[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64908-64937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21620]
[[Page 64907]]
Vol. 85
Tuesday,
No. 198
October 13, 2020
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64908]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly (Atlantea tulita), a species from Puerto Rico, as a
threatened species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing
the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly as a threatened species with a rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule
as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We
also propose to designate critical habitat for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly under the Act. In total, approximately 41,266 acres
(16,699.8 hectares) in six units in the municipalities of Isabela,
Quebradillas, Camuy, Arecibo, Utuado, Florida, Ciales, Maricao, San
Germ[aacute]n, Sabana Grande, and Yauco are within the boundaries of
the proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 14, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the administrative record and are
available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083. Any
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service
website and field office set out above, and may also be included in the
preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, P.O. Box 491, Road 301 km 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622;
telephone 787-851-7297. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does.
We propose listing the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as a
threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act,
and we propose designation of critical habitat for the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that habitat modification and
fragmentation caused by urban development and agriculture, human-
induced fires, improperly applied pesticides (insecticides and
herbicides), small population size, and climate change are threats to
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert
opinions of six appropriate specialists regarding the species status
assessment report. We received responses from one specialist, which
informed this
[[Page 64909]]
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
determinations, critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rules are based
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the
species.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a
threatened species. The new information may also lead us to finalize a
4(d) rule that contains a more narrow set of specific protective
measures or additional measures. Finally, the final critical habitat
designation may differ from this proposed designation by including
additional areas within the historical range of the species, by
removing some of the areas in this proposed designation, or by doing
both. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this
proposal, as long as we: (1) Base the decisions on the best scientific
and commercial data available after considering all of the relevant
factors; (2) do not rely on factors Congress has not intended us to
consider; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our
conclusion. As discussed under Information Requested, below, we seek
comments from the public related to all of these possible alternatives.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
and that the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the
species. In particular, we seek information concerning the extent to
which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d)
rule or whether any other forms of take should be excepted from the
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(7) Whether any of the areas included in this proposed designation
of critical should not be included, or whether any additional areas
within the historical range of the species should be included, in light
of specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of the species; and
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered
[[Page 64910]]
in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On February 25, 2009, we were petitioned by Mr. Javier Biaggi-
Cabellero to list the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered
under the Act. On April 26, 2010, we published in the Federal Register
(75 FR 21568) a document announcing our 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the harlequin butterfly may be warranted. On
May 31, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 31282) a
document announcing our 12-month finding that listing the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is warranted but precluded by higher priority
actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. We, therefore, added the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to
the list of candidate species.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly was included in the annual
candidate notices of review (CNORs) we published between 2011 and 2019
(76 FR 66370 October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR
70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016; 84 FR 54732, October
10, 2019).
On January 15, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
filed a notice of intent to sue due to failure to resubmit the petition
finding and subsequently filed suit on March 23, 2019. We are required
to review the status of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly and
resubmit the 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 25,
2020, in accordance with a February 12, 2020, stipulated settlement
agreement and subsequent extension granted by the court on August 28,
2020. This document constitutes our resubmitted status review and 12-
month finding on the February 25, 2009, petition to list the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly under the Act, and satisfies that amended
provision in the February 2, 2020, stipulated settlement agreement.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. The SSA team was composed of
Service biologists, who consulted with other species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial
data available concerning the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species. The Service sent the SSA report to
six independent peer reviewers and received one response from a peer
reviewer at the Fort Worth Zoo who had expertise in Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly biology, habitat, and threats.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita) is presented in the
SSA report (version 1.5; Service 2019, pp. 13-22).
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto Rico,
occurring in the western portion of the island, in the Northern Karst
region and in the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region. The life
cycle of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly includes four distinct
anatomical stages: Egg, larva (caterpillar, with several size phases
called instars), chrysalis, and imago (butterfly or adult). Completion
of the species' life cycle, from egg to butterfly, likely averages 125
days, but can vary based on temperature and humidity. All life stages
of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are observed year-round,
suggesting that mating and oviposition (egg-laying) may occur at any
time during the year.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has been observed to disperse
up to approximately 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mile (mi)) from one breeding
site to another (Monz[oacute]n 2007, p. 42). Eggs and larvae are found
only on Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush). First instars feed only on this
plant (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 40; Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p.
4). While O. spinosa is essential to Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
viability, the plant occurs throughout the species' range and, unless
removed for land clearing, is not a limited resource. Active during the
daytime, the butterflies feed on the nectar of several tree species
(Barber 2018, p. 71) and also drink water. The species has been found
only within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a water source (e.g., creek, river, pond,
puddle).
Relative to other butterfly species, the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is medium-sized. The male butterfly's abdomen is brownish-
black on the dorsal side and has orange and brown bands on the ventral
side, while the female's abdomen is brownish-black with white bands.
Wings of both sexes are largely brownish-black with sub-marginal rows
of deep orange spots and beige cells. The caterpillar is dark orange
with a brownish-black to black thin line, over a thin intermittent
white line along each side of the body from the head to hind end. Each
body segment of the caterpillar has several evenly-spaced pairs of
spines covered in hairs.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all
[[Page 64911]]
or a significant portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as
a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of
the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' likely responses to threats include species-specific factors
such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain
behaviors, and other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does
not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should
be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under
the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs
our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the
SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083.
To assess Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly viability, we used the
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
Puerto Rican harlequin butterflies need the tender new growth of
the host plant, Oplonia spinosa, for egg laying by adults and feeding
by caterpillars. Adults rely on particular types of woody plants for
nectar feeding (at least 24 have been identified as plants upon which
they feed (Morales and Estremera 2018, entire)), and a water source
within 1 km (0.6 mi) for hydration. Suitable
[[Page 64912]]
habitat consists of forests that may vary in stage of succession and
age, with 50 to 85 percent canopy cover. The species occurs both in
large blocks of undisturbed forest and in forest patches interspersed
with agricultural lands, houses, and roads. In areas that are a mix of
developed lands and forest, the species needs forested corridors (with
O. spinosa covering more than 30 percent) connecting breeding sites
(Velez 2014, entire).
Current Conditions
Currently, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly populations occur
in six areas: (1) Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy (hereafter referred
to as the IQC population); (2) Guajataca; (3) R[iacute]o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest; (4) R[iacute]o Encantado; (5) Maricao Commonwealth
Forest; and (6) Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest. The IQC, Guajataca,
R[iacute]o Abajo, and R[iacute]o Encantado populations occur in the
northwestern portion of Puerto Rico, in the Northern Karst
physiographic region. The Maricao and Sus[uacute]a populations occur in
the west-central portion of the island, in the West-central Volcanic-
serpentine physiographic region. A seventh population occurred in
Tallaboa, in southwestern Puerto Rico, in the Sothern Karst
physiographic region, but has not been observed since 1926 (Biaggi-
Caballero and L[oacute]pez 2010, p. 4) and is presumed extirpated.
We considered an area to have an extant population if at least two
of the four life stages (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult) were
observed in the course of repeated surveys conducted in one year. All
populations have been observed as recently as 2018. Each of the six
populations likely functions as a metapopulation, a discrete population
composed of local populations (subpopulations) with individuals that
can move infrequently from one subpopulation to another (Hanski and
Gilpin 1991, pp. 4, 7).
Population size is an important component of resiliency. However,
quantitative population size estimates (statistically derived) for the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are not available. There have been
several surveys for the species since 2003, although survey methods and
objectives have varied. Most data consist of counts of the various life
stages during single survey events. In some areas, there are valid
reports of species occurrence (by species experts) but no count data.
Thus, the estimated abundance of the species per population varies
according to the methodology implemented during the survey and the
source of information.
We did not assess resiliency of the Guajataca population, which was
discovered on July 15, 2019, and thereafter verified by Service
biologists, after we had completed our SSA in June 2019 (Rodriquez
2019, pers. comm.). Including the initial discovery of 3 adults, two
more visits of the site were made in the summer of 2019. In one of
those visits, 43 caterpillars were observed and in the other visit, 9
caterpillars and 3 chrysalides were observed (Pacheco 2020, pers.
com.). Habitat metrics that, in combination with relative population
size estimates enable estimates of resiliency, have not yet been
analyzed. Therefore, in the resiliency discussion below, where we refer
to five populations instead of six, we are omitting the Guajataca
population.
Because quantitative population size estimates are lacking, we
assessed the resiliency for five Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
populations using habitat quality and estimates of relative population
size (see Table 1, below) in our SSA report (Service 2019, entire). We
weighted a single population metric (relative population size) such
that it had equal influence on resiliency as four habitat metrics
combined, to yield a numerical score to classify population condition
as ``high,'' ``medium,'' or ``low'' for five butterfly populations (see
Table 2, below). As such, a population with the highest level of
resiliency would garner a score of 24 and a population with the lowest
level of resiliency would garner a score of 8.
Table 1--Habitat and Population Metrics To Score Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly Resiliency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat metrics Population metric
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population
Habitat score Vegetation clearing/ Other natural or score
Habitat protection Connectivity pesticide use manmade factors Population size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 point each; 4 points total..... <34 percent Isolated Areas subjected to Subpopulations 0-5 adults and <100 4
protected. subpopulations vegetation located in areas larvae observed
greater than 1 km clearing more vulnerable to per ha.
apart; habitat (including use of stochastic events
between herbicides) and (e.g., fire,
populations highly use of pesticides severe drought,
disturbed. for mosquito hurricanes).
control or
agriculture.
