[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31282-31294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13224]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0026; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-
month finding on a petition to list the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly (Atlantea tulita) as endangered and to designate critical 
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After 
reviewing all available scientific and commercial information, we find 
that the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is warranted. 
Currently, however, listing the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is 
precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month 
petition finding, we will add the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to 
our candidate species list. If an emergency situation develops with 
this species that warrants an emergency listing, we will act 
immediately to provide additional protection. We will develop a 
proposed rule to list the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as our 
priorities allow. We will make any determination on critical habitat 
during development of the proposed listing rule. During any interim 
period, we will address the status of the candidate taxon through our 
annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0026. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, 
Road 301, Km. 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marelisa Rivera, Assistant Field 
Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, 
Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; by telephone at (787) 851-7297; or by 
facsimile at (787) 851-7440. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for any petition 
to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 
that contains substantial scientific and commercial information 
indicating that listing the species may

[[Page 31283]]

be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt 
of the petition. In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned 
action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted, but the 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action 
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species 
are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to 
add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is 
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date 
of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made 
within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 25, 2009, we received a petition dated February 24, 
2009, from Mr. Javier Biaggi-Caballero requesting that we list the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered and designate critical 
habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such 
and included the requisite identification information for the 
petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 9, 2009, 
letter to the petitioner, we responded that we had received the 
petition. We stated that we would make a finding, to the maximum extent 
practicable within 90 days, as to whether or not the petition presented 
substantial information.
    In that letter, we also stated that if the initial finding 
concludes that the petition presents substantial information indicating 
that the requested action may be warranted, we must commence a review 
of the status of the species concerned and at the conclusion of our 
status review, we would prepare and publish our 12-month finding on the 
petition to list the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered or 
threatened and, if prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat 
under the Act.
    On April 26, 2010, we published a 90-day finding (75 FR 21568) in 
which we concluded that the petition provided substantial information 
that listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly may be warranted, 
and we initiated a status review. To assist us in that status review, 
we requested comments and information from the public and asked that 
they be submitted on or before June 25, 2010. This notice constitutes 
the 12-month finding on the February 24, 2009, petition to list the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto Rico and 
is one of the four species endemic to the Greater Antillean genus 
Atlantea (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 1). The species was described by 
German lepidopterist Dr. Herman Dewitz in 1877, from specimens 
collected by Dr. Leopold Krug in the Municipality of Quebradillas, 
Puerto Rico.
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has a wing span of about 2 to 
2.5 inches (in) (6 centimeters (cm)) wide. Female and male harlequin 
butterflies are similar in color patterns and size. This butterfly is 
brownish black at the dorsal area with deep orange markings and 
confused black markings at the half basal anterior wing. The posterior 
wing has a wide black border enclosing a set of reddish-bronze sub-
marginal points. The ventral side of the anterior wing is similar to 
the dorsal anterior wing, and the posterior is black with orange basal 
spots and a complete postdiscal beige band with a band of reddish spots 
distally and sub-marginal white half-moons. The costa, the most 
anterior (leading) edge of a wing, in males is gray and wide.
    Females are multivoltine ovipositors (they produce several broods 
in a single season) (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 2).

Habitat

    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly occurs within the subtropical 
moist forest life zone on limestone-derived soil in the Northern karst 
Region (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 25) and in the subtropical wet 
forest on serpentine-derived soil in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest 
(Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 32). The subtropical moist forest life zone 
on limestone-derived soil covers about 1.15 percent (10,338 ha 
(25,545.75 ac)) of the total area of Puerto Rico (USDA 2008, p. 21), 
however, the subtropical wet forest on serpentine-derived soil cover 
about 0.04 percent (358 ha (884.63 ac)) of the total area of Puerto 
Rico (USDA 2008, p. 20). It has been observed on a forest associated 
with the coastal cliffs of the area in Quebradillas and on 
sclerophullous forest (type of vegetation characterized by hard, 
leathery, evergreen foliage that is specially adapted to prevent 
moisture loss) in Maricao Commonwealth Forest. The vegetation in the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's habitat in Quebradillas consists of 
Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush), Cocoloba uvifera (sea grape), Boureria 
suculenta (palo de vaca), Lantana camara (cariaquillo), Lantana 
imvolucrata (cariaquillo), Randia aculeate (tintillo), Vernonia 
albicaulis (no common name), Poitea paucifolia (no common name), 
Leucaena leucocephala (leucaena), Eupatorium odoratum (no common name), 
Erithalis fructicosa (no common name), Distictis lactifolia (no common 
name), Bidens pilosa (no common name), Croton rigidus (adormidera), 
Staehytarpeta jamaicensis (no common name), Stigmaphyllon emargiuatum 
(bull reed), and Tabebuia heterophylla (roble).
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only been observed 
utilizing the Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (plant 
used for laying the eggs and serves as a food source for the 
development of the larvae). Oplonia spinosa is a common tropical 
coastal shrub and is widely distributed in Puerto Rico. The Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly only lays eggs in the vegetative (green) 
stems on the apical zone (the tenderest zone on Oplonia spinosa new 
growth) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). No other stage of host plant is 
used for ovoposition (action of laying eggs). The chrysalis is also 
attached to dried twigs of the host plant (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 
3). The adult butterflies feed from the nectars of the flowers 
available at the site but have not been observed feeding from the 
prickly bush. The majority of the individuals were found feeding on 
flowers of sea grape, palo de vaca, and cariaquillo.
    Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 40) states that the dispersion of 
the species is limited by the monophagus habit of the larvae (only 
utilizes the prickly bush). Additionally, the butterfly flies slowly 
and is weak and fragile; the species is considered relatively sedentary 
(not able to move or disperse in a given environment) (Carri[oacute]n-
Cabrera 2003, p. 51).

