur-Rivera 2020, pers. obs.). predicted to experience changes in properties subject to urban In Sierra Bermeja and Cerro las Mesas, climate that will affect palo de rosa development, resulting in encroachment private forested lands also have been (Khalyani et al. 2016, entire). Thus, of native dry forest areas, and thus in impacted through deforestation, mainly using a 50-year timeframe for the the isolation of palo de rosa (see 79 FR for agricultural practices (i.e., grazing by foreseeable future allows us to account 53307, September 9, 2014, with cattle and goats, and associated for the effects of projected changes in reference to threats in the same area). conversion of forested habitat to temperature, the shifting of life zones, These areas also are threatened by grasslands) and some urban and an increase in droughts in the deforestation for cattle grazing and the development (i.e., construction of habitat. extraction of timber for fence posts houses and roads) (Ceden˜ o-Maldonado and Breckon 1996, p. 349; USFWS 1998, Analytical Framework (Roma´n-Guzman 2006, p. 40; see 79 FR 53307, September 9, 2014). In fact, p. 6; Envirosurvey, Inc. 2016, p. 6). Most The 5-year review (USFWS 2017, of the Sierra Bermeja mountain range active extraction of timber for fence entire) documents the results of our was zoned with specific restrictions on posts has been reported adjacent to the comprehensive biological status review development activities to protect the Montes de Barinas subpopulation and for the species, including an assessment natural resources of the area (JPPR 2009, of the potential threats to the species. on a neighboring property with other pp. 151–153). This zoning allows for The following is a summary of the key endemic species, with palo de rosa agricultural activities and construction results and conclusions from the 5-year individuals in the Montes de Barinas of residential homes with the review and the best available population likely to be cut if harvesting implementation of best management information gathered since that time. continued (Monsegur-Rivera 2003–2006, practices and some limitations (JPPR The 5-year review can be found at pers. obs.; Morales 2011, pers. comm.). 2009, p. 151; JPPR 2015, pp. 118–129). http://www.regulations.gov under In addition, the area of Montes de Nonetheless, landowners continue Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0059. Barinas showed evidence of bulldozing impacting the habitat through activities and subdivision for urban development like cutting new access roads on their Summary of Biological Status and (Roma´n-Guzman 2006, p. 40). properties and conversion of forested Threats The habitat at the Guayanilla-CORCO land to pasture (Pacheco and Monsegur- Below, we review the biological population is impacted on a regular Rivera 2017, pers. obs.). The palo de condition of the species and its basis by the Puerto Rico Energy and rosa population in Sierra Bermeja is resources, and the threats that influence Power Authority (PREPA) for the limited to two isolated individuals on the species’ current and future maintenance of power lines and protected lands (LCNWR and PLN condition, in order to assess the species’ associated rights-of-way (USFWS 2017, conservation easement), with no overall viability and the risks to that p. 16). Impacts to the species’ habitat evidence of natural recruitment. viability. have been reported in that area as a Similarly, the other two palo de rosa Habitat Destruction and Modification result of construction of access roads to individuals in Guaniquilla-Buye, also in southwest Puerto Rico, are found within Habitat destruction and modification, PREPA towers (Monsegur-Rivera 2014– 2020, pers. obs.). Such habitat private lands subject to urban and including forest management practices, tourist development, although these were identified as factors affecting the disturbance and modification affect the integrity of palo de rosa habitat and plants are not yet impacted. continued existence of palo de rosa Core subpopulations of palo de rosa likely results in direct and indirect when it was listed in 1990 (55 FR occur in the northern karst belt of impacts to individuals. In fact, some 13488; April 10, 1990). At present, Puerto Rico (Lugo et al. 2001, p. 1), access roads go through drainages that forest management practices within where approximately 80 percent of the provide good habitat for palo de rosa Commonwealth forests are not known sites for palo de rosa occur on considered a threat to palo de rosa and could affect microhabitat conditions private lands not managed for because of existing regulatory necessary for seedling germination and conservation. These private lands are mechanisms and lack of evidence of recruitment. In addition, these dirt encroached upon by development and direct impacts to the species due to access roads provide corridors for the subject to habitat modification activities forest management practices. For establishment of exotic plant species (e.g., urban development) detrimental to example, although there is evidence of like guinea grass (Megathyrsus palo de rosa. The palo de rosa palo de rosa individuals with multiple maximus) and zarcilla (Leucaena subpopulation at GuCF is the stems due to historical deforestation and leucocephala), which outcompete the westernmost record of the species in harvesting for charcoal production in native vegetation (including palo de northern Puerto Rico that lies within an the GCF, selective harvesting and rosa) and promote favorable conditions area managed for conservation. As deforestation is no longer a threat to the for human-induced fires (USFWS 2017, previously discussed, the GuCF GCF population. Similar to the GCF, the p. 16). Moreover, these dirt roads are subpopulations extend to private lands palo de rosa SCF population (i.e., used to access the forested habitat for along the Guajataca Gorge. Although the Quebrada Peces, Quebrada Grande, and harvesting of timber for fence posts steep terrain and low agricultural value Rı´o Loco subpopulations) is also (Monsegur-Rivera 2014, pers. obs.). of this area has protected the entirely under conservation, and we Similarly, the habitat in the subpopulations from habitat have no evidence of adverse impacts to municipalities of Pen˜ uelas and Ponce modification, some remain vulnerable to the species due to forest management (i.e., Punta Cucharas) near the infrastructure development (e.g., practices. Guayanilla-Pen˜ uelas population has possible expansion of Highway PR–22 However, that is not necessarily the been severely fragmented by urban between the municipalities of Hatillo case on private lands; the development (e.g., housing and Aguadilla). For example, three subpopulations of Montes de Barinas development, hotels, a jail, a landfill, previously unknown subpopulations and Guayanilla-CORCO remain rock quarries, and highway PR–2) (see (including one showing recruitment) vulnerable to deforestation and habitat 79 FR 53307, September 9, 2014), and were located during the biological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37105

resources. To summarize, forest Rico), and palo de rosa is legally laws (e.g., Law No. 241–1999 and management practices within protected under this law. The purpose Regulation 6766). Law No. 292–1999 Commonwealth Forests are no longer of this law is to protect, conserve, and applies to karst habitat in both southern considered a threat to palo de rosa. The enhance both native and migratory and northern Puerto Rico. palo de rosa populations at the CCF, wildlife species, and to declare as On the LCNWR, habitat is managed in GCF, GuCF, RACF, and SCF are property of Puerto Rico all wildlife accordance with the National Wildlife protected, as these forest reserves are species within its jurisdiction, to Refuge System Administration Act of protected by Commonwealth laws and regulate permits, to regulate hunting 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee, as managed for conservation. Nonetheless, activities, and to regulate exotic species, amended by the National Wildlife populations extending onto private among other activities. This law also has Refuge System Improvement Act of lands in southern Puerto Rico are provisions to protect habitat for all 1997 [Improvement Act]), and collection vulnerable to impacts from urban wildlife species, including plants. In of plants within refuge lands is development, agricultural practices 2004, the PRDNER approved Regulation prohibited by title 50 of the Code of (e.g., harvesting fence posts), and 6766 or Regulations to Govern the Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 27.51. maintenance of power lines and rights- Management of Species Vulnerable and The LCNWR has a comprehensive of-way (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. Danger of Extinction in the conservation plan that includes obs.). In addition, the majority of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico measures for the protection and subpopulations