2 points each; 8 points total.... 34-66 percent Subpopulations Areas where Subpopulations in 6-20 adults and 100- 8
protected. within 1 km of vegetation areas with 500 larvae
each other; clearing and use moderate observed per ha.
habitat between of herbicides and vulnerability to
subpopulations pesticides occur stochastic events.
moderately rarely.
disturbed.
3 points each; 12 points total... >66 percent Subpopulations Areas where Subpopulations >20 adults and >500 12
protected. within 1 km of vegetation located in areas larvae per ha.
each other; clearing and use with lower
undisturbed of herbicides and vulnerability to
habitat between pesticides are not stochastic events.
subpopulations. expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Current Population Condition and Resiliency Scores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency score
Population condition (habitat metrics +
population metric)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low: None......................................... <11
Moderately Low: Sus[uacute]a population........... 11-13
Moderate: IQC, R[iacute]o Abajo, R[iacute]o 14-18
Encantado populations............................
Moderately High: Maricao population............... 19-21
High: None........................................ >21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64913]]
Of the five Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly populations we
assessed for resiliency, one is in moderately high condition, three are
in moderate condition, and one is in moderately low condition. The
population with moderately high resiliency (Maricao Commonwealth
Forest) occurs in land managed for conservation, but in this forest the
species occurs at edges of trails and roads where vegetation is
frequently removed and herbicides applied. The population in IQC has
moderate resiliency because, although it occurs in a region that is
among the most heavily developed, it has the largest number of known
subpopulations and population size. The populations in R[iacute]o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest and the R[iacute]o Encantado area have moderate
resiliency because they occur partly in habitats managed for
conservation that are protected from development and other
anthropogenic activities, although both populations are small in size.
The Sus[uacute]a population has moderately low resiliency. While the
Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest is managed for conservation, the
species occurs along, or at the edges of, trails where vegetation is
frequently removed and herbicides applied, and the population size is
very low. Averaging the resiliency of the five populations, we
estimated that species resiliency (rangewide) of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is currently moderate.
We assessed redundancy and representation based on the number and
spatial arrangement of populations. Current redundancy of the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is low. The species is narrow ranging, with
all six populations likely to incur similar effects of a stochastic
event such as a severe storm or drought. In addition, with the
exception of the IQC and Maricao populations, the populations range in
size from small to very small. Data to assess genetic diversity and the
adaptive capacity it may confer are lacking for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. However, representation appears to be moderate to
high because the butterfly occurs in two physiographic provinces and
four ecological settings or life zones (Service 2019, p. 25).
Threats
Threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly include habitat
loss and modification by development, mechanical clearing of
vegetation, use of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides), human-
induced fires, changing climate, and insufficient enforcement of
existing regulatory mechanisms. There is evidence that the species has
been collected for private entomology collections and unauthorized
investigations, but there is no indication that private collecting is a
widespread activity.
Urban Development, Habitat Modification and Fragmentation
Habitat loss caused by urban development and agricultural practices
is a primary factor influencing the decline of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly, and it poses a continuing threat to the species'
viability (Barber 2019, p. 2). The species' small range may reflect a
remnant population of a once more widely distributed forest dwelling
butterfly whose habitat was diminished as forest was converted for
other land uses in Puerto Rico (Monzon 2007, pp. 11-13; DRNA 2011, p.1;
Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, entire). More than 90 percent of native
forest in Puerto Rico had been cleared at one point in time (Miller and
Lugo 2009, p. 33). The loss or degradation of the species' habitat
continues in the present time and results from conversion of native
forest for agriculture or urbanization; increased construction and use
of highways and roads (vehicle traffic); and land management regimes
(vegetation clearance, grazing, and haying).
The IQC population faces significant threats from the existing and
imminent destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat,
especially loss of the host plant, Oplonia spinosa. Historically in the
IQC area, forests were converted to farms, pastures, or cropland.
Currently these forests are being converted to urban developments,
roads, recreational parks, and golf courses. Most of the suitable
habitat for the species, particularly in the municipality of
Quebradillas, is fragmented by residential and tourist development. In
rural areas, forest clearing to increase grassland for cattle grazing
is a threat to the IQC population. Currently in the IQC, occupied
habitat is within an area classified as a ``Zone of Tourist Interest''
(PRPB 2009, website data), which is an area identified as having the
potential to be developed to promote tourism due to its natural
features and historic value. In 2010, 11 residential development
projects were under evaluation around the species' habitat, possibly
affecting 72.6 ac (29.4 ha) in Quebradillas (PRPB 2010, website data).
By 2019, three houses had been constructed, and another is under
construction at Puente Blanco (Pacheco 2019, pers. obs.). While it is
uncertain whether these single homes will be constructed in the near
future, land owners have removed vegetation from the proposed project
sites, affecting the suitability of the habitat for the butterfly
(Pacheco, 2019, pers. obs.).
While 99.7 percent of the land where the IQC population occurs is
privately owned, the other five populations occupy areas where
substantial portions are managed for conservation (see Table 4, below,
under Proposed Critical Habitat Designation), ranging from 13 percent
in R[iacute]o Encantado to 77 percent in R[iacute]o Abajo. Development
adjacent to conservation lands in Puerto Rico is increasing. For
example, from 2000 to 2010, 90 percent of protected areas showed
increases in housing in surrounding lands (Castro-Prieto et al. 2017,
p. 477). Housing has increased in the Northern Karst region: in 1980,
there were 762,485 housing units, and in 2010, the number of units had
increased to 1,101,041 (PRPB 2014, p. 19). New housing and the
development of rural communities requires construction of additional
infrastructure (e.g., access roads, power and energy service, water
service, and communication, among others), compounding habitat loss and
fragmentation. Communications infrastructure for cellular phone and
related technologies has proliferated in Puerto Rico, including towers
for cellular communication, radio, television, military, and
governmental purposes. These towers are a threat to plant species,
including the host plant Oplonia spinosa, that happen to occur on top
of mogotes (limestone hills) or mountaintops.
Human-Induced Fire
In addition to land development, human-induced fires are a threat
to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Although fire is not a natural
event in Puerto Rico's subtropical dry or moist forests (Robbins et al.
2008, p. 530), which are the only forest types where the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly occurs, wildfires resulting from natural or
anthropogenic origin are growing in size and frequency across Puerto
Rico (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 558; Pacheco 2019, pers. obs.). In
the Maricao Commonwealth Forest on February 25, 2005, a human-induced
fire (likely arson) burned more than 400 acres, with unknown effects on
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly population (Biaggi-Caballero 2010,
p. 10). In Quebradillas, the species' habitat in the area where the
largest subpopulation occurs (Puente Blanco) is threatened by fires
associated with illicit garbage dumps (DNER, unpublished data 2010, p.
23). In the Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest, a garbage
[[Page 64914]]
dump fire recently burned approximately 25 square meters (269 square
feet) of occupied butterfly habitat (Pacheco 2019, pers. obs.). This
increase in fires destroys and further limits the availability of
habitat for the butterfly. Depending on the scale of the fires and the
size of the population where the fires happen, deaths of significant
numbers of the butterfly population may occur. For example, if a fire
damages a patch of forest such that less than 1 square mile remains,
that forest patch will no longer be large enough to sustain a viable
subpopulation of the butterfly. In the Sus[uacute]a fire, although only
25 square meters of forest were destroyed, any killing of individuals
would reduce the likelihood of sustained viability of the very small
Sus[uacute]a population. In other areas with a larger population, such
as IQC, a similarly small fire would not have a significant impact on
viability.
Pesticides, Herbicides, and Other Mechanisms of Vegetation Control
Regardless of the method, efforts to clear vegetation or to
eliminate pests are a significant threat to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly. Herbicides are used by conservation agencies, public
agencies, and private organizations to control vegetation in an array
of areas. The use of herbicides is a current threat to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly and Oplonia spinosa, which is found on the edges of
roads and open areas. Herbicides are frequently used to control woody
vegetation and weeds along access roads and on private properties.
Mechanical removal of vegetation also impacts the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. Even in areas used for recreation, O. spinosa is
trimmed or completely removed along trails and in picnic areas.
Homeowners often clear vegetation to have unobstructed views of the
landscape.
Although Oplonia spinosa is a commonly occurring plant in Puerto
Rico, cutting down the plant or killing the plant with herbicides will
result in death of eggs or caterpillars that are on it because, even if
the plant remains on the ground, it will no longer provide the tender
new growth needed for caterpillars to feed. Additionally, clearing O.
spinosa reduces reproductive output because it reduces the number of
viable sites for egg laying, and removing other plant species that are
nectar sources likely increases stress on adult butterflies.
Pesticides, which include insecticides and herbicides, are commonly
used throughout the range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, on
crop fields, along public roads, and on private properties to control
animal and plant pests (Biaggi-Caballero and L[oacute]pez 2010, p. 9;
Barber 2019, p. 72; Pacheco 2019, pers. obs.). Puerto Rico also has a
long history of using pesticides, mostly insecticides, for mosquito
control in and around urban areas. Fumigation programs are implemented
by local government authorities to control mosquito-borne diseases, but
pesticide use guidelines have not been developed for application in
areas where the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly occurs (Biaggi-
Caballero and L[oacute]pez 2010, p. 9), and toxicity thresholds for the
species are unknown. The toxicological effects of pesticides to non-
target butterfly species has been documented within the families
Nymphalidae (which includes the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly),
Lycaenidae, Papilionidae, Hesperiidae, and Pieridae (Mul[eacute] et al.