Distribution

    The historic range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly includes 
the Northern karst Region, the Central-western Volcanic Region, and the 
Southern karst Region of Puerto Rico. Within these three regions, the 
species historically had been reported from five municipalities: (1) In 
the Northern karst Region, the species was reported from the 
Municipalities of Quebradillas and Arecibo; (2) in the Central-western 
Volcanic Region, the species was reported from the Municipalities of 
Maricao and Sabana Grande; and (3) in the Southern karst Region, the 
species was reported from the Municipality of Pe[ntilde]uelas 
(Carri[oacute]n-Cabreara 2003, p. 32).
    Recently, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has been reported 
from two populations in two regions: (1) The

[[Page 31284]]

Quebradillas population in the Northern karst Region, and (2) the 
Maricao population in the Central-western Volcanic-Serpentine Region 
(P[eacute]rez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 94). The Quebradillas population 
occurs in approximately 144 ha (356 acres) strip of forested habitat 
located on the northern coastal cliff between the Municipalities of 
Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 4). Here, 
the species' habitat is limited to the east by the Bellacas Creek, to 
the west by the Guajataca River, to the north by the Atlantic Ocean, 
and to the south by Puerto Rico (PR) Highway 2 (a state road that runs 
parallel to the north coast from Aguadilla to San Juan) and deforested 
areas utilized for agricultural practices such as cattle grazing. 
Within the Northern karst Region, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
occurs in:
     10 scattered patches in the Terranova and San Jos[eacute] 
wards in the Municipality of Quebradillas that occupy an area of 1.05 
ha (2.6 acres (10,525 square meters)) (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 
42);
     One patch in the forested cliff of Coto ward in the 
Municipality of Isabela (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 41) that occupy 
an area of 0.26 ha (0.65 acres (2,630.5 square meters)); and
     One small patch in Puerto Ermina in the Municipality of 
Camuy (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, pers. comm.).
    The Quebradillas population occurs in private lands and public 
lands. Five of the 10 patches known in the Municipality of Quebradillas 
fall within El Merendero, a public land managed for recreation 
(Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 84). The other 7 patches, including the 
patch in the Municipality of Isabela and the patch in the Municipality 
of Camuy are located in private lands.
    In the Central-western Volcanic-Serpentine Region, the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly occurs in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest, a public 
forest managed for conservation by the Puerto Rico Department of 
Natural and Environmental Resources. The Maricao Commonwealth Forest is 
located between the Municipalities of Maricao and Sabana Grande in the 
central-west section of the island to the west of Mayaguez, 
approximately 108.88 kilometers (km) (67.66 miles (mi)) from San Juan 
(P[eacute]rez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 94). The discrete population of 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterflies occurs near PR Highway 120, a state 
road that provides access from the Municipality of Maricao to the 
Municipality of Sabana Grande.
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has not been found in the 
Southern karst Region since 1926 (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 4).
    Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 60) observed only 235 Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly imagoes (mature adult stage) in 12 months of 
surveys (2 sample days per month) on 0.82 acre in Quebradillas. 
However, more recently, Biaggi-Caballero (2009, p. 4) estimated the 
population to be 45 or fewer adults on any given day in the 
Municipality of Quebradillas. Larva counts were reported to be between 
10 and 100 per census day (2 man-hours of search efforts), and the 
presence of more than one generation confirms the species' multivoltine 
(producing several broods in a season) nature. From July to December, 
the larva population is lower than during the rest of the year.
    Since 2002, only 3 imagoes (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 5) and 12 
larvae (H. Torres 2010, pers. comm.) of the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly have been reported in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest between 
the 16.0-km (9.94-mi) and 16.8-km (10.44-mi) points of PR Highway 120.

       Table 1--Current Distribution of the Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly in Puerto Rico (USFWS, 2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Estimated         Hectare (ha)
     Regions of Puerto Rico         Municipalities        populations           (acres)        Species presence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Karst Region...........  Isabela,            45 or less imagoes/ 1.3 ha (3.2 acres)  Current population
                                   Quebradillas and    10 to 100 larva     (Monz[oacute]n-     (Biaggi-Caballero
                                   Camuy.              (Carri[oacute]n-    Carmona 2007, p.    2010, p. 4).
                                                       Cabreara 2003, p.   44).
                                                       34).
Central-western Volcanic-         Maricao...........  No more than 5      Not determinate     Current population
 Serpentine Region.                                    imagoes/no more     (unknown).          (P[eacute]rez-
                                                       than 10 larva                           Asso et al. 2009,
                                                       (Carri[oacute]n-                        p. 94).
                                                       Cabrera 2003, p.
                                                       48).
                                  Sabana Grande.....  Unknown...........  Unknown...........  Not observed since
                                                                                               1980's (Biaggi-
                                                                                               Caballero 2010,
                                                                                               p. 4).
Southern Karst Region...........  Pe[ntilde]uelas...  Unknown...........  Unknown...........  Not observed since
                                                                                               1926 (Biaggi-
                                                                                               Caballero 2010,
                                                                                               p. 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly population has been estimated 
at around 50 imagoes in the Northern karst Region (Biaggi-Caballero 
2009, p. 4) and fewer than 20 imagoes in the Volcanic-serpentine center 
mountain of the island (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 48).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, 
removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
education purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly in relation to the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor 
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way 
that causes actual impacts the species. If there is exposure to a 
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat 
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant 
a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes 
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species 
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms

