[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