2017, Salvato 2001, Hoang et al. 2011, Eliazar and Emmel 1991, Hoang
and Rand 2015, Bargar 2012, Davis et al. 1991).
Recent and Current Climate
The 2018 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, entire)
reported that the impacts of climate change are already influencing the
environment through more frequent and more intense extreme weather and
climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate
conditions. Globally, numerous long-term climate changes have been
observed, including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, and
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind
patterns, and aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC
2007b, p. 2). In addition, the aforementioned vegetation removal and
road construction can elevate local temperatures.
Although we do not have information showing Puerto Rican harlequin
butterflies harmed due to elevated high temperatures, species such as
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, which are dependent on
specialized habitat types, are limited in distribution, or have become
restricted in their range, are most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change. As indicated by studies on other butterflies in the
family Nymphalidae (e.g., monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)),
temperature likely has a significant influence on adult and larval
metabolism, growth rate, and metamorphosis and may affect seasonal
colonization and migrations (Rawlins and Lederhouse 1981, p. 403; Wong
et al. 2015, p. 15; Koda and Nakamura 2010, p. 29; Franke et al. 2019,
p. 1). These same effects may occur to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly and the Puerto Rican monarch subspecies (Danaus plexippus
portoricensis) which are members of this same family. Exposure to high
temperature may cause dehydration in butterflies and is a serious
threat because of the butterflies' large surface-to-volume ratio
(Pometto 2014, p. 18). Day-fliers, such as the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, likely have a high need for water because they are active
during the warmest time of the day, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Pacheco
2019, pers. obs.). Temperature data from the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's range suggest the species may be adapted to average daily
maximum temperatures ranging from 28 to 32 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (82
to 90 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Service 2019, p. 56).
Future Conditions
In our SSA, we used the same habitat and population metrics to
project future resiliency of the five populations that were known at
the time the SSA was completed. We chose 25 years as the time frame for
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly future conditions analysis because
this time frame includes at least 25 generations, thus allowing
adequate time to forecast trends in threats, populations, and habitat
conditions. We projected the future changes in habitat based on climate
projections and by extrapolating land development trends (e.g., housing
and urbanization) to 2045, and we estimated changes in population
demographics based on the anticipated changes to the condition of the
habitat. Unlike in our analysis of current condition, relative
population size could not be directly assessed. The habitat metrics are
the drivers that may promote changes in future population (unless the
current population size is so small that extirpation risk of a single
stochastic event is high). Therefore, because there was more certainty
in projecting habitat changes than demographic changes, we weighted
habitat to have twice as much influence as population on resiliency
scores (Service 2019, p. 86).
We projected population resiliency based on three plausible
scenarios: Worst case, best case, and most likely. We selected these
scenarios to match the most recent climate change scenarios described
for Puerto Rico (Henareh Khalyani et al. 2016, entire), and we focused
on temperature and precipitation projections, which are important
environmental variables for Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly viability.
The models in this publication used the mid-high (A2), mid-low (A1B),
and low (B1) Intergovernmental Panel
[[Page 64915]]
on Climate Change (IPCC) global emissions scenarios, which were
precursors to the current IPCC scenarios and encompass ``representative
concentration pathways'' (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5. Based on our future
climate projections, temperatures are expected to increase by 2.8 to
3.3 [deg]C (5.04 to 5.94 [deg]F) (best case scenario) to 4.6 to 5.5
[deg]C (8.28 to 9.9 [deg]F) (worst case scenario). In the most likely
scenario temperatures would increase 3.9 to 4.6 [deg]C (7.02 to 8.28
[deg]F), resulting in temperatures ranging from approximately 31 [deg]C
(88 [deg]F) to 36 [deg]C (97 [deg]F) for all known Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly populations by 2045. This projected increase in
maximum temperatures is significantly greater than the current 28 to 32
[deg]C (82 to 90 [deg]F) maximum temperatures to which the butterfly is
adapted. Together with temperature increases, the Caribbean is expected
to get more frequent and more severe droughts from reduced
precipitation and to have an increased evapotranspiration ratio.
Although overall precipitation is expected to decrease, the amount of
precipitation produced during hurricane events is expected to increase
(Herrera et al. 2018, p. 1). Climate models consistently project that
significant drying in the U.S. Caribbean region will occur by the
middle of the century (USGCRP 2018, p. 820). The reductions in annual
precipitation and increases in drying are expected to cause shifts in
several life zones in Puerto Rico, with potential loss of subtropical
rainforest, moist forest and wet forest, and the appearance of tropical
dry forest and very dry forest during this century (Henareh Khalyani et
al. 2016, p. 275). Such shifts in life zones would likely further
reduce the range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
To forecast land development, we used the most recent trend data
(2000-2010) for housing and human population growth (Castro-Prieto et
al. 2017, pp. 477-479). For the region where each of the five butterfly
populations occurs, we projected development trends at current rates,
half of current rates, and no growth (representing the worst-case,
most-likely, and best-case scenarios, respectively).
Resiliency metric scoring for each scenario and population is
presented in our SSA report (Service 2019, pp. 86-90). In summary,
three populations (R[iacute]o Abajo, R[iacute]o Encantado, and
Sus[uacute]a) are projected to become extirpated in the foreseeable
future under both the worst-case and most-likely scenarios (see Table
3, below). Under the best-case scenario, the condition of the Maricao
population decreases slightly, from moderately high to moderate, and
the Sus[uacute]a population improves slightly, from low to moderately
low, while the condition of the other three populations is unchanged.
In Sus[uacute]a, declines in habitat and the small size of the
population increase the likelihood of future extirpation. Given the
currently very small populations in R[iacute]o Abajo and R[iacute]o
Encantado, even small declines in habitat condition are likely to
result in extirpation under the worst-case and most-likely scenarios.
Table 3--Summary of Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly Resiliency Under Three Future Scenarios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Population Current Worst-case Most-likely Best-case total
scenario scenario scenario population \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IQC......................... Moderate....... Low............ Low............ Moderate....... 53
R[iacute]o Abajo............ Moderate....... Extirpated..... Extirpated..... Moderate....... <5
R[iacute]o Encantado........ Moderate....... Extirpated..... Extirpated..... Moderate....... <5
Maricao..................... Moderately High Low............ Moderately Low. Moderate....... 21
Sus[uacute]a................ Low............ Extirpated..... Extirpated..... Moderately Low. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current estimate, based on counts of adults (Barber 2018).
According to our most-likely and worst-case scenarios, all areas
and life zones that currently harbor Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
populations are expected to become drier and warmer, with some (i.e.,
R[iacute]o Abajo and R[iacute]o Encantado) progressing from tropical
moist forest to tropical dry forest. Under these scenarios, and with
only two remaining populations, the species would suffer a substantial
decline in representation (with or without survival of the recently
discovered Guajataca population, for which there is insufficient
information to forecast its resiliency). Given the predicted
extirpation of most (three of five) populations under our most-likely
and worst-case scenarios, population redundancy will most likely be
reduced in the future. Moreover, the only remaining populations in IQC
and Maricao will most likely become smaller, more fragmented, and
subject to greater environmental stress.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the
current and future conditions is iterative and encompasses and
incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively because it
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
[[Page 64916]]
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the species' distribution and abundance has been
reduced across its range, as demonstrated by the extirpation of one of
seven known populations. In addition, the best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that the species' range and
abundance has been reduced because many areas that were once suitable
habitat, and therefore likely to have harbored populations, have been
developed and altered (deforested and host plant removed or reduced),
such that they are no longer habitable.
The condition of one population, discovered approximately one year
ago, has not been assessed. Of the other five populations, one
currently has moderately high resiliency, three have moderate
resiliency, and one has moderately low resiliency. Although the
species' range is naturally narrow, the six populations are distributed
in two physiographic provinces and four life zones. Given the distance
between the six populations and limited dispersal ability of the
species, there is virtually no interpopulation connectivity. Three of
five populations are single, without multiple subpopulations. The other
two populations have 3 subpopulations (R[iacute]o Encantado) and 13
subpopulations (IQC) that are connected to their closest neighboring
subpopulations.
Current and ongoing threats from habitat degradation or loss
(Factor A), as well as improper application of pesticides (insecticides
and herbicides), human-induced fires, and climate change (Factor E),
contribute to the fragmentation and isolation of populations. Regarding
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), the DNER designated the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as critically endangered under
Commonwealth Law No. 241 and Regulation 6766 (DNER 2004, p. 42; DNER
2010, unpublished data, p. 1). Article 2 of Regulation 6766 includes
all prohibitions and states that the designation as ``critically
endangered'' prohibits any person from taking the species; to ``take''
includes to harm, possess, transport, destroy, import, or export
individuals, eggs, or juveniles without previous authorization from the
Secretary of the DNER (DNER 2004, p. 28). The DNER has not designated
critical habitat for the species under Regulation 6766, but Law No. 241
prohibits modification of any natural habitat without a permit from the
DNER Secretary. Law No. 241 and Regulation 6766 could provide adequate
protection for the species. Although these laws and regulations are in
place, the species' habitat continues to be modified, destroyed, or
fragmented by urban development and vegetation clearing (Biaggi-
Caballero 2010, p. 9). Because the host plant is considered a common
species associated with edges of forested lands, it is not directly
protected by Law No. 241 or Regulation 6766. Therefore, despite
existing regulatory mechanisms that could ameliorate them, the threats
of habitat degradation or loss, the improper application of pesticides,
and human-induced fires continue to negatively impact the viability of
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Neither Factor B (overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes) nor Factor C (disease or
predation) appears to be a significant threat to the butterfly.