[[Page 31285]]

are defined in the Act. However, the identification of the factors that 
could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include 
evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats 
that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

    Habitat modification and habitat fragmentation have been identified 
by species experts as the main threat to the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 44; Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 
2007, p. 54; Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 1; P[eacute]rez-Asso et al. 
2009, p. 11; DNER 2010, p. 11). The consequences of the loss and 
fragmentation of natural habitat for the species is detrimental because 
the species: (a) Is sedentary, (b) has limited distribution, (c) has 
highly specialized ecological requirements (discussed in more detail 
under Factor E), and (d) is considered a specialist species because of 
the larvae's monophagous habit of feeding only on Oplonia spinosa 
(Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 40).
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly faces significant threats from 
the existing and imminent destruction, modification, and curtailment of 
its habitat and geographic range in the Municipalities of Isabella, 
Quebradillas, and Camuy. Most of the suitable habitat for the species, 
especially in the Municipality of Quebradillas, is currently fragmented 
by urban development. Dr. Stuart Ramos reported that, in 1997, one of 
the healthiest populations of the species showed a drastic decrease 
after the use of heavy equipment to clear vegetation in the Puente 
Blanco area (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 13). Biaggi-Caballero 
(2010, p. 3) expects that between 2010 and 2011 more than 30 percent of 
existing habitat in the Municipality of Quebradillas would be lost as a 
result of urban development. In areas where undeveloped land remains, 
the species' larval food plant is likely to be affected by existing 
agricultural practices that result in deforestation to increase grass 
lands, such as cattle grazing.
    Currently, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is threatened by 
large-scale residential and tourist projects, which are planned within 
and around its habitat in northern Puerto Rico. For instance, in the 
municipalities of Isabella and Quebradillas, occupied suitable habitat 
is within an area classified by both municipalities and the Puerto Rico 
Planning Board (PRPB) as a ``Zone of Tourist Interest'' (PRPB 2009, 
online data at http://www.jp.gobierno.pr). Zone of Tourist Interest is 
an area that by its natural features and historic value has the 
potential to be developed to promote tourisms. Further, the coastline 
of Isabella and Quebradillas is under pressure of urban and tourist 
development, with only small remnants of coastal vegetation conserved 
in the steeper areas of the northern cliff. In this area, landowners 
clear vegetative cover to the edge of the cliff so that potential 
buyers have a better view of the property and its landscape (Biaggi-
Caballero 2010, p. 9). According to the PRPB, 11 development projects 
are under evaluation around the species' habitat, possibly affecting 
74.8 cuerdas (29.4 ha (72.6 ac)) in Quebradillas (PRPB 2010, online 
data). Urban development in or around the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly's habitat would directly and indirectly fragment and impact 
its habitat and would limit its population expansion in the area.
    Additionally, the establishment of residential and tourist 
developments is expected to increase traffic and therefore is likely to 
require road improvements in proximity to the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly's habitat. The biological effects to the species of the 
existing roads have not been studied and are not understood in 
Quebradillas and Maricao. However, increasing vehicle traffic on the 
roads within the essential habitat of a species with difficulties to 
move or disperse can result in mortality due to collisions and, in some 
instances, can be catastrophic to the population and should not be 
underestimated (Glista 2007, p. 85). The combination of habitat 
fragmentation and high road density may negatively impact the species 
and its habitat.
Summary of Factor A
    Based on the above, we believe that the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly is currently threatened by residential and tourist 
development and habitat fragmentation. Development and habitat 
fragmentation within suitable habitat would substantially affect the 
distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat, 
throughout its range. The scope and timing of this factor are 
considered by the Service to be high and imminent because the known 
populations occur in areas that are subject to development, increased 
traffic, and increased road maintenance and construction. Therefore, 
based on the existing and likely future trends in habitat loss and 
fragmentation from development, we find that the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly is threatened by the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    An unknown number of Puerto Rican harlequin butterflies have been 
collected for scientific purposes and deposited in universities and 
private collections (J. Biaggi-Caballero 2011, pers. comm.). However, 
at the present time, only a few researchers are working with the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly, and collection of the species is regulated 
by Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 
(DNER).
    We are not aware of any information that indicates the butterflies 
are being sought by collectors or collected for other purposes. 
Therefore, we do not find that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p. 8) suggests the abundance of spiders 
(Misumenus bubulcus, Peucetia viridians, Argiope argentata and Nephila 
clavipes) as a possible source of predation to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly. He also mentions lizards (Anolis cristatellus and 
Anolis striatus) and birds (Tyrannus dominguensis, Dendroinca adelaida 
adelaida, and Quiscalus brachypterus) as possible predators. Although 
no predator has been documented attacking and eating imagoes, larvae, 
or eggs, the sudden disappearance of larvae under observation suggests 
depredation (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 8). Although the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly may face predation by spiders, lizards, and birds, 
we are not aware of any data that indicate that predation is a 
significant threat to the species.
    We are not aware of any information regarding any impacts from 
either disease or predation on the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. 
Therefore, we do not find that disease or predation threatens the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 
(DNER) designated the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as Critically 
Endangered under Commonwealth Law