along the northern karst (Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las recovery of endangered and threatened of Puerto Rico occur on private lands, Especies Vulnerables y en Peligro de plant species (USFWS 2011a, p. 35). where habitat encroachment occurs and Extincio´ n en el Estado Libre Asociado Furthermore, the Puerto Rico Planning creates edge habitat conditions (habitat de Puerto Rico). Article 2.06 of Board (Junta de Planificacio´n de Puerto intrusion by exotics that precludes Regulation 6766 prohibits, among other Rico) classified most of the mountain seedling establishment) and affects activities, collecting, cutting, and range of Sierra Bermeja as a District of connectivity and natural recruitment. removing of listed plant individuals Conservation of Resources (Distrito de For example, despite the abundance of within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico Conservacio´n de Suelos) (JPPR 2009, p. individuals at the palo de rosa (DRNA 2004, p. 11). The provisions of 151). This conservation category subpopulation adjacent to the former Law No. 241–1999 and Regulation 6766 identifies lands with particular CORCO in Guayanilla-Pen˜ uelas, extend to private lands. However, the characteristics that need to be recruitment is limited due to the protection of listed species on private maintained or enhanced (e.g., provide multiple stressors, including lands is challenging, as landowners may habitat for species of concern), and maintenance of power line rights-of- be unaware that species are protected establishes specific restrictions for way, fence post harvest, and intrusion of and may damage those species (e.g., by development (JPPR 2009, p. 151). Also, exotic plants species, as well as the cutting, pruning, or mowing) (USFWS in 2015, the Puerto Rico Planning Board changes in microhabitat conditions at 2017, p. 23), which might be the case if approved the Land Use Plan for Puerto these sites, which preclude seedling palo de rosa is cut for fence posts. Rico, and categorized most of the Sierra establishment. Furthermore, habitat Bermeja Mountains, including the fragmentation along the northern coast Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law LCNWR, as Rustic Soil Specially may affect cross-pollination among No. 133 (1975, as amended in 2000), Protected (Suelo Rustico Especialmente subpopulations, resulting in the lack of also known as Puerto Rico Forests’ Law Protegido) where no urban development fruit production at isolated (Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico), is considered due to location, subpopulations with a smaller number protects the areas of the GCF, SCF, topography, aesthetic value, of individuals (e.g., Merendero- GuCF, RACF, and CCF, and, by archaeological value, or ecological value Guajataca). extension, the palo de rosa individuals of land (Puerto Rico Planning Board on them. Section 8(a) of this law Interactive Map 2020). Conservation Efforts and Regulatory prohibits cutting, killing, destroying, The palo de rosa individuals found at Mechanisms uprooting, extracting, or in any way Hacienda La Esperanza Natural Reserve In the final listing rule (55 FR 13488; hurting any tree or vegetation within a are protected, as this reserve also is April 10, 1990), we identified the Commonwealth forest. The PRDNER managed for conservation by PLN, and inadequacy of existing regulatory also identified these Commonwealth the management plan considers palo de mechanisms as one of the factors forests as ‘‘critical wildlife areas.’’ This rosa in its activities (PLN 2011a, p. 67). affecting the continued existence of palo designation constitutes a special The PLN also manages the Rı´o de rosa. At that time, the species had no recognition with the purpose of Encantado Natural Protected Area, a legal protection, because it had not been providing information to mosaic of at least 1,818 ac (736 ha) of included in Puerto Rico’s list of Commonwealth and Federal agencies forested habitat (including extensive protected species. Once palo de rosa about the conservation needs of these areas of suitable habitat for palo de rosa) was federally listed, legal protection areas, and to assist permitting agencies in the municipalities of Florida, Manatı´, was extended by virtue of an existing in precluding adverse impacts as a and Ciales, and PLN plans to continue cooperative agreement (under section 6 result of project endorsements or permit acquiring habitat at this geographical of the Act) with the Commonwealth of approvals (PRDNER 2005, pp. 211–216). area (PLN 2011b, p. 5). Also, palo de Puerto Rico. Federal listing assured the In addition, Commonwealth of Puerto rosa is protected and managed under an addition of palo de rosa to the Rico Law No. 292 (1999), also known as MOU among the U.S. Army Garrison, Commonwealth’s list of protected Puerto Rico Karst Physiographic Fort Buchanan, the Service, and species, and the Commonwealth Protection and Conservation Law (Ley PRDNER (U.S. Army, Fort Buchanan designated palo de rosa as endangered para la Proteccio´ n y Conservacio´ n de la 2015, entire). This palo de rosa in 2004 (DRNA 2004, p. 52). Fisiografı´a Ca´ rsica de Puerto Rico), subpopulation is found in a mogote In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto regulates the extraction of rock and designated for conservation (USACE Rico approved Law No. 241, also known gravel for commercial purposes, and 2014, p. 3). as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico prohibits the cutting of native and In addition, the private natural (Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto endemic vegetation in violation of other reserves of El Tallonal and Mata de

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37106 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Pla´tano, which contain subpopulations Population Structure, above. widespread deforestation in the 1930s of palo de rosa in the municipality of Characteristics of palo de rosa’s life (Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, p. 67), but Arecibo, are protected from habitat history may contribute to the slow or the species was likely more widespread modification and have approved private lack of recruitment observed in current prior to deforestation and habitat forest stewardship management plans subpopulations (Monsegur-Rivera 2018, fragmentation. A life history that include measures for the protection pers. obs.). Individual palo de rosa trees requirement for a closed canopy forest of listed species within the properties grow extremely slowly, and the growth for adult individuals with canopy (PRDNER 2005, 47 pp.). We have an of the saplings is also quite slow, with openings to promote seedling and extended history of collaboration with an estimated height of less than 1 m (3.3 sapling recruitment was likely more these two reserves, providing financial ft) after 20 years of growth. It is sustainable in populations with greater and technical assistance for the estimated that, under natural abundance and distribution than the implementation of recovery actions to conditions, individuals of palo de rosa species currently exhibits. Smaller and benefit listed species. may require at least 40 years to reach a more isolated subpopulations are less In addition to protections provided by reproductive size. In addition, seeds of able to provide closed canopy the Act, the species is protected from this species are not dispersed by any conditions with small pockets of collection and provided management discernible method other than gravity openings; thus, inherent palo de rosa considerations by the Improvement Act and concentrate under the parental tree. life history characteristics have an effect within one national wildlife refuge Thus, recruitment is limited to the on recruitment, and this effect is (LCNWR). In addition, the proximity of the parental tree, limiting expected to continue in the future. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico legally the species’ potential to colonize further Hurricanes and Related Threats protects palo de rosa, including suitable habitat, and limiting the protections to its habitat, through survival of clustered seedlings due to At the time of listing, we considered Commonwealth Law No. 241–1999 and closed canopy conditions and individuals of palo de rosa vulnerable to Regulation 6766, which prohibit, among competition with the parental tree. flash flood events (see 55 FR 13490, other actions, collecting, cutting, and Population dynamics and survey April 10, 1990). Flash floods remain a removing listed plants. If we downlist assessments support the conclusion that moderate threat and may compromise this species, we do not expect this palo de rosa is a late successional the natural recruitment of seedlings, species to be removed from legal species, whose saplings may remain particularly on subpopulations along protection by the Commonwealth. dormant under closed canopy the southern coast of Puerto Rico where Although these protections extend to conditions, until there is some natural the species occurs at the bottom of both public and private lands, as disturbance that provides favorable drainages (USFWS 2017, p. 17). Below, discussed above, protection of this conditions for the development of the we describe these threats and other species on private land is challenging. saplings. Thus, the species requires an natural and human-caused factors Habitat that occurs on private land is open canopy to promote seedling affecting the continued existence of palo subject to pressures from agricultural growth and is adapted to natural de rosa. practices (e.g., grazing, harvesting fence disturbances such as hurricanes As an endemic species to the posts) and development. Accidental (Breckon and Kolterman 1996). Under Caribbean, palo de rosa is expected to be damage or extirpation of individuals has this scenario, the natural populations well adapted to tropical storms and occurred because private landowners or show a slow natural recruitment that associated disturbances such as flash other parties on the property may not be requires stable habitat conditions with a floods. Under natural conditions, able to identify the species or may not regime of natural disturbance (i.e., healthy populations with robust be aware that palo de rosa is a protected tropical storms or hurricanes). numbers of individuals and recruitment species. Habitat modifications and Reproductive events (i.e., flowering should withstand tropical storms, and fragmentation continue to occur on and fruiting) have been associated with these weather and climatic events may private lands, which can increase the larger, more mature trees (Breckon and be beneficial for the population likelihood of habitat intrusion by exotic Kolterman 1992, p. 8; USFWS 2009, p. dynamics of palo de rosa by creating plants and human-induced fires and 4). Cross-pollination between or among small openings in the closed canopy to reduce connectivity between subpopulations maximizes the allow seedling and sapling growth. The populations and the availability of likelihood of fruit production and islands of the Caribbean are frequently suitable habitat for the species’ contributes to recruitment, which affected by hurricanes. Puerto Rico has recruitment. In short, this plant is now underscores the importance of been directly affected by four major more abundant and widely distributed, conserving the species through a hurricanes since 1989. Successional including within conservation land, so landscape approach to promote natural responses to hurricanes can influence the threat due to inadequacy of recruitment. Although current the structure and composition of plant regulatory mechanisms has been information on population structure communities in the Caribbean islands reduced. However, the occurrences of indicates the species requires some (Lugo 2000, p. 245; Van Bloem et al. palo de rosa on private lands continue open canopy areas to promote 2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. to need enforcement of existing recruitment, widespread deforestation 572; Van Bloem et al. 2006, p. 517). prohibitions, as well as increased fragments habitat and creates edges Examples of the visible effects of attention and associated outreach to (habitat transition zones). hurricanes on the ecosystem includes highlight the species’ conservation and There is no evidence of natural massive defoliation, snapped and wind- importance. recruitment at this time for 40 of the 66 thrown trees, large debris known subpopulations, although the accumulations, landslides, debris flows, Recruitment species’ life history implies that and altered stream channels, among Here, we summarize the continuing recruitment may still occur in these others (Lugo 2008, p. 368). Hurricanes threat of low recruitment on palo de populations when a canopy opening is can produce sudden and massive tree rosa populations, and we describe this created and suitable conditions for mortality, which varies among species influence on palo de rosa viability in recruitment are present. Forest cover in but averages about 41.5 percent (Lugo greater detail under Recruitment and Puerto Rico has increased since the 2000, p. 245). Hence, small populations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37107

of palo de rosa may be severely and therefore increase the relative maintaining native forested habitat that impacted by hurricanes, resulting in abundance of nonnatives. provides a buffer for palo de rosa loss of individuals or extirpation. The Habitat intrusion by exotics is subpopulations. impact of catastrophic hurricanes is positively correlated to the distance of The above discussion indicates that exacerbated in small populations. the disturbance gap (Hansen and the potential adverse impacts due to There is evidence of damage to Clevenger 2005, p. 249). Thus, the hurricanes and the associated habitat individuals of palo de rosa due to adverse effects from human-induced intrusion by exotic plant species are previous hurricane events (e.g., habitat disturbance (e.g., deforestation variable, depending on habitat Hurricane Georges in 1998) at the and urban development) can be fragmentation, topography, distance to Hacienda Sabanera and Hacienda exacerbated by hurricanes by creating or disturbance, and the size of the Esperanza subpopulations (USFWS increasing this disturbance gap. A post- subpopulation. It further highlights the 2017, p. 17). A post-hurricane hurricane assessment provided evidence importance of having healthy assessment of selected populations of that all palo de rosa subpopulations populations with robust numbers of palo de rosa was conducted to address along the north coast of Puerto Rico individuals and a stratified population the impact of Hurricane Marı´a (USFWS showed habitat intrusion by weedy structure (i.e., seedlings, saplings, and 2018, entire). Even though Hurricane vines (e.g., Dioscorea alata (n˜ ame), adults) to allow for recovery following Marı´a did not directly hit the GCF, Thunbergia grandiflora (pompeya), hurricanes and associated habitat evidence of damage to palo de rosa trees Cissus erosa (caro de tres hojas), and disturbance. Cayaponia americana (bejuco de was recorded at Can˜ on Las Trichilias Climate Change (e.g., uprooted trees and main trunk torero)) following Hurricane Marı´a Regarding the effects of climate broken) (USFWS 2018, p. 3). Additional (USFWS 2018, entire). In the same assessment, weedy vegetation and vines change, the Intergovernmental Panel on evidence of direct impacts (including Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that ´ densely covered an area in the Hacienda mortality) due to Hurricane Marıa were warming of the climate system is recorded in the Hacienda Esperanza, Esperanza subpopulation, where palo de rosa occurs at a low-elevation mogote, unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Observed Hacienda Sabanera, Parque Monagas, effects associated with climate change and La Virgencita subpopulations and Hacienda Sabanera, where the habitat that harbors the palo de rosa include widespread changes in (USFWS 2018, entire). An analysis of precipitation amounts and aspects of high-resolution aerial images from these population was cut to the edge of the population of the species due to urban extreme weather including droughts, sites following Hurricane Marı´a shows development (USFWS 2018, pp. 8–18). heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the extensive damage and modification to Examination of aerial images of the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC the forest structure, with habitat shows a flattened forest structure 2014, p. 4). Rather than assessing subpopulations in southern Puerto Rico indicative of hurricane damage, with climate change as a single threat in and exposed to less wind damage (Hu and standing trees missing main branches of itself, we examined the potential Smith 2018, pp. 1, 17). When comparing and canopy. Competition with effects to the species and its habitat that affected subpopulation abundance, the nonnative species and weedy vines for arise from changes in environmental evidence of direct impacts to necessary resources (space, light, water, conditions associated with various individuals of palo de rosa due to nutrients) may reduce the natural aspects of climate change. ´ Hurricane Marıa appear to be recruitment by inhibiting germination We examined a downscaled model for discountable. However, this post- and outcompeting seedlings of native Puerto Rico based on three IPCC global hurricane assessment focused on species (Rojas-Sandoval and Mele´ndez- emissions scenarios from the CMIP3 previously surveyed robust Ackerman 2013, p. 11; Thomson 2005, data set—mid-high (A2), mid-low (A1B), subpopulations (USFWS 2018, entire). p. 615). Palo de rosa seedlings at and low (B1)—as the CMIP5 data set Overall, the subpopulations along the Hacienda Esperanza were covered (and was not available for Puerto Rico at that northern coast of Puerto