Regarding Factor B, an undetermined number of Puerto Rican harlequin
butterflies have been collected for scientific purposes and deposited
in universities and private collections (Biaggi-Caballero 2011, pers.
comm.). However, at present, few researchers are working with the
species, and its collection is regulated by the DNER. There is also
evidence that the species has been collected for private entomology
collections and unauthorized investigations, but there is no indication
that this is a widespread activity. Therefore, effects on the species
due to collection for commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes (Factor B) likely are minimal. Similarly, spiders,
ants, lizards, and birds have been observed preying on the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly (Service 2019, p. 59), but there are no data
indicating predation is a significant threat. Likewise, there is no
information indicating impacts on the species from disease. Therefore,
we do not find Factor C to be a threat to the species.
As noted previously, six populations occur in the presence of
current threats and are dispersed across different ecotones (four life
zones) and two physiographic regions. Of the five populations assessed
in the SSA report, three have moderate resiliency and one has
moderately high resiliency. As such, the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the species are not optimal because a few populations
with reduced resiliency could become extirpated due to a catastrophe.
However, the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species
are sufficient to sustain populations if stochastic or catastrophic
events occur within its range. It is unlikely that all of the
``moderately'' and ``moderately high'' resiliency populations would
simultaneously become extirpated under current conditions. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is not currently in danger of extinction. We,
therefore, proceed with determining whether the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is a threatened species--likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future--throughout all of its range.
The threats currently acting on the species include habitat loss
and degradation, in addition to pesticide use and human-induced fires,
all of which contribute to fragmentation and isolation of populations.
The best available information indicates that current threats will
continue, and the magnitude of the climate change threat will increase
in the foreseeable future. We anticipate that this increase in threats
from climate change will result in increased daily high temperatures,
decreases in annual precipitation, and shifts to drier life zones--
which, when coupled with the continuation of current threats, will
reduce habitat, further fragment populations, and likely cause
extirpations. Two of three of our plausible future scenarios project
the extirpation of three of the five assessed populations and a decline
in resiliency of the remaining two populations. Thus, we conclude that
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. In 2014, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (jointly, the Services) developed a ``Policy on Interpretation
of the Phrase `Significant Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of `Endangered Species' and `Threatened
Species' '' (2014 Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). However, the
court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289
(D.D.C. January 28, 2020), vacated the aspect of the 2014 Policy that
provided that the Services do not undertake an analysis of significant
portions of a species' range if the species warrants listing as
[[Page 64917]]
threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed to
evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion
of its range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species'
range for which both (1) the portion is significant, and (2) the
species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the
case, it might be more efficient for us to address the ``significance''
question or the ``status'' question first. We can choose to address
either question first. Regardless of which question we address first,
if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that
we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that
portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding referenced above, we now consider
whether there are any significant portions of the species' range where
the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, we
choose to address the significance question first. After evaluating
whether any portions of the species' range are significant, we address
the status question, considering information pertaining to the
geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the
species faces to determine whether the species is endangered in any of
those significant portions of the range.
Throughout the range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, there
are two portions that may be significant: The Northern Karst Region and
the West-central Volcanic-serpentine Region. The two regions may be
significant because, within each one, the physiography and life zones
are unique, and the populations contained in each region may harbor
adaptations specific to their regional environment. We therefore
consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of the
species and of the threats to the species in both of those significant
portions of its range to determine whether the species is endangered in
either portion.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the time horizon in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In neither potential
significant portion of its range is the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly in danger of extinction now. Thus, we considered the time
horizon for the threats that are driving the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of
its range. We examined the following threats: Urban and agricultural
development causing habitat loss or degradation, pesticide use
(including insecticides and herbicides), human-induced fire, and
climate change. While most of these threats are current and are
expected to continue, the species will experience the majority of the
effects of climate change in the foreseeable future. Collectively these
threats will contribute to additional habitat loss, fragmentation of
populations, and reductions in population resiliency, including likely
extirpation of three populations.
The threat of development and habitat degradation or loss is
concentrated in the Northern Karst region, particularly in the areas of
Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy (IQC) (see Threats, above). Although
there is a concentration of threats in the IQC, it contains the
greatest number of subpopulations and the largest population size among
the six Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly populations, so it has
moderate resiliency to environmental disturbance. The remainder of the
Northern Karst region (portion of the range) includes the R[iacute]o
Abajo and R[iacute]o Encantado areas, each with a moderately resilient
population, and the Guajataca population, whose status is currently
undetermined. Given the known current status (moderate resiliency) of
the populations in three occupied areas in the Northern Karst portion
of the range (IQC, R[iacute]o Abajo, and R[iacute]o Encantado), plus an
additional area with a population of undetermined status (Guajataca),
the species in this portion is not currently in danger of extinction.
The species also is not currently in danger of extinction in the West-
central Volcanic-serpentine region, because the condition of the
population in this portion of the range is sufficient to maintain
viability in the presence of ongoing threats. Additional factors
reducing the current or near-term likelihood of extirpation in the
West-central Volcanic-serpentine region are: (1) The occurrence of the
species on lands with large portions managed for conservation, and (2)
the absence of intense development (which would itself present a
concentration of threats) like that occurring in the Northern Karst
region. The two significant portions of the range (the Northern Karst
region and the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region) together
compose the entire range of the species, and the populations in each of
those portions are likely to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, the status of the species in each of
those portions, as well as rangewide, is threatened.
The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the
time horizon on which the species' response to the combined threats is
likely to affect the viability of the species is the foreseeable
future. In addition, the best scientific and commercial data available
do not indicate that any of the threats to the species and the species'
responses to those threats are more immediate in any portions of the
species' range. Therefore, we determine that the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is not in danger of extinction now in any portion of its
range, but that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This
analysis is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248
F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly meets
the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
[[Page 64918]]
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to
restore listed species to a point where--as secure, self-sustaining,
and functioning components of their ecosystems--they no longer meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Commonwealths, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions
include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation),
research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and
education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished
solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or
solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal
lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, Puerto Rico would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is only proposed for
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities funded or authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal
Communications Commission.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. The discussion below regarding protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy (see
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule).
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a particular species. For example, courts have upheld
rules developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency
authority where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include
a limited taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v.
Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules
that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the
legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an
animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an
[[Page 64919]]
almost infinite number of options available to him with regard to the
permitted activities for those species. He may, for example, permit
taking, but not importation of such species, or he may choose to forbid
both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such
species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's specific threats and conservation needs. Although the
statute does not require us to make a ``necessary and advisable''
finding with respect to the adoption of specific prohibitions under
section 9, we find that this rule as a whole satisfies the requirement
in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly. As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, we have concluded that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to urban development, habitat modification and
fragmentation, human-induced fire, pesticide use (including
insecticides and herbicides), and climate change. The provisions of
this proposed 4(d) rule would promote conservation of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly by encouraging management of the landscape in ways
that meet both land management considerations and the species'
conservation needs. The provisions of this proposed rule are one of
many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if
and when we make final the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly as a threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly by prohibiting the following
activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or
exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken
specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or shipping in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
Threats to the species are noted above in this section and
described in detail under Summary of Biological Status and Threats.
These threats are expected to affect the species in the foreseeable
future by fragmenting and reducing habitat, the critical component of
which is Oplonia spinosa, the sole host plant species for egg laying
and larval feeding.
A range of activities have the potential to affect the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. In particular, activities that remove the host
plant or clear forested land can harm or kill Puerto Rican harlequin
butterflies, reducing population size and viability. There is evidence
that the butterfly has been taken for private collections (Service
2019, p. 45), although there is no indication that this is a widespread
activity or is a major threat. Therefore, regulating activities that
remove host plant or forested habitat--including construction or
maintenance of roads or trails, buildings, utility corridors, or
communications towers--would help preserve remaining populations by
slowing the butterfly's rate of decline, and decrease synergistic,
negative effects from other threats.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
incidental and intentional take would help the species maintain
population size and resiliency.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
There are also certain statutory exceptions from the prohibitions,
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act, and other standard
exceptions from the prohibitions, which are found in our regulations at
50 CFR part 17, subparts C and D. Below, we describe these exceptions
to the prohibitions that we are proposing for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly.
Under our proposed 4(d) rule, take of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly would not be prohibited in the following instances:
Take is authorized by a permit issued in accordance with
50 CFR 17.32;
Take results from actions of an employee or agent of one
of the Services or of a State conservation agency that is operating
under a conservation program pursuant to the terms of a cooperative
agreement with the Service;
Take is in defense of human life; and
Take results from actions taken by representatives of one
of the Services or of a State conservation agency to aid a sick
specimen or to dispose of, salvage, or remove a dead specimen that is
reported to the Office of Law Enforcement.
We also propose to allow Federal and State law enforcement officers
to possess, deliver, carry, transport or ship any Puerto Rican
harlequin butterflies taken in violation of the Act as necessary in
performing their official duties.
In part, these exceptions to the prohibitions recognize the special
and unique relationship with our Commonwealth natural resource agency
partners in contributing to conservation of listed species.