[[Page 31286]]

241 and Regulation 6766 on February 11, 2004 (DNER 2007, p. 42; DNER 
2010, p. 1). Article 2 of Regulation 6766 includes all prohibitions and 
states that the designation as `critically endangered' prohibits any 
person to take the species; including harm, possess, transport, 
destroy, import or export individuals, nests, eggs, or juveniles 
without previous authorization from the Secretary of DNER (DNER 2007, 
p. 28). At the present time, the DNER has not designated critical 
habitat for the species under Regulation 6766. Therefore, protection of 
the species' habitat does not exist at this time.
    Although the Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 provide 
adequate protection for the species, however the lack of effectiveness 
of enforcement makes them inadequate for the protection of the habitat 
of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and particularly its host 
plant (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9). Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p. 9) 
states that constant violation of the law occurs when the species' 
habitat is modified, destroyed, or fragmented by urban development and 
vegetation-clearing activities. The host plant is considered a common 
species associated with edges of forested lands and is not protected by 
Commonwealth Law 241 or Regulation 6766. Under Factor A and Factor E, 
we discuss in more detail certain cases of lack of enforcement that 
have led to threats to the species and its habitat. For these reasons, 
we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to 
protect the habitat of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Summary of Factor D
    Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 provide protection for the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly but not to its habitat. Based on the 
above information, we conclude that the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly is threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    Based on a review of the best available information, we have 
determined that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly may also be 
threatened by: Its limited distribution, low reproductive capacity, and 
ecological requirements; human-induced fire; use of herbicides and 
pesticides; vegetation management; and climate change.
Limited Distribution
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is vulnerable to extinction 
due to low population numbers and restricted distribution (only two 
isolated colonies), coupled with habitat alteration or loss, and the 
monophagus habit of its larvae (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 40). 
The Quebradillas population occupy about 0.9 percent of the total area 
of the forested habitat located on the northern cliff between the 
Municipality of Isabela, Quebradillas and Camuy. For instance, in 
Quebradillas, where the most significant population occurs, the species 
occupies only 10,525 square meters (m[sup2]) (2.6 ac[sup2] (1.05 
ha[sup2])) distributed in 10 scattered patches that fluctuate from 77 
m[sup2] (0.019 ac[sup2] (0.007 ha[sup2])) to 3,287 m[sup2] (0.812 
ac[sup2] (0.387 ha[sup2])) (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 44). Its 
small range may reflect a remnant population of a once widely-
distributed butterfly whose habitat has been altered or lost due to 
previous land uses. Dr. Hernan Torres, entomologist at the University 
of Puerto Rico, suggests that its limited distribution may be an effect 
of deforestation for agricultural practices and of pesticides uses for 
pest and mosquito control (H. Torres 2010, pers. comm.).
    Although the host plant Oplonia spinosa has been found widely 
distributed throughout Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly was only detected in two localities (Carri[oacute]n-Cabreara 
2003, p. 39). Additionally, Monz[oacute]n-Carmona (2007, p. 43) 
suggests that although the species can disperse several hundred meters 
(approximately 800 meters (2,625 feet)) and has the capacity to 
colonize adjacent patches of Oplonia spinosa, it also shows the 
smallest geographic range of any butterfly in Puerto Rico. This 
information suggests that the current limited distribution of the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is based on an undetermined ecological 
requirement of the species found in these particular sites at Isabela, 
Quebradillas, Camuy and Maricao.
Low Reproductive Capacity and Highly Specialized Ecological 
Requirements
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's low reproductive capacity 
and its highly specific ecological requirements for reproduction are a 
threat to the species because it has been reduced from a larger 
historical range and population size, and these characteristics make 
the species less resilient and resistant to stressors that may impact 
existing popluations. Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 60) conducted a 
species survey where only 235 adult individuals were observed in 12 
months. Eggs and larvae have been found only on Oplonia spinosa 
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). Its broods generally contain 50 to 150 
eggs, with an average of 102 eggs per brood (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 
2003, p. 38). The author also found that the number of larvae decreased 
as the number of adult individuals increased. This information suggests 
that the population dynamic of the species may be synchronized with an 
undetermined environmental factor (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 46).
Human-Induced Fire
    Human-induced fire is a current threat for the species at 
Quebradillas and at Maricao (Biaggi-Caballero 2009 p. 5; Biaggi-
Caballero 2010, p. 10). Fire may kill adult, young and larva of Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly, and temporarily/permanent eliminates its 
habitat. The Maricao Commonwealth Forest had been subjected to human-
induced fire, affecting habitat potentially used by the species. At the 
Maricao Commonwealth Forest, the species occurs in the driest section 
of the forest near PR Road 120. On February 25, 2005, arson burned more 
than 400 acres with unknown effects to the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly population (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 10). This fire likely 
had at least temporary effects on the butterfly's habitat, but we have 
no information regarding these effects and whether or not they were 
permanent. In Quebradillas, the species' habitat in the Puente Blanco 
area (which is where the most significant population occurs) is 
threatened by fires associated with clandestine garbage dumps on Road 
4485 (DENR 2010, unpublished data, p. 23).
Use of Herbicides and Pesticides
    The use of herbicides is a current threat to the species and its 
host plant, Oplonia spinosa, which is found at the edges of roads and 
open areas. The use of herbicides is a current practice implemented by 
neighborhoods to eliminate vegetation along the access road to Puente 
Blanco (Road 4485) and private properties, and it affects an 
undetermined number of Oplonia spinosa plants in Quebradillas (C. 
Pacheco, USFWS, personal observation 2009).
    Further, fumigation programs are being implemented by the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and local health officials at Terranova and 
San Jos[eacute] wards to control dengue fever (a virus-based disease 
spread by mosquitoes) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9). The area where 
this population occurs in Quebradillas is surrounded by