Rico suffered outcompeted) by weedy vines following time (Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 267, 279– severe defoliation, with trees showing Hurricane Marı´a (USFWS 2018, p. 8). At 280). These scenarios are generally mortality of the crown apex, but some Fort Buchanan, 6 months after comparable and span the more recent trees showing regrowth 6 months post- Hurricane Marı´a, the vegetation at the representative concentration pathways hurricane (USFWS 2018, entire). base of the mogote on that property was (RCP) scenarios from RCP 4.5 (B1) to However, hurricane damage extends overgrown and dominated by weedy RCP 8.5 (A2) (IPCC 2014, p. 57). The B1 beyond the direct impacts to individual species. However, weedy vegetation had and A2 scenarios encompass the palo de rosa trees. As mentioned above, not reached palo de rosa individuals at projections and effects of the A1B the subpopulations along the northern the top of the mogote, and there was scenario; we will describe our analyses coast of Puerto Rico are severely little evidence of adverse impacts to for the B1 (RCP 4.5) and A2 (RCP 8.5) fragmented due to prior land-use seedlings and saplings due to scenarios and recognize the A1B (RCP history. Disturbance and edge effects competition with exotics (USFWS 2018, 6.0) projections and effects fall into this associated with urban development and p. 8). range. infrastructure corridors may promote The GCF subpopulations of palo de The modelling of climate projections the establishment and spread of rosa are surrounded by a large tract of expected in Puerto Rico used in our invasive, nonnative plant species, and intact native forest, providing a buffer analysis extends to 2100. We lianas (woody vines) typical of early or zone that precludes habitat invasion by acknowledge inherent divergence in intermediate successional stages, which exotics. Despite the overall evidence of climate projections based on the model may result in rare and endemic plant canopy opening and some impacts to chosen, with uncertainty increasing species being outcompeted (Hansen and individuals of palo de rosa due to later in the century (Khalyani et al. Clevenger 2005, p. 249; Madeira et al. Hurricane Marı´a, there was no evidence 2016, p. 275). However, we assessed the 2009, p. 291). Hurricanes may not of habitat intrusion by exotics at Can˜ on climate changes expected in the year introduce nonnative species to the forest Las Trichilias and Can˜ on Hoya Honda 2070, a 50-year timeframe representing structure, but they can promote (USFWS 2018 pp. 3–8), which the foreseeable future for palo de rosa favorable conditions for these species highlights the importance of (as described in Regulatory Framework,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37108 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

above). Under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 of natural recruitment. In addition, known subpopulations are composed of scenarios, precipitation declines while hurricanes followed by extended 10 or fewer individuals. The effect of temperature and total dry days increase, periods of drought caused by climate small population size exacerbates other resulting in extreme drought conditions change may result in microclimate threats and makes these subpopulations that would result in the conversion of alterations that could allow other plants vulnerable to extirpation by stochastic subtropical dry forest into dry and very (native or nonnative) to become and catastrophic events. established and become invasive (Lugo dry forest (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 280). Overall Summary of Factors Affecting 2000, p. 246), which would preclude the Downscaled future climate change the Species scenarios indicate that by 2070, Puerto recruitment of palo rosa seedlings. Rico is predicted to experience a Based the distribution of palo de rosa We have carefully assessed the best decrease in rainfall, along with and its habitat, we have determined that scientific and commercial information increased drought intensity under RCP conditions associated with climate available regarding the threats faced by 4.5 and 8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 265; change could impact this species. palo de rosa in developing this Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 133; U.S. Global Climate change is almost certain to proposed rule. Limited distribution and Change Research Program (USGCRP) affect terrestrial habitats and palo de a low number of individuals were 2018, 20:820). The western region of rosa; however, the future extent and considered a threat to palo de rosa when Puerto Rico has already experienced timing of those effects beyond the we listed the species (55 FR 13488; negative trends in annual rainfall (PRCC foreseeable future is uncertain. Some April 10, 1990), but recent information 2013, p. 7). Temperatures are also terrestrial plant populations are able to indicates the species is more abundant expected to rise between 2020 and 2070. adapt and respond to changing climatic and widely distributed than known at Under RCP 4.5, a mean temperature conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire), the time of listing. However, other increase of 4.6–5.4 degrees Celsius (°C) but the ability of palo de rosa to do so threats are still affecting palo de rosa. (40.3–41.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) is is unknown. A sound, long-term Based on the analysis above, although projected, and an increase of 7.5–9 °C monitoring of known palo de rosa we no longer consider limited (45.5–48.2 °F) is projected under RCP populations is needed to understand the distribution as an imminent threat to 8.5 (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). As effects on the species’ viability. this species, we conclude that habitat precipitation decreases influenced by In summary, other natural and destruction and modification on warming, it will tend to accelerate the manmade factors, such as hurricanes privately owned lands (particularly along the northern coast of Puerto Rico), hydrological cycles, resulting in wet and and related threats due to habitat and other natural or manmade factors dry extremes (Jennings et al. 2014, p. 4; fragmentation, edge habitat, habitat (e.g., hurricanes, habitat fragmentation Cashman et al. 2010, p. 1). Downscaled intrusion by exotic plant species, and the low recruitment and limited resulting in lack of connectivity general circulation models predict dispersal of palo de rosa, are current between individuals, and habitat dramatic shifts in the life zones of threats to the species. Hurricanes and encroachment by invasive species) have Puerto Rico with potential loss of post-hurricane habitat encroachment been greatly reduced but continue to subtropical rain, moist, and wet forests, and nonnative plant invasion have threaten palo de rosa populations. In and the appearance of tropical dry and affected subpopulations along the addition, low recruitment related to very dry forests are anticipated under northern coast of Puerto Rico (USFWS sporadic flowering and fruit production, both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios 2018, entire). Invasive species can and the slow growth of seedlings under (Khalyani et al. 2016, p. 275). preclude the establishment of new palo close canopy conditions (e.g., species Nonetheless, such predicted changes in de rosa individuals through competition reproductive biology and ecology), life zones may not severely affect palo for sunlight, nutrients, water, and space coupled with the threats discussed de rosa due to its distribution to grow. Although climate change is above, are expected to remain threats to throughout Puerto Rico, which includes almost certain to affect terrestrial palo de rosa. It is also expected that palo different life zones and habitat types. habitats, there is uncertainty about how de rosa will be affected by climate Vulnerability to climate change predicted future changes in change within the foreseeable future, impacts is a function of sensitivity to temperature, precipitation, and other particularly by generalized changes in those changes, exposure to those factors will influence palo de rosa. precipitation and drought conditions. changes, and adaptive capacity (IPCC Climate change is expected to result in Small Population Size 2007, p. 89; Glick and Stein 2010, p. 19). more intense hurricanes and extended As described earlier, palo de rosa is a At the time of listing (55 FR 13488; periods of drought. Increased hurricanes species with low recruitment and seed April 10, 1990), we considered small are expected to cause direct mortality of dispersal limited to gravity, limiting its population size as a threat affecting the adult trees downed due to high winds, potential to reach areas with suitable continued survival of palo de rosa, whereas more intense drought microhabitat conditions for its based on the species’ limited conditions are expected to reduce