Commonwealth agencies often possess scientific data and valuable
expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and
candidate species of wildlife and plants. Commonwealth agencies,
because of their authorities and their close working relationships with
local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist
the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard,
section 6 of the Act provides that the Service shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the Commonwealth in carrying out
programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or
agent of a Commonwealth conservation agency that is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c)
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes,
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly that may result in otherwise prohibited take
for wildlife without additional authorization.
In addition to the exceptions to the prohibitions described above,
we propose certain species-specific exceptions to the prohibitions to
provide for the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Under our proposed 4(d) rule, take of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly that is incidental to the following otherwise lawful
activities would not be prohibited:
(1) Normal agricultural practices, including pesticide use, which
are carried out in accordance with any
[[Page 64920]]
existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best
management practices, as long as the practices do not include clearing
or disturbing forest or Oplonia spinosa to create or expand
agricultural areas, or applying pesticides illegally (i.e., in
violation of label restrictions) in or adjacent to habitat known to be
occupied by Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly that may result in death
or injury of adults, eggs, larvae, or pupae.
(2) Normal residential and urban activities, such as mowing,
weeding, edging, and fertilizing.
(3) Maintenance of recreational trails in Commonwealth Forests by
mechanically clearing vegetation, only when approved by or under the
auspices of the DNER, or conducted on lands established by private
organizations or individuals solely for conservation or recreation.
(4) Habitat management or restoration activities expected to
provide a benefit to Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly or other
sensitive species, including removal of nonnative, invasive plants.
These activities must be coordinated with and reported to the Service
in writing and approved the first time an individual or agency
undertakes them.
(5) Projects requiring removal of the host plant to access and
remove illicit garbage dumps that are potential sources of
intentionally set fires, provided such projects are conducted in
coordination with and reported to the Service.
(6) Fruit fly trapping by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, provided trapping
activities do not disturb the host plant.
These activities, on rare occasion, may result in a limited amount
of take. For example, a branch of Oplonia spinosa with butterfly eggs
may be trimmed off the plant during lawn maintenance, or a plant with
caterpillars on it might get trampled during habitat restoration. While
such actions would affect individuals of the species, effects to
populations would be minimal. Additionally, habitat restoration
activities and garbage dump removal, which may cause limited take,
would contribute to conservation of Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
populations by expanding habitat suitable for the species.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in violation of section 9 of the Act; this list
is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species (adults, eggs,
caterpillars, or chrysalises), including transport across State lines
and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section
10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Unauthorized modification, removal, or destruction of Oplonia
spinosa plants that are occupied by the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly and that may result in death or injury of adults, eggs,
larvae, or pupae; and
(3) Illegal pesticide applications (i.e., in violation of label
restrictions) in or adjacent to (due to spray drift concerns) habitat
known to be occupied by Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly that may
result in death or injury of adults, eggs, larvae, or pupae.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. However,
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned
programmatic consultations for the species between Federal agencies and
the Service, where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly
Commonwealth agencies and other interested stakeholders that may be
affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and suggestions
regarding additional guidance and methods that the Service could
provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of this
proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
[[Page 64921]]
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or
biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, we focus on
the specific features that are essential to support the life-history
needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This requirement is contained in
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) and helps to ensure that all
unoccupied areas that are included in a critical habitat designation
constitute habitat for the species, in accordance with the recent
Supreme Court opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Serv., 586 U.S. __ (November 27, 2018).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by Commonwealths and municipalities; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
We have concluded that none of those five circumstances is present
with respect to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. As discussed
earlier in this document, there is currently no significant imminent
threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for this
species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not
expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSA and proposed listing
determination for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, we determined
that
[[Page 64922]]
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range is a threat to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
and that threat in some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2)
consultation measures. The species occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of
the United States, and we are able to identify areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Finally, there are no other
circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation
of critical habitat would be not prudent. Therefore, because none of
the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)
have been met, we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located and conclude that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats
that are protected from disturbance.
To identify the specific physical and biological needs of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, we evaluated current conditions at
locations where the species exists and best information available on
the species' biology. We derive the physical features required for the
species from the general description of the ecological regions where
the species occurs, models for climatic boundaries that characterize
the areas where the species occurs, and the forest types inhabited by
the species (Service 2019, entire). A crucial biological feature for
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is the host plant (Oplonia
spinosa), which is the only species upon which it lays its eggs and
then feeds on as a caterpillar (Service 2019, pp. 17-20).
As described earlier in this document (see Summary of Biological
Status and Threats), the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is known from
four populations in the Northern Karst region and two populations in
the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region of Puerto Rico. These two
ecological regions are delineated by their geology. Soils in the
Northern Karst region are derived from limestone, and soils in the
West-central Volcanic serpentine region are derived from serpentine
rock (Miller and Lugo 2009, p. 23). Physical properties specific to
each substrate foster the development of unique natural areas that
harbor distinctive forest types and wildlife habitat, which, in turn,
promote high levels of biological diversity (Cede[ntilde]o and Breckon
1996, p. 348; Lugo et al. 2001, p. 6).
Across these two regions, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
inhabits four life zones: (1) Subtropical moist forest on limestone-
derived soil; (2) subtropical wet forest on limestone-derived soil; (3)
subtropical wet forest on serpentine-derived soil; and (4) subtropical
moist forest on serpentine-derived soil (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 25;
Helmer et al. 2002, p. 169). These life zones are distinguished by mean
annual precipitation and mean annual temperature (Holdridge 1947,
entire; Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 4). Regardless of life zone and
forest type, the patches of native forest that the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly occupies are characterized by canopy cover ranging
from 50 to 85 percent, an average canopy height of 6 meters (m) (20
feet (ft)), and the host plant covering more than 30 percent of the
understory (Vargas 2019, entire).
Adults of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly have been observed
feeding on flowers of several native trees (see Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, above, and 76 FR 31282, May 31, 2011). All the
sites where the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly occurs have a close
(within a 1-km (0.6-mi) radius) water source (e.g., creek, river, pond,
puddle, etc.). Suitable sites must contain the right temperature range
that supports the biological needs of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly. Average daily maximum temperatures where the species occurs
range from 28 to 32 [deg]C (82 to 90 [deg]F), suggesting that the
species' ecological niche has evolved within this range of upper
thermal tolerance (Service 2019, p. 80). Moreover, exposure to high
temperature may cause dehydration in adults, which is a serious threat
due to their large
[[Page 64923]]
surface-to-volume ratio (Pometto 2014, p. 18). As a day-flier, the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly likely has a high need for water
because the species is active during the warmest time of the day, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Service 2019, p. 55).
The capacity for Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly populations to
grow and expand is limited by the quantity and quality of the habitat
and the connectivity among habitat patches. Healthy Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly populations rely on discrete high-quality habitat
patches as small as 1 ac (0.4 ha), separated by less than 1 km (0.6
mi), and embedded in a landscape with few barriers for dispersal of the
species (Monz[oacute]n 2007, p. 53; Morales and Estremera 2018, p. 1;
Barber 2019, p. 1). Populations in patches this small likely rely on
the existence of populations in nearby patches to ensure their long-
term persistence.
Connectivity must be adequate not only for an individual's foraging
needs, but to connect individual butterflies to a larger interbreeding
population, enhancing subpopulation resilience through both the rescue
effect and maintenance of genetic diversity. Moreover, forest
connectivity among suitable patches and water sources is essential for
dispersal. Three factors are likely essential to ensure a healthy
interaction among populations: Short distances between patches, high-
quality habitat, and few or no dispersal barriers. The Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly may not typically move greater than 1 km (0.6 mi)
between habitat patches separated by structurally similar natural
habitats, or through a mosaic of disturbed habitat including houses,
roads, and grass-dominated fields or pasture. Hence, habitat quality--
indicated by factors including density of Oplonia spinosa, amount and
quality of adult food sources, and water sources--plays an important
role in Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly colonization success.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly from studies
of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in this
document. Additional information can be found in the SSA report
(Service 2019, entire; available on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083). We have determined that the following
physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly:
1. Forest habitat types in the Northern Karst region in Puerto
Rico: Mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and semi-deciduous
forest, or young secondary moist limestone evergreen and semi-deciduous
forest, or both forest types, in subtropical moist forest or
subtropical wet forest life zones.
2. Forest habitat types in the West-central Volcanic-serpentine
region in Puerto Rico: Mature secondary dry and moist serpentine semi-
deciduous forest, or young secondary dry and moist serpentine semi-
deciduous forest, or both forest types, in subtropical moist forest or
subtropical wet forest life zones.
3. Components of the forest habitat types. The forest habitat types
described in 1. and 2., above, contain:
(i) Native forest area greater than 1 acre that is within 1 km (0.6
mi) of a water source (stream, pond, puddle, etc.) and other forested
area.
(ii) Canopy cover between 50 to 85 percent and canopy height
ranging from 4 to 8 m (13.1 to 26.2 ft).
(iii) Oplonia spinosa covering more than 30 percent of the
understory.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
The features essential to the conservation of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly may require special management considerations or
protections to reduce or mitigate the following threats: Land
conversion for urban and commercial use, road construction and
maintenance, utility and communications structures and corridors, and
agriculture; fires and garbage dumps (which are often the source of
fires); and climate change and drought. In particular, habitat that has
at any time supported a subpopulation will require protection from land
use change that would permanently remove host plant patches and nectar
sources, or that would destroy habitat containing adult nectar sources
that connects such host plant patches through which adults are likely
to move. These management activities will protect from losses of
habitat large enough to preclude conservation of the species.