[[Page 31287]]

residential development. No pesticide use guidelines have been 
developed where the species occurs (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9).
Vegetation Management
    Vegetation management at El Merendero in Quebradillas (public land 
managed as a recreational area and where the species currently occurs) 
may adversely affect the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly and its host 
plant. Oplonia spinosa grows on both sides of the existing hiking 
trails and around the picnic areas. Maintenance personnel frequently 
trim the new growth of Oplonia spinosa to remove vegetation from the 
trails and picnic areas. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly uses the 
tenderest vegetative branches of new growth of the host plant for 
bearing its eggs and feeding during the larval stages (Biaggi-Caballero 
2010, p. 2). Trimming the host plant and clearing the vegetation in 
these areas may result in mortality of the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly's eggs and larvae. Currently, no guidelines about vegetation 
management and clearing have been developed to avoid or minimize 
effects to the species and its host plant.
Climate Change
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, 
p. 30). 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. 7). 
While continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is 
unknown in many cases.
    Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, that are 
limited in distribution or that have become restricted to the extreme 
periphery of their range will be most susceptible to the impacts of 
climate change. As previously mentioned, the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly is only known from the North karst Region and the central-
western Volcanic-serpentine Region of Puerto Rico, and requires a very 
specialized habitat type. Therefore, we found the data to be 
restrictive and did not find any site-specific climate change 
information for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly or its habitat. We 
searched for studies and literature related to the effects of climate 
change throughout the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's historical and 
currently known range and did not identify any data related to the 
effects of climate change on the species. We also searched for similar 
data related to the prickly bush and did not find any data. 
Additionally, there is no information regarding naturally occurring 
fires, wind patterns, and extreme weather (including droughts, heavy 
precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones) as a 
result of weather. Potential effects of climate change on the species 
and its habitat are currently unknown. Therefore, at this time, we do 
not consider climate change to be a threat to the species and its 
habitat.
Summary of Factor E
    The primary natural or manmade threats to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly appear to be the species' limited distribution and 
its highly specialized ecological requirements. The scope of these 
threats is considered high and imminent. These threats may promote 
susceptibility to declines and affect the species' populations directly 
during all life stages. [ In combination or by themselves, the primary 
natural or manmade threats explained above may exacerbate the 
intensity, duration, and exposure level of any other threats acting 
upon the species, including the use of herbicides and pesticides, 
vegetation management, and human-induced fires. Based on this 
information, we conclude that other natural or manmade factors 
affecting the continued existence of the species constitute a threat to 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly now, and that this threat is 
expected to continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable 
future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly is endangered or threatened throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the petition, 
information available in our files, other available published and 
unpublished information, and we consulted with Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly experts and other Federal and State agencies.
    This status review identified threats to the species attributable 
to Factors A, D, and E. One of the primary threats to the species comes 
from the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
(Factor A) in the form of past, current, and future urban, 
agricultural, and commercial development. Available information 
indicates that a substantial portion of the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly's habitat will be affected in the near future. One of the 
surviving populations is located on private lands and the other 
population is located in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest. Any habitat 
modification that results in loss or fragmentation may cause 
irreversible damage to the species' natural habitat and will cause 
further declines in the number of individuals. Threats by modification 
of the natural habitat are evidenced by the decrease in individuals in 
recent years and by development pressure on Quebradillas (see Factor 
A).
    The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) is a 
threat because populations located on public and private lands lack 
effective enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
    We also consider the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's limited 
distribution and specialized ecological requirements (Factor E) to be 
significant threats to the species and its habitat. The use of 
herbicides and hand-clearing of vegetation may change the conditions 
necessary for the species to complete its cycle or life, and may affect 
Oplonia spinosa's seed germination or seedling recruitment at 
Quebradillas. However, at this time, we have no evidence of any 
regulation of pesticide or herbicide use, or of manual cutting of 
vegetation in and around the species' habitat. Additionally, the 
effects of fire on the population is unclear at Maricao (see Factor E). 
In addition, the low numbers of individuals per population, the 
specialist requirements of the species, and fragmented distribution may 
threaten the existence of the species (see Factor E).
    The Service does not have information that suggests overutilization 
(Factor B) or disease and predation (Factor C) may threaten the 
continued existence of the species. In general, the majority of the 
factors mentioned in the five-factor analysis may adversely affect the 
known populations of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Depending on 
the intensity and the immediacy of such threats, these factors, either 
by themselves or in combination, are operative threats that act on the 
species and its habitat.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly as endangered or threatened is warranted. Moreover, because 
of the small and restricted