the establishment. Despite the evidence of distribution and low number of species’ reproductive output (reduced multiple reproductive events (fruit individuals (i.e., only 9 individuals flowering and fruiting events) and also production) in one subpopulation, low throughout the species’ range in Puerto preclude seedling and sapling recruitment of saplings and a Rico). Based on this information, we recruitment. However, based on the best population structure dominated by considered the risk of extinction of palo available data, we do not consider adult trees could be the result of de rosa very high. New distribution and climate change to represent a current or mortality and thinning of individuals at abundance information available since an imminent threat to this species the seedling stage due to drought stress. the species was listed reflects that palo across its range. The projected prolonged droughts de rosa is more abundant and widely Species viability, or the species’ expected with climate change may affect distributed than previously thought ability to sustain populations over time, the phenology of palo de rosa, resulting (USFWS 2017, entire); thus, we no is related to the species’ ability to in the loss of developing flowers and longer consider limited distribution as withstand catastrophic population- and fruits, or reduce the viability of the few an imminent threat to this species. species-level events (redundancy), to produced seeds, reducing the likelihood However, at least 37 (56 percent) of the adapt to novel changes in its biological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37109

and physical environment persisted through the almost entire resulting in outbreeding depression, (representation), and to withstand deforestation of Puerto Rico with less which may explain the lack of effective environmental and demographic than 6 percent of remaining forested reproduction and recruitment stochasticity and disturbances habitat across the island by the 1930s (Frankham et al. 2011, p. 466). The low (resiliency). The viability of a species is (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), when the low recruitment rate results in little transfer also dependent on the likelihood of new elevation coastal valleys habitat of palo of genetic variability into future stressors or continued threats, now and de rosa was extensively deforested for generations, limits the expansion of the in the future, that act to reduce a agricultural practices (e.g., sugar cane species outside its current locations, species’ redundancy, representation, and tobacco plantations). There are and limits its ability to adapt to and resiliency. A highly resilient palo broad accounts regarding the extensive changing environmental conditions. For de rosa population should be deforestation and habitat modification example, the loss or reduction of characterized by sufficient abundance that occurred in Puerto Rico until the connectivity between subpopulations in and connectivity between reproductive 1950s (Franco et al. 1997, p. 3), which areas like Arecibo-Vega Baja, Dorado, La individuals to allow for reproductive resulted in changes in forest structure Virgencita, Mogotes de Nevares, and events and cross-pollination, an age and diversity, pollinators’ assemblages, San Juan-Fajardo can be detrimental to class structure representative of seed dispersers, and the prevailing the long-term viability of the species as recruitment greater than mortality, microhabitat conditions in which palo it affects cross-pollination and, multiple subpopulations within the de rosa evolved. Despite the return from therefore, gene flow. In fact, the only population, and the availability of high- such deforestation, known populations that occur entirely within quality habitat to allow for recruitment. subpopulations show a clustered and native forest areas managed for High representation for the species is patchy distribution, and are conservation are GCF and SCF. This characterized by multiple populations characterized by a population structure continued protected habitat provides for occurring within a wide range of dominated by adults. Moreover, the an effective cross-pollination (gene environmental conditions (e.g., species faces a low recruitment rate and flow) that can secure the long-term substrate and precipitation) that allow slow growth, resulting in few saplings viability of the species. However, the for sufficient genetic variability. reaching a reproductive size; in overall representation of palo de rosa is Multiple resilient populations across the addition, the species shows minimal or reduced, as the GCF and SCF range of the species characterize high no dispersal (limited to gravity). Based populations are restricted to the redundancy for palo de rosa. on our observations, it has taken about southern coast and the genetic 60 years from the peak of deforestation representation of palo de rosa in the We evaluated the biological status of (1930s) for palo de rosa to show some northern karst area, a different palo de rosa both currently and into the initial evidence of recruitment. ecological environment, is vulnerable future, considering the species’ viability We consider that palo de rosa has because that habitat is threatened by as characterized by its resiliency, limited redundancy, as it is known from destruction or modification. redundancy, and representation. Based multiple subpopulations (66) on the analysis of available herbarium throughout its geographical range, Determination of Palo de Rosa’s Status specimens, we have determined the representing 14 natural populations Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), species’ distribution and abundance was distributed throughout the southern and and its implementing regulations (50 once more common and widespread, northern coasts of Puerto Rico. CFR part 424) set forth the procedures and was likely a dominant late Nonetheless, about 37 (56 percent) of for determining whether a species meets successional species of coastal to the known subpopulations are the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ middle elevation (500 m (1,640 ft)) composed of 10 or fewer individuals or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines habitats, and even extended to coastal and show little or no recruitment and, an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species valleys and sand dunes (see table, thus, reduced resiliency (see table, that is in danger of extinction above) (Monsegur-Rivera 2019, pers. above). As described above, the species throughout all or a significant portion of obs.). The current known palo de rosa faces a low recruitment rate, slow its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as subpopulations are remnants of the growth and limited dispersal, and a species that is likely to become an species’ historical distribution, patchy and small subpopulations, endangered within the foreseeable persisting on areas of low agricultural resulting in an increased vulnerability future throughout all or a significant value (e.g., top of the mogotes) that were to extirpation of these subpopulations. portion of its range. For a more detailed affected by deforestation for charcoal All these characteristics are limiting discussion on the factors considered production, as evidenced by individuals factors and make the species vulnerable when determining whether a species with multiple trunks of palo de rosa to catastrophic and stochastic events, meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered sprouting from the same base. Based on such as hurricanes and droughts, that species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ and the available information on palo de can cause local extirpations. The best our analysis on how we determine the rosa’s natural distribution at the time of available information indicates that palo foreseeable future in making these listing, and considering that 40 of the de rosa is not naturally expanding into decisions, please see Regulatory and known 66 subpopulations currently or colonizing habitats outside the areas Analytical Framework, above. show no recruitment and no where it is known to occur. subpopulations appear to be expanding In terms of the representation of palo Status Throughout All of Its Range due to natural dispersal, palo de rosa de rosa, we have no data on its genetic After evaluating threats to the species populations exhibit reduced resiliency. variability. Although the species occurs and assessing the cumulative effect of No subpopulations appear to be in a wide range of habitats and the threats under the section 4(a)(1) dispersing, and no populations are environmental conditions, it has a factors, we have determined that palo de highly resilient. None of the currently fragmented distribution, scattered rosa’s current viability is higher than known subpopulations of palo de rosa (sporadic) flowering events, and a low was known at the time of listing are considered a recent colonization