Other special management protection considerations include
conservation efforts that have been directed towards land acquisition
and conservation easements by government and nongovernment
organizations (PRPB 2014, p. 19). In recent years, protection and
management of the habitat that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
shares with other federally and Commonwealth listed species (e.g., the
endangered Puerto Rican parrot (Amazona vittata), threatened elfin-
woods warbler (Setophaga angelae), and several plants, among others)
has become a high priority. For example, the Maricao Commonwealth
Forest comprises 3,996.2 ha (9,874.8 ac) of public land managed for
conservation (Caribbean LLC 2016, website data) that harbors habitat
for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Moreover, in 2000, DNER
acquired through the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest Legacy Program a
parcel of land of 107 ha (264.4 ac), locally known as ``Finca
Busig[oacute],'' adjacent to the Maricao Commonwealth Forest. This
parcel is located approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) from currently occupied
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly habitat and is managed for
conservation (Caribbean LLC 2016, website data). In addition, over
64,683.4 ha (159,836.4 ac) of native forest along the northern karst
belt are covered by the Karst Protection Law (Law for Protection and
Conservation of the Karst Physiography of Puerto Rico, Law No. 292)
providing protection of that habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. The areas proposed for designation
as critical habitat provide sufficient habitat for breeding,
nonbreeding, and dispersing adults of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, as well as the habitat needs for all larval stages of this
butterfly. The proposed critical habitat areas contain all the physical
and biological features defined for the species. We are not currently
proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the species because the occupied areas are sufficient to promote
conservation of the species and because we have not identified any
unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species
[[Page 64924]]
at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries
using the following criteria:
1. Forested habitat is currently occupied and contains some or all
of the physical or biological features.
2. Forested habitat is located between the breeding sites, and a 1-
km (0.6-mi) radius around each subpopulation both serves as an
extension of the habitat within the geographic area of an occupied unit
and promotes connectivity among the breeding sites in an occupied unit,
which will foster genetic exchange between subpopulations.
We evaluated those occupied forested habitats in criterion 1 and
refined the boundaries of the critical habitat area by evaluating the
presence or absence of appropriate physical or biological features in
criterion 2. We selected the forested habitat boundary cutoff points
(the edges or endpoints of the habitat with the physical or biological
features) to exclude areas that are highly degraded, already developed,
or not likely restorable; for example, areas permanently deforested by
urban development or frequently deforested for agricultural practices
(e.g., cattle rearing). Additionally, we used the forested habitat
cutoff points at the 2-km (1.2-mi) buffer zone around the species'
breeding sites to mark the boundary of a patch of land proposed for
designation because 1 km (0.6 mi) is the maximum distance the butterfly
has been observed to disperse to a mating site (Monzon 2007, p. 42).
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. The scale of the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. There are developed
areas (single houses and access roads) within the proposed designation,
which could affect the suitability of habitat for the species. Any such
lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on
the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the
proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal
action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied), and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species and that may require special management considerations.
We are proposing to designate six units as critical habitat based
on one or more of the physical or biological features being present to
support the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's life-history processes.
All proposed units contain all of the identified region-specific forest
habitat types and components of the forest habitat types that are the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly and support multiple life-history
processes.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0083 and our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly. The six areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1)
Isabela, Quebradillas and Camuy (IQC), (2) Guajataca, (3) R[iacute]o
Abajo, (4) R[iacute]o Encantado, (5) Maricao, and (6) Sus[uacute]a.
Table 4 shows the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate
area of each unit. All six units of proposed critical habitat are
considered occupied by the species.
Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit in acres
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares) Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. IQC.............................. Public................. 5.0 (2.0) Yes.
Private................ 1,670.7 (676.1)
Total.................. 1,675.7 (678.1)
2. Guajataca........................ Public................. 583.5 (236.1) Yes.
Private................ 3,255.5 (1,317.5)
Total.................. 3,839.0 (1,553.6)
3. R[iacute]o Abajo................. Public................. 4,544.4 (1,839.1) Yes.
Private................ 1,394.8 (564.5)
Total.................. 5,939.2 (2,403.6)
4. R[iacute]o Encantado............. Public................. 204.8 (82.9) Yes.
Private *.............. 12,570.8 (5,087.2)
Total.................. 12,775.6 (5,170.1)
5. Maricao.......................... Public................. 7,883.1 (3,190.2) Yes.
Private................ 2,971.5 (1,202.5)
Total.................. 10,854.6 (4,392.7)
6. Sus[uacute]a..................... Public................. 3,171.5 (1,283.5) Yes.
Private................ 3,010.4 (1,218.3)
Total.................. 6,181.9 (2,501.8)
--------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64925]]
Totals.......................... Public................. 16,392.3 (6,633.8) ........................
Private................ 24,873.7 (10,066.0)
Total.................. 41,266.0 (16,699.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1,442.6 private ac owned by Para La Naturaleza (PLN) and managed for conservation.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, below.
Unit 1: IQC
Unit 1 consists of 1,675.7 ac (678.1 ha) located along the northern
coastal cliff among the municipalities of Isabela, Quebradillas, and
Camuy (IQC), 23 km (15 mi) west of Arecibo. The proposed critical
habitat is bound on the east by the community La Yeguada and Membrillo
in Camuy, on the west by the community Villa Pesquera and Pueblo in
Isabela, on the north by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south by urban
developments, State road PR-2, the Royal Isabela Golf Course, and some
deforested areas used for agricultural practices such as cattle
grazing. In this unit, all life stages of the species (i.e., imago,
egg, larva, chrysalis, and adults) and the species' host plant have
been found in 115 sites.
Unit 1 is in the subtropical moist forest life zone. The forested
habitat is composed of young secondary lowland moist limestone
evergreen and semideciduous forest and mature secondary lowland moist
limestone evergreen and semideciduous forest (Gould et al. 2008, p.
14). Plant species in this unit include Oplonia spinosa and several
others that are sources of nectar for adult Puerto Rican harlequin
butterflies. The presence of rare plant taxa in this unit suggests it
contains relict and mature forest that survived the massive
deforestation of the 19th century (Morales and Estremera 2018, p. 1)
and has persisted as a refuge for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Unit 1 contains all the Northern Karst region forest habitat types and
components of those habitat types that are the essential physical and
biological features for the species.
A combination of habitat fragmentation and high road density is a
current and future threat to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly in
Unit 1. Habitat in Unit 1 has been lost to single land parcels
segregated for houses, and large-scale residential and tourist
projects, which are planned within and around northern Puerto Rico.
Special management considerations or protections in Unit 1 may be
required to address land conversion for urban and commercial use, road
construction and maintenance, utility and communications structures and
corridors, and agriculture; fires and garbage dumps (which are often
the source of fires); and climate change and drought.
Unit 2: Guajataca
Unit 2 consists of 3,839 ac (1,553.6 ha) south of PR 2, between the
municipalities Isabela and Quebradillas, 25 km (15.6 mi) southwest of
Arecibo. The proposed critical habitat is bounded on the east by the
San Antonio ward in Quebradillas, on the west by PR 446 at Galateo ward
in Isabela, on the north by Llanadas ward in Isabela and Cacao ward in
Quebradillas, and on the south by Monta[ntilde]as de Guarionex, between
the Planas ward in Isabela and Charcas ward in Quebradillas.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly was first found in Unit 2 in
July 2019. All life stages of the species and its host plant have been
found at six sites. Unit 2 is in the subtropical moist/wet-northern
limestone forest life zone (Helmer et al. 2002, p. 169). Habitat in
Unit 2 is composed of mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and
semideciduous forest (Gould et al. 2008, p. 14). Fifteen percent of the
proposed critical habitat in this unit overlaps Guajataca Commonwealth
Forest, an area managed by the DNER for conservation. The other 85
percent is private land subjected to agriculture or rural development.
Unit 2 contains all the Northern Karst region forest habitat types and
components of those habitat types that are the essential physical and
biological features for the species. Special management considerations
or protections in Unit 2 may be required to address land conversion for
rural development, road construction and maintenance, utility and
communications structures and corridors, and agriculture, as well as
climate change and drought.
Unit 3: R[iacute]o Abajo
Unit 3 consists of 5,939.2 ac (2,403.6 ha) located 14.5 km (9 mi)
south of Arecibo. The proposed critical habitat is bound on the east by
the R[iacute]o Grande de Arecibo, on the west by Santa Rosa Ward in
Utuado, on the north by Hato Viejo Ward in Arecibo, and on the south by
Caguana and Sabana Grande Wards in Utuado. In this unit, all life
stages of the species and the host plant have been found at four sites.
Unit 3 is in the subtropical moist/wet-northern limestone forest life
zone (Helmer et al. 2002, p. 169). The species' habitat in Unit 3 is
composed of mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and
semideciduous forest (Gould et al. 2008, p. 14). The R[iacute]o Abajo
Commonwealth Forest, managed for conservation, occupies 77 percent of
the unit. The other 23 percent is a mosaic of highways, roads, and
private lands subject to agriculture or rural development. Unit 3
contains all the Northern Karst region forest habitat types and
components of those habitat types that are the essential physical and
biological features for the species. Special management considerations
or protections in Unit 3 may be required to address land conversion for
rural development, road construction and maintenance, utility and
communications structures and corridors, and agriculture, as well as
climate change and drought.