[[Page 31288]]

populations of this species and because of the threats described above, 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly should be listed as endangered or 
threatened throughout its entire range. We will make a determination on 
the status of the species as endangered or threatened during the 
proposed listing process. As explained in more detail below, an 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is 
precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing 
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now 
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We 
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species is not warranted for this species at this time, even though the 
threats are of a high magnitude and imminent. We base that decision on 
the existence of two populations known to occur in Puerto Rico. We do 
not have any information that these populations are at risk of 
extinction now. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an 
emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is warranted, we 
will initiate such action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the 
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending 
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and 
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of 
vertebrates). We assigned the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly a 
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2 based on our finding that the 
species faces threats that are of high magnitude and are imminent. 
These threats include the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat; the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting 
the species' continued existence. This is the highest priority that can 
be provided to this species under our guidance. Our rationale for 
assigning the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly an LPN of 2 is outlined 
below.
    Under the Service's LPN guidance, the magnitude of threats is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threats 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their existence. These 
species receive the highest listing priority. We consider the threats 
to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to be high in magnitude because 
many of the threats that we analyzed are present throughout the range 
and are likely to result in an adverse impacts to the status of the 
species because of its small population size and limited distribution.
    Under our LPN guidance, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that species facing actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are will likely occur in the future, or species that are intrinsically 
vulnerable but are not known to be presently facing threats. Not all 
threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are imminent, but we do 
have evidence of some currently ongoing threats. Studies show that the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is limited by its lack of recruitment 
and low reproductive capacity, both of which are likely due to habitat 
fragmentation.
    Threats under Factor A are high in magnitude and imminent because 
the known populations occur in areas subject to development, increased 
traffic, and increased road maintenance and construction. The potential 
for inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) due to enforcement 
is considered moderate in magnitude and imminent. The majority of the 
threats under Factor E are high in magnitude and imminent because they 
are currently occurring throughout the range of the species and result 
in the lack of successful recruitment. Threats under Factor E have 
occurred in the past and are clearly a threat today and in the near 
future. These impacts directly affect the species' ability to reproduce 
and expand to larger areas, and may promote susceptibility to 
population declines.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. We have carefully reviewed the 
available taxonomic information to reach the conclusion that Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly is a valid taxon at the species level. The 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly faces high magnitude, imminent 
threats. Thus, in accordance with our LPN guidance, we have assigned 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly an LPN of 2.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly, and the species' status, on an annual basis, and 
should the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will 
revise the LPN accordingly.
    Work on a proposed listing determination for the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly is precluded by work on higher priority listing 
actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved 
deadlines and final listing determinations for those species that were 
proposed for listing with funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work 
includes all the actions listed in the tables below under Preclusion 
and Expeditious Progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative 
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given 
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible 
to undertake work on a listing proposal or whether promulgation of such 
a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The 
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive 
and may include, but is not

[[Page 31289]]

limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial 
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our 
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, 
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed 
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The 
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is 
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more 
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for 
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; 
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended 
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for 
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent 
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see 
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107--103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to 
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of 
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund 
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so 
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do plan to use 
some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of 
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated 
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis 
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The 
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species 
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory 
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the 
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay 
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the 
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a 
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a 
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that 
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent 
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a 
``substantial information'' finding (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), that 
finding is made at the point when the Service is deciding whether or 
not to commence a status review that will determine the degree of 
threats facing the species, and therefore the analysis underlying the 
statement is more relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded 
finding, which is made when the Service has already determined the 
degree of threats facing the species and is deciding whether or not to 
commence a rulemaking.
    In FY 2011, on April 9, 2011, Congress passed a continuing 
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level through 
April 15, 2011. Until Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011 at a 
different level, we will fund listing work based on the FY 2010 amount. 
Thus, at this time in FY 2011, the Service anticipates an appropriation 
of $22,103,000 for the listing program based on FY 2010 appropriations. 
Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate $11,632,000 for 
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also 
$500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. 
The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work in the following 
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement 
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations 
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010, 
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is 
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to 
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance 
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, it is 
unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any new listing 
determination for candidate species in FY 2011.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to 
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to 
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on 
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available 
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been 
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species 
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many 
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus 
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific 
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table 
(part of our administrative record).
    For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is precluded by court-ordered and 
court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute 
statutory deadlines, work on final listing determinations for those 
species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 2011, and 
work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species 
with a higher listing priority.

[[Page 31290]]

    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number 
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each 
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats 
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or 
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of 
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a 
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population 
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing 
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species 
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
    Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have 
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the 
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank; Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe); Heritage threat rank 
(provided by NatureServe); and species currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest 
IUCN rank (critically endangered); the highest Heritage rank (G1); the 
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats); and 
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, 
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority 
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we 
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we 
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN 
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate 
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened 
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing 
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on 
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine 
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
    With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have 
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible 
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding, 
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the 
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for 
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not 
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in 
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of 
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far 
during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting rule.) Given the 
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making 
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress 
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