recruitment rate. Thus, little or no (population current estimate of 1,144 event or natural expansion of the genetic exchange is thought to occur individuals in 66 subpopulations) based species within its habitat. The species between extant subpopulations, likely on the best available information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37110 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Currently, the number of palo de rosa of recruitment), and, in some cases, may portion of its range. The court in Center individuals has changed from 9 experience the loss of individuals or for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 individuals in protected lands at the subpopulations adjacent to critical WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) time of listing to 407 individuals (32 infrastructure such as highways or other (Center for Biological Diversity), vacated percent of subpopulations) currently development within the foreseeable the aspect of the Final Policy on occurring in areas managed for future (e.g., Hacienda Sabanera, PR–2 Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant conservation (e.g., Commonwealth and PR–22 maintenance and expansion, Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered Forest and Federal lands). Furthermore, Islote Ward extirpation). Species Act’s Definitions of 396 individuals (38 percent of We have evidence that some ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened subpopulations) occur in areas subject populations are showing signs of Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) to little habitat modification due to the reproduction and recruitment. However, that provided that the Services do not steep topography in the northern karst due to the slow growth of the species it undertake an analysis of significant region of Puerto Rico. The remaining 30 may take several decades to ensure portions of a species’ range if the percent of the subpopulations these recruitment events effectively species warrants listing as threatened (containing approximately 341 contribute to a population’s resiliency throughout all of its range. Therefore, individuals) occur within areas severely (new individuals reach a reproductive we proceed to evaluating whether the encroached and vulnerable to urban or size). Despite no longer considering species is endangered in a significant infrastructure development. limited distribution as an imminent portion of its range—that is, whether Nonetheless, habitat destruction and threat to this species, we have identified there is any portion of the species’ range modification on privately owned lands factors associated with habitat for which both (1) the portion is (particularly along the northern coast of modification and other natural or significant, and (2) the species is in Puerto Rico) and other natural or manmade factors that still have some danger of extinction in that portion. manmade factors (such as hurricanes, impacts on palo de rosa and affect the Depending on the case, it might be more habitat fragmentation, lack of species’ viability and effective natural efficient for us to address the connectivity between populations, recruitment. The species still faces ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ habitat intrusion by invasive species, dispersal problems, and the recruitment question first. We can choose to address and the species’ reproductive biology) is still limited to the proximity of parent either question first. Regardless of continue to threaten the viability of palo trees; we have no evidence of a which question we address first, if we de rosa. Although population numbers population of palo de rosa that is the reach a negative answer with respect to and abundance of palo de rosa have result of a recent colonization event or the first question that we address, we do increased, and some identified threats a significant population expansion. This not need to evaluate the other question have decreased, our analysis indicates renders the known subpopulations for that portion of the species’ range. that threats remain. Thus, after assessing vulnerable to adverse effects related to Following the court’s holding in the best available information, we habitat fragmentation and lack of Center for Biological Diversity, we now conclude that palo de rosa no longer connectivity, which may preclude consider whether there are any meets the Act’s definition of an future recruitment and the population’s significant portions of the species’ range endangered species throughout all of its resiliency. where the species is in danger of In addition, despite the presence of range. We therefore proceed with extinction now (i.e., endangered). In regulations protecting the species both undertaking this analysis for palo de determining whether palo de rosa meets on public and private lands, the rosa, we choose to address the status the Act’s definition of a threatened protection of palo de rosa on private question first—we consider information species (i.e., is likely to become lands remains challenging. Habitat pertaining to the geographic distribution endangered within the foreseeable modifications and fragmentation of both the species and the threats that future) throughout all of its range. continue to occur on private lands, the species faces to identify any In terms of habitat destruction and which can increase the likelihood of portions of the range where the species modification, we can reasonably habitat intrusion by exotic plants and is may be endangered. Kinds of threats determine that 70 percent of human-induced fires, and reduce and levels of threats are more likely to subpopulations (71 percent of connectivity between populations vary across a species’ range if the individuals) are not expected to be (affecting cross-pollinations) and the species has a large range rather than a substantially affected by habitat availability of suitable habitat for the very small natural range, such as the destruction and modification in the natural recruitment of the species. Still, palo de rosa. Species with limited foreseeable future. This majority occurs none of these is an imminent threat to ranges are more likely to experience the within protected lands managed for the species at a magnitude such that the same kinds and generally the same conservation (36 percent of the known taxon warrants endangered status across levels of threats in all parts of their individuals or 32 percent of its range. Thus, after assessing the best range. subpopulations) or on private lands available information, we conclude that For palo de rosa, we considered with low probability of modification palo de rosa is not currently in danger whether the threats are geographically due to steep topography (35 percent of of extinction, but it is likely to become concentrated in any portion of the the known individuals or 38 percent of in danger of extinction in the species’ range at a biologically subpopulations). However, for the 30 foreseeable future throughout all of its meaningful scale in the context of its percent of subpopulations occurring in range. small natural range. We examined the areas severely encroached and following threats: Habitat destruction, vulnerable to urban or infrastructure Status Throughout a Significant Portion fragmentation, and modification; development now and into the future of Its Range invasive species; hurricanes; and the (30 percent of the known individuals), Under the Act and our implementing effects of climate change, including we are reasonably certain these regulations, a species may warrant cumulative effects. We have identified subpopulations will continue to have a listing if it is in danger of extinction or that habitat destruction and lower resiliency (due to reduced likely to become so in the foreseeable modification is threatening known connectivity (cross-pollination) and lack future throughout all or a significant populations in three of the five areas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37111