Unit 4: R[iacute]o Encantado
Unit 4 consists of 12,775.6 ac (5,170.1 ha) located among the
municipalities of Arecibo, Florida, and Ciales, 17 km (10.5 mi)
southeast of Arecibo. The proposed critical habitat is bound on the
east by Hato Viejo Ward in Ciales, on the west by the R[iacute]o Grande
de Arecibo, on the north by Arrozales Ward in Arecibo and Pueblo Ward
in Florida, and on the south by the PR 146 along of the Lim[oacute]n
Ward in Utuado and Front[oacute]n Ward in Ciales. All life stages of
the species and the host plant have been found in nine sites. The unit
is in the subtropical moist/wet-northern limestone forest life zone
(Helmer et al. 2002, p. 169). The species' habitat in
[[Page 64926]]
Unit 4 is composed of mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and
semideciduous forest (Gould et al. 2008, p. 14). Thirteen percent of
the proposed critical habitat is in areas managed by Para La Naturaleza
(PLN), a private organization, or by the DNER for conservation. The
other 87 percent consists of private lands subject to agriculture or
rural developments. Unit 4 contains all the Northern Karst region
forest habitat types and components of those habitat types that are the
essential physical and biological features for the species. Special
management considerations or protections in Unit 4 may be required to
address land conversion for rural developments, road construction and
maintenance, utility and communications structures and corridors, and
agriculture, as well as climate change and drought.
Unit 5: Maricao
Unit 5 consists of 10,854.6 ac (4,392.7 ha) on the west end of the
Cordillerra Central, among the municipalities of Maricao, San
Germ[aacute]n, and Sabana Grande, 16.1 km (10 mi) southeast of
Mayag[uuml]ez. The proposed critical habitat is bound on the east by
Tabonuco Ward in Sabana Grande, on the west by Rosario Ward in San
Germ[aacute]n, on the north by Pueblo Ward of Maricao, and on the south
by the Guam[aacute] and Santana Ward of San Germ[aacute]n. All life
stages of the species and its host plant have been found at seven sites
in the unit. Unit 5 is in the subtropical wet forest life zone on
serpentine-derived soil and contains three types of forest: (1) Mature
secondary montane wet serpentine evergreen forest, (2) wet serpentine
shrub and woodland forest, and (3) mature secondary montane wet non-
calcareous evergreen forest (Gould et al. 2008, p. 14). The Maricao
Commonwealth Forest, managed for conservation by DNER, occupies 72
percent of the unit. The other 28 percent is private land consisting of
a mosaic of agriculture, rural developments, and forest. Unit 5
contains all the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region forest habitat
types and components of those habitat types that are the essential
physical and biological features for the species. Special management
considerations or protections in Unit 5 may be required to address land
conversion for rural developments, road construction and maintenance,
utility and communications structures and corridors, and agriculture;
fires and garbage dumps (which are often the source of fires); and
climate change and drought.
Unit 6: Sus[uacute]a
Unit 6 consists of 6,181.9 ac (2,501.8 ha) between the
municipalities of Sabana Grande and Yauco, 33.6 km (21 mi) northwest of
Ponce. The proposed critical habitat is bound on the east by the PR 371
in Almacigo Alto and Collores Wards in Yauco, on the west by Pueblo
Ward in Sabana Grande, on the north by Frailes Ward in Yauco, and on
the south by PR 368 in Sus[uacute]a Ward in Sabana Grande. All life
stages of the species and its host plant have been found at three sites
in this unit. Unit 6 is in the subtropical moist and subtropical wet
forest life zones, and contains mature secondary dry and moist
serpentine semi-deciduous forest and young secondary moist serpentine
evergreen and semi-deciduous forest. The Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth
Forest, managed by DNER for conservation, occupies 51 percent of the
proposed critical habitat in this unit. The other 49 percent is on
private lands subjected to agriculture or rural developments. Unit 6
contains all the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region forest habitat
types and components of those habitat types that are the essential
physical and biological features for the species. Special management
considerations or protections in Unit 6 may be required to address land
conversion for rural developments, road construction and maintenance,
utility and communications structures and corridors, and agriculture;
fires and garbage dumps (which are often the source of fires); and
climate change and drought.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on Commonwealth, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on Commonwealth, State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do
not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
[[Page 64927]]
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the ``destruction or adverse
modification'' determination is whether implementation of the proposed
Federal action directly or indirectly alters the designated critical
habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species. As
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species
and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removal of Oplonia spinosa host plants harboring eggs,
caterpillars, or chrysalises;
(2) Removal of a significant amount of O. spinosa or nectar source
plants, such that the value of the critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is appreciably
diminished; or
(3) Removal of native forest resulting in fragmentation such that
remaining forest patches are greater than 1 km (0.6 mi) apart or less
than 1 ac (0.4 ha) in size.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, residential
and commercial development, and conversion to agricultural fields or
pasture. Any of these activities could permanently eliminate or reduce
the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with a completed INRMP within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and
how much weight to give to any factor.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of
all efforts that provide protection to the species and its habitat even
absent a critical habitat designation (i.e., conservation of the
species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat
is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat,
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was
[[Page 64928]]
then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of
the designation of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly (IEc 2020, entire). We began by conducting a screening
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to
focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in
incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is
to filter out particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are
already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to
incur incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening
analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat
designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and
water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans,
best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area
as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately,
the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating
the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental
economic impacts as a result of the designation. If there are any
unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat designation, the
screening analysis also assesses whether any additional management or
conservation efforts may incur incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM
are what we consider our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly;
our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 7, 2020,
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) Construction and maintenance of highways,
roads, powerlines, and communications towers; and (2) conservation
projects conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency, and the
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. We considered each
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas where the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is present, Federal agencies would be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species.
If, when we list the species, we also finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly's critical habitat. Because the designation
of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that
it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are
attributable to the species being listed and those which would result
solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following
specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1)
The essential physical or biological features identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life-history
requirements of the species, and (2) any actions that would adversely
affect the essential physical or biological features of critical
habitat would also likely result in jeopardy to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly includes 41,266 ac (16,699.8 ha) in six units, all
which are occupied by the species. The proportion of private and public
ownership by unit is listed above in Table 4. All public ownership
consists of Commonwealth Forests managed by the DNER for conservation,
except 5 ac (2 ha) managed for recreation in Unit 1. Recreation is
restricted to hiking trails and, in a few areas, camping. In these
areas, it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Therefore, only
administrative costs are expected throughout the proposed critical
habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time
and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, in
most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative
in nature and would not be significant.
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities.
Activities we expect would be subject to consultations that may involve
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial
development on private lands. However, based on coordination efforts
with Commonwealth and local agencies, the cost to private entities
within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative
costs of less than $10,000 per consultation effort, year 2020 dollars);
therefore, they would not be significant.
As previously mentioned, the probable incremental economic impacts
of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly critical habitat designation
are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort. In
addition, there may be minor costs of conservation efforts resulting
from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This is due to
the species occupying all of the critical habitat units--because the
species occupies all of the designated units of critical habitat, any
action that would adversely modify any of the units would also likely
cause take of the species and jeopardize its continued existence. From
2015 to 2019, there were 4 technical assistance efforts, 14
[[Page 64929]]
informal consultations, and 1 formal consultation for three listed
species that overlap the range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
(IEc 2020, p. 11). The cost for each of these categories of action
related to section 7 was approximately $420, $2,500, and $5,300,
respectively. We do not expect designating critical habitat to result
in an increase in the number of these categories of action under
section 7 to consider only impacts on critical habitat because all of
the units are occupied. However, the cost of each action under section
7 may increase because of the additional time and resources needed to
consider the impacts on critical habitat and not just the impact on the
continued existence of the species. We anticipate that the additional
cost per year for all three of the categories of actions related to
section 7 to consider impacts on critical habitat for the Puerto Rico
harlequin butterfly--and therefore the incremental economic impact of
designating critical habitat--would be $42,300 (IEc 2020, p. 12). Thus,
the annual administrative burden will not reach $100 million.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our
required determinations. During the development of a final designation,
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any
additional information on economic impacts we receive during the public
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if
we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result
in the extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or
homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
Nevertheless, when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2),
the Service must consider impacts on national security, including
homeland security, on lands or areas not covered by section
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider for exclusion from
the designation areas for which DoD, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an
assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns.
We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts,
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental
impact on national security that would result from the designation of
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly are not owned, managed, or used by the DoD or
DHS, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or
homeland security. However, during the development of a final
designation we will consider any additional information received
through the public comment period on the impacts of the proposed
designation on national security or homeland security to determine
whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
information currently available or received during the public comment
period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed designation and
will determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2)
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors--including
whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in
the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are
non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of
the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly, and the proposed designation does not include any
Tribal lands or trust resources. Thus, we anticipate no impact on
Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional information we receive through the public comment period
regarding other relevant impacts to determine whether any specific
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
[[Page 64930]]
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has waived their review regarding
their significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently,
only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt
the proposed critical habitat designation. There is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not
directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities.
Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by
this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final as proposed,
the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
regulatory action because we believe this proposed rule is not
significant under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866
significance determination of this proposed rule.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. There are currently not any new planned
power line or pipeline corridors in the proposed critical habitat
units. If there is a Federal nexus for maintenance of existing power
supply structures and rights-of-way under section 7 of the Act, any
section 7 consultation for potential effects to critical habitat would
also be undertaken due to the presence of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly as a threatened species and several other federally listed
species that occupy the critical habitat. Therefore, any activities to
preclude destruction of adverse
[[Page 64931]]
modification of critical habitat--such as larval host plant and adult
nectar source plant surveys, avoidance of host plants that may have
eggs or larvae of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and avoidance
of insecticide and pesticide applications at project sites--would also
be needed to avoid jeopardy. Thus, costs of considering critical
habitat alone for a section 7 consultation would be entirely
administrative and less than $10,000 (IEc, 2020), with the burden
solely on the Service and Federal action agency. As such, energy
supply, distribution, or use would not be affected significantly if we
adopt this proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly affected because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly in a takings
implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to
regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas.