                                        FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Publication date                 Title                   Actions                      FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010...................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing        75 FR 61664-61690
                               the Altamaha             Endangered.
                               Spinymussel and
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      75 FR 62070-62095
                               Petition to list the     petition finding, Not
                               Sacramento Splittail     warranted.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened.
10/28/2010..................  Endangered Status and    Proposed Listing        75 FR 66481-66552
                               Designation of           Endangered
                               Critical Habitat for     (uplisting).
                               Spikedace and Loach
                               Minnow.
11/2/2010...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        75 FR 67341-67343
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                               Bay Springs Salamander   substantial.
                               as Endangered.
11/2/2010...................  Determination of         Final Listing           75 FR 67511-67550
                               Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                               the Georgia Pigtoe
                               Mussel, Interrupted
                               Rocksnail, and Rough
                               Hornsnail and
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010...................  Listing the Rayed Bean   Proposed Listing        75 FR 67551-67583
                               and Snuffbox as          Endangered.
                               Endangered.
11/4/2010...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      75 FR 67925-67944
                               Petition to List         petition finding,
                               Cirsium wrightii         Warranted but
                               (Wright's Marsh          precluded.
                               Thistle) as Endangered
                               or Threatened.
12/14/2010..................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing        75 FR77801-77817
                               Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.  Endangered.
12/14/2010..................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      75 FR 78029-78061
                               Petition to List the     petition finding,
                               North American           Warranted but
                               Wolverine as             precluded.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
12/14/2010..................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      75 FR 78093-78146
                               Petition to List the     petition finding,
                               Sonoran Population of    Warranted but
                               the Desert Tortoise as   precluded.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
12/15/2010..................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      75 FR 78513-78556
                               Petition to List         petition finding,
                               Astragalus microcymbus   Warranted but
                               and Astragalus           precluded.
                               schmolliae as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
12/28/2010..................  Listing Seven Brazilian  Final Listing           75 FR 81793-81815
                               Bird Species as          Endangered.
                               Endangered Throughout
                               Their Range.

[[Page 31291]]

 
1/4/2011....................  90[dash]Day Finding on   Notice of 90-day        76 FR 304-311
                               a Petition to List the   Petition Finding, Not
                               Red Knot subspecies      substantial.
                               Calidris canutus
                               roselaari as
                               Endangered.
1/19/2011...................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing        76 FR 3392-3420
                               the Sheepnose and        Endangered.
                               Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 7634-7679
                               Petition to List the     petition finding,
                               Pacific Walrus as        Warranted but
                               Endangered or            precluded.
                               Threatened.
2/17/2011...................  90-day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 9309-9318
                               Petition To List the     Petition Finding,
                               Sand Verbena Moth as     Substantial.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
2/22/2011...................  Determination of         Final Listing           76 FR 9681-9692
                               Threatened Status for    Threatened.
                               the New Zealand-
                               Australia Distinct
                               Population Segment of
                               the Southern
                               Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 9722-9733
                               Petition to List         petition finding,
                               Solanum conocarpum       Warranted but
                               (marron bacora) as       precluded.
                               Endangered.
2/23/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 991-10003
                               Petition to List         petition finding, Not
                               Thorne's Hairstreak      warranted.
                               Butterfly as
                               Endangered.
2/23/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 10166-10203
                               Petition to List         petition finding,
                               Astragalus hamiltonii,   Warranted but
                               Penstemon flowersii,     precluded & Not
                               Eriogonum soredium,      Warranted.
                               Lepidium ostleri, and
                               Trifolium friscanum as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
2/24/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 10299-10310
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                               Wild Plains Bison or     substantial.
                               Each of Four Distinct
                               Population Segments as
                               Threatened.
2/24/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 10310-10319
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                               Unsilvered Fritillary    substantial.
                               Butterfly as
                               Threatened or
                               Endangered.
3/8/2011....................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 12667-12683
                               Petition to List the     petition finding,
                               Mt. Charleston Blue      Warranted but
                               Butterfly as             precluded.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
3/8/2011....................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 12683-12690
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Texas Kangaroo Rat as    Substantial.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
3/10/2011...................  Initiation of Status     Notice of Status        76 FR 13121-31322
                               Review for Longfin       Review.
                               Smelt.
3/15/2011...................  Withdrawal of Proposed   Proposed rule           76 FR 14210-14268
                               Rule to List the Flat-   withdrawal.
                               tailed Horned Lizard
                               as Threatened.
3/22/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 15919-15932
                               Petition to List the     petition finding,
                               Berry Cave Salamander    Warranted but
                               as Endangered.           precluded.
4/1/2011....................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 18138-18143
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Spring Pygmy Sunfish     Substantial.
                               as Endangered.
4/5/2011....................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 18684-18701
                               Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                               Bearmouth                Warranted and
                               Mountainsnail, Byrne     Warranted but
                               Resort Mountainsnail,    precluded.
                               and Meltwater Lednian
                               Stonefly as Endangered
                               or Threatened.
4/5/2011....................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 18701-18706
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Peary Caribou and        Substantial.
                               Dolphin and Union
                               population of the
                               Barren-ground Caribou
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened.
4/12/2011...................  Proposed Endangered      Proposed Listing        76 FR 20464-20488
                               Status for the Three     Endangered.
                               Forks Springsnail and
                               San Bernardino
                               Springsnail, and
                               Proposed Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 20613-20622
                               Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                               Spring Mountains         Substantial.
                               Acastus Checkerspot
                               Butterfly as
                               Endangered.
4/14/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 20911-20918
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Prairie Chub as          Substantial.
                               Threatened or
                               Endangered.
4/14/2011...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month      76 FR 20918-20939
                               Petition to List         petition finding,
                               Hermes Copper            Warranted but
                               Butterfly as             precluded.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
4/26/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 23256-23265
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Arapahoe Snowfly as      Substantial.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
4/26/2011...................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day        76 FR 23265-23271
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                               Smooth-Billed Ani as     substantial.
                               Threatened or
                               Endangered.
5/12/2011...................  Withdrawal of the        Proposed Rule,          76 FR 27756-27799
                               Proposed Rule to List    Withdrawal.
                               the Mountain Plover as
                               Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the 
bottom section of the table are high-