along the southern coast of Puerto Rico palo de rosa as a threatened species, and 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) and eight of nine populations along the if we adopt this rule as proposed, the rules that do not address all of the northern coast of Puerto Rico, prohibitions in section 9 would no threats a species faces (see State of particularly on privately owned lands longer apply directly to the palo de rosa. Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th throughout the range of the species. In We are therefore proposing below a set Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative addition, habitat destruction and of regulations to provide for the history when the Act was initially modification are occurring within the conservation of the species in enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the species’ range in Hispaniola. Habitat accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, threatened list, the Secretary has an encroachment by invasive plant species which also authorizes us to apply any almost infinite number of options and habitat fragmentation caused by of the prohibitions in section 9 of the available to him with regard to the harvesting of timber for fence posts and Act to a threatened species. The permitted activities for those species. He maintaining rights-of-way are also proposal, which includes a description may, for example, permit taking, but not considered to be further stressors to the of the kinds of activities that would or importation of such species, or he may viability of palo de rosa across the would not constitute a violation, choose to forbid both taking and species’ range. Changes in climatic complies with this policy. importation but allow the transportation conditions are expected to result in of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, more intense hurricanes and extended II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). periods of drought under RCPs 4.5 and 4(d) of the Act Exercising this authority under 8.5, but the effect of these changes on Background section 4(d), we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to palo de rosa is unknown. The expected Section 4(d) of the Act contains two address palo de rosa’s specific threats changes in climatic conditions will sentences. The first sentence states that affect all populations of palo de rosa and conservation needs. Although the the Secretary of the Interior shall issue uniformly across the range of the statute does not require us to make a such regulations as he deems necessary species. Lastly, palo de rosa populations ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding with and advisable to provide for the across the range experience low respect to the adoption of specific conservation of species listed as recruitment rates, slow growth, and prohibitions under section 9, we find threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited dispersal. that this rule as a whole satisfies the We found no concentration of threats noted that statutory language like requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to in any portion of palo de rosa’s range at ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates issue regulations deemed necessary and a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, a large degree of deference to the agency advisable to provide for the there are no portions of the species’ (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 conservation of palo de rosa. As range where the species has a different (1988)). Conservation is defined in the discussed above under Summary of status from its rangewide status. Act to mean the use of all methods and Biological Status and Threats, we have Therefore, no portion of the species’ procedures which are necessary to bring concluded that palo de rosa is likely to range provides a basis for determining any endangered species or threatened become endangered within the that the species is in danger of species to the point at which the foreseeable future primarily due to extinction in a significant portion of its measures provided pursuant to the Act habitat destruction and modification, range, and we determine that the are no longer necessary. Additionally, particularly by urban development, species is likely to become endangered the second sentence of section 4(d) of right-of-way maintenance, rock quarries, within the foreseeable future throughout the Act states that the Secretary may by and grazing. Additionally, other natural all of its range. This is consistent with regulation prohibit with respect to any or manmade factors like hurricanes, the courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors threatened species any act prohibited invasive species, and landslides still v. Department of the Interior, No. 16– under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish threaten the species. The provisions of cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. or wildlife, or 9(a)(2), in the case of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for plants. Thus, the combination of the two conservation of palo de rosa by Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. sentences of section 4(d) provides the encouraging conservation programs for Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017). Secretary with wide latitude of the species and its habitat and discretion to select and promulgate promoting additional research to inform Determination of Status appropriate regulations tailored to the future habitat management and recovery Our review of the best available specific conservation needs of the actions for the species. The provisions scientific and commercial information threatened species. The second sentence of this proposed rule are one of many indicates that palo de rosa meets the grants particularly broad discretion to tools that we would use to promote the Act’s definition of a threatened species. the Service when adopting the conservation of palo de rosa. This Therefore, we propose to reclassify palo prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if de rosa as a threatened species in The courts have recognized the extent and when we make final the accordance with sections 3(20) and of the Secretary’s discretion under this reclassification of palo de rosa as a 4(a)(1) of the Act. standard to develop rules that are threatened species. It is our policy, as published in the appropriate for the conservation of a Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR species. For example, courts have Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 34272), to identify to the maximum upheld rules developed under section This proposed 4(d) rule would extent practicable at the time a species 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency provide for the conservation of palo de is listed, those activities that would or authority where they prohibited take of rosa by prohibiting the following would not constitute a violation of threatened wildlife, or include a limited activities, except as otherwise section 9 of the Act. The intent of this taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley authorized or permitted: Importing or policy is to increase public awareness of Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. exporting; certain acts related to the effect of a proposed listing on Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); removing, damaging, and destroying; proposed and ongoing activities within Washington Environmental Council v. delivering, receiving, transporting, or the range of the species proposed for National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 shipping in interstate or foreign listing. We are proposing to reclassify U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. commerce in the course of commercial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 37112 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

activity; or selling or offering for sale in Territorial conservation agency that is a of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To interstate or foreign commerce. party to a cooperative agreement with better help us revise the rule, your As discussed above under Summary the Service in accordance with section comments should be as specific as of Biological Status and Threats, the 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his possible. For example, you should tell present or threatened destruction, or her agency for such purposes, would us the numbers of the sections or modification, or curtailment of the be able to conduct activities designed to paragraphs that are unclearly written, species’ habitat or range (specifically, conserve palo de rosa that may result in which sections or sentences are too urban development, maintenance of otherwise prohibited activities for long, the sections where you feel lists or power lines and associated rights-of- plants without additional authorization. tables would be useful, etc. way, infrastructure development, rock We also recognize the beneficial and quarries, grazing by cattle, and educational aspects of activities with National Environmental Policy Act extraction of fence posts), inadequacy of seeds of cultivated plants, which existing regulatory mechanisms, and generally enhance the propagation of We have determined that other natural or manmade factors the species, and therefore would satisfy environmental assessments and affecting the species’ continued permit requirements under the Act. We environmental impact statements, as existence (specifically, hurricanes, intend to monitor the interstate and defined in the National Environmental invasive plant species, landslides, and foreign commerce and import and Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et habitat fragmentation and lack of export of these specimens in a manner seq.), need not be prepared in connectivity between subpopulations) that will not inhibit such