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are
prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings
implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and it
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly affected by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
[[Page 64932]]
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
proposed rule provides options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that no
Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, so no Tribal lands
would be affected by the proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Aurelia
Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document on September 25, 2020, for publication.
Dated: September 25, 2020.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Butterfly, Puerto
Rican harlequin'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under INSECTS to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * **
Insects
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Puerto Rican Atlantea tulita... Wherever found.... T [Federal Register
harlequin. citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.47(d);\4d\ 50 CFR
17.95(i).\CH\
* * * * * * **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.47 by adding a paragraph (d) to read as set forth
below:
Sec. 17.47 Special rules--insects.
* * * * *
(d) Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section and
Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to
solicit another to commit,
[[Page 64933]]
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this
species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b).
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1).
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1).
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e).
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f).
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Normal agricultural practices, including pesticide use, which
are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and
label requirements, and best management practices, as long as the
practices do not include clearing or disturbing forest or Oplonia
spinosa to create or expand agricultural areas; or applying pesticides
illegally (i.e., in violation of label restrictions) in or adjacent to
habitat known to be occupied by Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly that
may result in death or injury of adults, eggs, larvae, or pupae.
(B) Normal residential and urban activities, such as mowing,
weeding, edging, and fertilizing.
(C) Maintenance of recreational trails in Commonwealth Forests by
mechanically clearing vegetation, only when approved by or under the
auspices of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources, or conducted on lands established by private organizations
or individuals solely for conservation or recreation.
(D) Habitat management or restoration activities expected to
provide a benefit to Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly or other
sensitive species, including removal of nonnative, invasive plants.
These activities must be coordinated with and reported to the Service
in writing and approved the first time an individual or agency
undertakes them.
(E) Projects requiring removal of the host plant to access and
remove illicit garbage dumps that are potential sources of
intentionally set fires, provided such projects are conducted in
coordination with and reported to the Service.
(F) Fruit fly trapping by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, provided trapping
activities do not disturb the host plant.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.95(i) by adding an entry for ``Puerto Rican Harlequin
Butterfly (Atlantea tulita)'' in the same alphabetical order that it
appears in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Isabela, Quebradillas,
Camuy, Arecibo, Florida, Ciales, Utuado, Maricao, Yauco, Sabana Grande,
and San Germ[aacute]n municipalities, Puerto Rico, on the maps in this
entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
consist of the following components:
(i) Forest habitat types in the Northern Karst region in Puerto
Rico: Mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and semi-deciduous
forest, or young secondary moist limestone evergreen and semi-deciduous
forest, or both forest types, in subtropical moist forest or
subtropical wet forest life zones.
(ii) Forest habitat types in the West-central Volcanic-serpentine
region in Puerto Rico: Mature secondary dry and moist serpentine semi-
deciduous forest, or young secondary dry and moist serpentine semi-
deciduous forest, or both forest types, in subtropical moist forest or
subtropical wet forest life zones.
(iii) Components of forest habitat types: The forest habitat types
described in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this entry contain:
(A) Forest area greater than 1 acre that is within 1 kilometer of a
water source (stream, pond, puddle, etc.) and other forested area;
(B) Canopy cover between 50 to 85 percent and average canopy height
ranging from 4 to 8 meters (13.1 to 26.2 feet); and
(C) Oplonia spinosa covering more than 30 percent of the
understory.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created by delineating habitats that contain at least one or more of
the physical or biological features defined in paragraph (2) of this
entry. We use the digital landcover layer created by the Puerto Rico
GAP Analysis Project over a U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007 digital
orthophoto mosaic. The resulting critical habitat unit was then mapped
using State Plane North American Datum 83 coordinates. The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public
at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-
0083, and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
[[Page 64934]]
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC20.006
(6) Unit 1: IQC; Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy Municipalities,
Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 1,675.7 acres (678.1
hectares) located along the northern coastal cliff among the
municipalities of Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy (IQC), 23 kilometers
(15 miles) west of Arecibo. The critical habitat is bounded on the east
by the community La Yeguada and Membrillo in Camuy, on the west by the
community Villa Pesquera and Pueblo in Isabela, on the north by the
Atlantic Ocean, and on the south by urban developments, State road PR-
2, the Royal Isabela Golf Course, and some deforested areas utilized
for agricultural practices such as cattle grazing. All but 5 acres (2
hectares) of Unit 1 are in private ownership.
[[Page 64935]]
(ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC20.007
(7) Unit 2: Guajataca; Isabela and Quebradillas Municipalities,
Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 3,839 acres (1,553.6
hectares) south of PR 2, between the municipalities Isabela and
Quebradillas, 25 kilometers (15.6 miles) southwest of Arecibo. The
critical habitat is bounded on the east by the San Antonio ward in
Quebradillas, on the west by PR 446 at Galateo Ward in Isabela, on the
north by Llanadas Ward in Isabela and Cacao Ward in Quebradillas, and
on the south by Monta[ntilde]as de Guarionex, between Planas Ward in
Isabela and Charcas Ward in Quebradillas. In Unit 2, 583.5 acres (236.1
hectares) are public land, the Guajataca Commonwealth Forest, managed
by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
for conservation. Private land in Unit 2 is 3,255.5 acres (1,317.5
hectares) that is a mosaic of agricultural land, roads, rural
developments, and forest.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 is set forth at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: R[iacute]o Abajo; Arecibo and Utuado Municipalities,
Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 3 consists of 5,939.2 acres (2,403.6
hectares) located 14.5 kilometers (9 miles) south of Arecibo. The
critical habitat is bound on the east by the R[iacute]o Grande de
Arecibo, on the west by Santa Rosa Ward in Utuado, on the north by Hato
Viejo Ward in Arecibo, and on the south by Caguana and Sabana Grande
Wards in Utuado. The R[iacute]o Abajo Commonwealth Forest, managed for
conservation by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources, occupies 77 percent (4,544.4 acres (1,839.1 hectares)) of
the unit. The other 23 percent (1,394.8 acres (564.5 hectares)) is
privately owned and is a mosaic of highways, roads, agriculture, or
rural development.
[[Page 64936]]
(ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC20.008
(9) Unit 4: R[iacute]o Encantado; Arecibo, Florida, Ciales, and
Utuado Municipalities, Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 4 consists of 12,775.6 acres (5,170.1
hectares) located among the municipalities of Arecibo, Florida, Ciales,
and Utuado, 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Arecibo. The
critical habitat is bound on the east by Hato Viejo Ward in Ciales, on
the west by the R[iacute]o Grande de Arecibo, on the north by Arrozales
Ward in Arecibo and Pueblo Ward in Florida, and on the south by PR 146
along Lim[oacute]n Ward in Utuado and Front[oacute]n Ward in Ciales.
Thirteen percent of the critical habitat (204.8 acres (82.9 hectares))
is managed by Para La Naturaleza or by the Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources for conservation. The other 87
percent (12,570.8 acres (5,087.2 hectares)) consists of private lands,
some of which are agricultural fields, roads, and rural developments,
but a majority of which is mature native forest.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 is set forth at paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Maricao; Maricao, Sabana Grande, and San Germ[aacute]n
Municipalities, Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 5 consists of 10,854.6 acres (4,392.7
hectares) on the west end of the Cordillerra Central, among the
municipalities of Maricao, San Germ[aacute]n, and Sabana Grande, 16.1
kilometers (10 miles) southeast of Mayag[uuml]ez. The critical habitat
is bound on the east by Tabonuco Ward in Sabana Grande, on the west by
Rosario Ward in San Germ[aacute]n, on the north by Pueblo Ward in
Maricao, and on the south by Guam[aacute] and Santana Wards in San
Germ[aacute]n. The Maricao Commonwealth Forest, managed for
conservation by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources, occupies 72 percent (7,883.1 acres (3,190.2 hectares)) of
the unit. The other 28 percent (2,971.5 acres (1,202.5 hectares)) is
private land consisting of a mosaic of agriculture, rural developments,
and forest.
[[Page 64937]]
(ii) Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC20.009
(11) Unit 6: Sus[uacute]a; Sabana Grande and Yauco Municipalities,
Puerto Rico.
(i) General description: Unit 6 consists of 6,181.9 acres (2,501.8
hectares) between the municipalities of Sabana Grande and Yauco, 33.6
kilometers (21 miles) northwest of Ponce. The critical habitat is bound
on the east by the PR 371 in Almacigo Alto and Collores Wards in Yauco,
on the west by Pueblo Ward in Sabana Grande, on the north by Frailes
Ward in Yauco, and on the south by PR 368 in Sus[uacute]a Ward in
Sabana Grande. The Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest, managed by the
Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources for
conservation, occupies 51 percent (3,171.5 acres (1,283.5 hectares)) of
the critical habitat in this unit. The other 49 percent (3,010.4 acres
(1,218.3 hectares)) is on private lands that are a mosaic of
agriculture, rural developments, and forest.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 is set forth at paragraph (10)(ii) of this
entry.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-21620 Filed 10-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C