[[Page 31292]]

priority listing actions. These actions include work primarily on 
species with an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, selection of these 
species is partially based on available staff resources, and when 
appropriate, include species with a lower priority if they overlap 
geographically or have the same threats as the species with the high 
priority. Including these species together in the same proposed rule 
results in considerable savings in time and funding, when compared to 
preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the future.

       Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-    12-month petition finding.
 billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet
 macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great   12-month petition finding.
 green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet,
 hyacinth macaw) \5\.
4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot,   12-month petition finding.
 white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo,
 yellow-crested cockatoo) \5\.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting)...............  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle........................  Final listing
                                              determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia.......................  Final listing
                                              determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador...  Final listing
                                              determination.
Queen Charlotte goshawk....................  Final listing
                                              determination.
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland         Final listing
 darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter,     determination.
 chucky madtom, and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\.......................  Final listing
                                              determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\...................  Final listing
                                              determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha       Final listing
 (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis        determination.
 (Parachute Beardtongue), and Phacelia
 submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo....................  Final listing
                                              determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia................  Final listing
                                              determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National       Final listing
 Marine Fisheries Service) \5\.               determination.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox    Final listing
 No LPN) \5\.                                 determination.
CA golden trout \4\........................  12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross.....................  12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\..............  12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population \1\.....  12-month petition finding.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\...........  12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog......................  12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander...............  12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero..............................  12-month petition finding/
                                              Proposed listing.
Dusky tree vole............................  12-month petition finding.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis     12-month petition finding.
 rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere
 (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii)
 from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species           12-month petition finding.
 petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species          12-month petition finding.
 petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species     12-month petition finding.
 petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern population........  12-month petition finding.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species      12-month petition finding.
 petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475   12-month petition finding.
 species petition) \4\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa   12-month petition finding.
 blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475
 species petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella  12-month petition finding.
 lepida) (from 475 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron             12-month petition finding.
 piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
 Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species
 petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475   12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)...............  12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\...........................  12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain Range \1\..  12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\.................  12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly \3\........  12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern...................  12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var.       12-month petition finding.
 ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees.......................  12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm....................  12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine.............................  12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) \1\.  12-month petition finding.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\......................  12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald...........................  12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering    90-day petition finding.
 pop. of piping plover \1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\.......................  90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species        90-day petition finding.
 (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)...........  90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly.....  90-day petition finding.

[[Page 31293]]

 
Bay skipper................................  90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat...................  90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat....................  90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin butterfly........  90-day petition finding.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles...............  90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\..................  90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species......................  90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\..................  90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho  90-day petition finding.
 snowfly) \4\.
American eel \4\...........................  90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population) \4\.........  90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\....................  90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\............................  90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\.................  90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel \5\.........  90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\......................  90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee.................................  90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\.....................  90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum        90-day petition finding.
 bartrami & Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\..................................  90-day petition finding.
Carolina hemlock...........................  90-day petition finding.
Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier)..  90-day petition finding.
Thermophilic ostracod (Potamocypris          90-day petition finding.
 hunteri).
Sierra Nevada red fox \5\..................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16 plants, 3  Proposed listing.
 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
 = 3, 1 with LPN = 9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ (16        Proposed listing.
 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2
 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).
Chupadera springsnail \2\ (Pyrgulopsis       Proposed listing.
 chupaderae) (LPN = 2).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell   Proposed listing.
 (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
 Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
 sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
 (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
 \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white        Proposed listing.
 bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\...............  Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2)  Proposed listing.
 & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\...............  Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) \4\.........  Proposed listing.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN =    Proposed listing.
 2) \5\.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\...................  Proposed listing.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2)...........  Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind            Proposed listing.
 salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander
 (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN =
 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN =  Proposed listing.
 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2),
 Phantom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
 Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod
 (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress      Proposed listing.
 (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
 River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
 (LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus      Proposed listing.
 erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3),
 Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus
 peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3),
 Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN =
 8), Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea
 gierischii) (LPN =2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\..............  Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore      Proposed listing.
 cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2),
 shellmound applecactus (Harrisia (=Cereus)
 aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape
 Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata)
 (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ (includes 8   Proposed listing.
 candidate species--6 plants & 2 animals; 4
 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9            Proposed listing.
 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys
 mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), streaked horned
 lark (LPN = 3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN
 = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN  Proposed listing.
 = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) \5\....  Proposed listing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.


[[Page 31294]]

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly will be added to the list of 
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will 
continue to monitor the status of this species as new information 
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is 
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed classification of the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 
continue to accept additional information and comments from all 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested party concerning this finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 15, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13224 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P