activities, connection with determining a species’ are affecting the status of palo de rosa. providing the activities do not represent listing status under the Endangered A range of activities have the potential a threat to the survival of the species in Species Act. In an October 25, 1983, to impact this plant, including the wild. In this regard, seeds of notice in the Federal Register (48 FR recreational and commercial activities. cultivated specimens would not be 49244), we outlined our reasons for this Regulating these activities will help regulated provided a statement that the determination, which included a preserve the species’ remaining seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ compelling recommendation from the populations, slow their rate of potential accompanies the seeds or their Council on Environmental Quality that decline, and decrease synergistic, container. we cease preparing environmental negative effects from other stressors. As Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule a whole, the regulation would help in would change in any way the recovery assessments or environmental impact the efforts to recover the species. planning provisions of section 4(f) of the statements for listing decisions. We may issue permits to carry out Act, the consultation requirements Government-to-Government otherwise prohibited activities, under section 7 of the Act, or our ability Relationship With Tribes including those described above, to enter into partnerships for the involving threatened plants under management and protection of palo de In accordance with the President’s certain circumstances. Regulations rosa. However, interagency cooperation memorandum of April 29, 1994, governing permits are codified at 50 may be further streamlined through ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened planned programmatic consultations for with Native American Tribal plants, a permit may be issued for the the species between us and other Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive following purposes: For scientific Federal agencies, where appropriate. We Order 13175, and the Department of the purposes, to enhance propagation or ask the public, particularly State and Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we survival, for economic hardship, for Territorial agencies and other interested readily acknowledge our responsibility botanical or horticultural exhibition, for stakeholders that may be affected by the to communicate meaningfully with educational purposes, or for other proposed 4(d) rule, to provide recognized Federal Tribes on a purposes consistent with the purposes comments and suggestions regarding and policy of the Act. Additional additional guidance and methods that government-to-government basis. In statutory exemptions from the the Service could provide or use, accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 prohibitions are found in sections 9 and respectively, to streamline the of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 10 of the Act. implementation of this proposed 4(d) Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust We recognize the special and unique rule (see Information Requested, above). Responsibilities, and the Endangered relationship with our State and Species Act), we readily acknowledge Territorial natural resource agency Required Determinations our responsibilities to work directly partners in contributing to conservation Clarity of the Rule with Tribes in developing programs for of listed species. State and Territorial We are required by Executive Orders healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that agencies often possess scientific data 12866 and 12988 and by the Tribal lands are not subject to the same and valuable expertise on the status and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, controls as Federal public lands, to distribution of endangered, threatened, 1998, to write all rules in plain remain sensitive to Indian culture, and and candidate species of wildlife and language. This means that each rule we to make information available to Tribes. plants. State and Territorial agencies, publish must: We have determined that there are no because of their authorities and their (1) Be logically organized; Tribal lands affected by this proposal. close working relationships with local (2) Use the active voice to address governments and landowners, are in a readers directly; References Cited unique position to assist the Services in (3) Use clear language rather than A complete list of references cited is implementing all aspects of the Act. In jargon; this regard, section 6 of the Act provides (4) Be divided into short sections and available on http://www.regulations.gov that the Services shall cooperate to the sentences; and under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES– maximum extent practicable with the (5) Use lists and tables wherever 2020–0059 and upon request form the States in carrying out programs possible. Caribbean Ecological Services Field authorized by the Act. Therefore, any If you feel that we have not met these Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION qualified employee or agent of a requirements, send us comments by one CONTACT).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37113

Authors Proposed Regulation Promulgation Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise The primary authors of this document Accordingly, we propose to amend noted. are staff members of the Caribbean part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the Ecological Services Field Office. 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entry ‘‘Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon’’ under as set forth below: List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to Endangered and threatened species, PART 17—ENDANGERED AND read as follows: Exports, Imports, Reporting and THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS § 17.12 Endangered and threatened recordkeeping requirements, ■ plants. Transportation. 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: * * * * * (h) * * *

Listing citations and Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

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

*******

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: damage or destroy the species on any the Service in accordance with section other area in knowing violation of any 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by § 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. law or regulation of the Territory or in that agency for such purposes, may, (a) through (f) [Reserved] the course of any violation of a when acting in the course of official (g) Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo de Territorial criminal trespass law, as set duties, remove and reduce to possession rosa). forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act. from areas under Federal jurisdiction (1) Prohibitions. The following (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in members of palo de rosa that are prohibitions that apply to endangered the course of commercial activity, as set covered by an approved cooperative plants also apply to Ottoschulzia forth at § 17.61(d) for endangered plants. agreement to carry out conservation rhodoxylon (palo de rosa). Except as (v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth programs. provided under paragraph (g)(2) of this at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. (iii) You may engage in any act section, it is unlawful for any person (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In prohibited under paragraph (g)(1) of this subject to the jurisdiction of the United regard to Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon (palo section with seeds of cultivated States to commit, to attempt to commit, de rosa): specimens, provided that a statement to solicit another to commit, or cause to (i) The prohibitions described in that the seeds are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ be committed, any of the following acts paragraph (g)(1) of this section do not accompanies the seeds or their in regard to this species: apply to activities conducted as container. (i) Import or export, as set forth at authorized by a permit issued in § 17.61(b) for endangered plants. accordance with § 17.72. Martha Williams, (ii) Remove and reduce to possession (ii) Any employee or agent of the Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as Service or of a Territorial conservation Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish set forth at § 17.61(c)(1). agency that is operating under a and Wildlife Service. (iii) Maliciously damage or destroy conservation program pursuant to the [FR Doc. 2021–14661 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] the species on any areas under Federal terms of a cooperative agreement with BILLING CODE 4333–15–P jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1