[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73655-73682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25805]



[[Page 73655]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita), a species from 
Puerto Rico, as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 
4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also 
designate critical habitat for this species 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 critical habitat designation. This 
rule extends the Act's protections to the species and its designated 
critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
some supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are 
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the decision file for this critical habitat 
designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083, or from the Caribbean Ecological Services 
Field Office https://www.fws.gov/office/caribbean-ecological-services) 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or 
supporting information developed will also be available at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service website and Field Office identified below and at 
https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor, 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, P.O. Box 491, Boqueron, PR 00622; email [email protected]; 
telephone 787-405-3641. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we 
determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species 
promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly meets the definition of a threatened species; 
therefore, we are listing it as such and finalizing a designation of 
its critical habitat. Both listing a species and designating critical 
habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    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 (Factor A) caused by urban development and agriculture, 
human-induced fires, pesticides (insecticides and herbicides), small 
population size, and climate change (Factor E) are the primary threats 
affecting the current and future viability of 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.
    Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
we prepared an economic analysis of the impacts of designating critical 
habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. On October 13, 2020, 
we made available, and solicited public comments on, the draft economic 
analysis in our proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 64908). We 
received no comments or new information on the draft economic analysis, 
and we have adopted the draft economic analysis as final.
    Peer review and public comments. During the proposed rule stage, we 
sought the expert opinions of six appropriate specialists regarding the 
species status assessment report. We received responses from one 
specialist, which helped inform our SSA report and are incorporated in 
the proposed rule and this final rule. We also considered all comments 
and information we received from the public during the comment period 
on the proposed rule (see 85 FR 64908; October 13, 2020).

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the October 13, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 64908) 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.

Supporting Documents

    As part of the process of listing the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly, a species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA 
report for the species. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation 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 SSA report underwent independent

[[Page 73656]]

peer review by a scientist with expertise in insect biology, habitat 
management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to 
the species. Along with other information submitted during the process 
of listing the species, the SSA report is the primary source of 
information for this final designation. The SSA report and other 
materials relating to this rule can be found on the Service's Southeast 
Region website at https://www.fws.gov/about/region/southeast and at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    After full consideration of the comments we received and that are 
summarized below under Summary of Comments and Recommendations, this 
final rule makes one substantive change to our October 13, 2020, 
proposed rule (85 FR 64908): We have revised the incidental take 
exception for normal agricultural practices. In this 4(d) rule, we 
clarify that the incidental take exception does not apply to take 
resulting from pesticide application in or contiguous to habitat known 
to be occupied by the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. For this 
exception, we replace the word ``adjacent'' from our proposed rule with 
the word ``contiguous'' in this final rule to clarify that we mean 
areas that share a common border, and to avoid the interpretation that 
``adjacent'' may mean areas that are near each other but not touching.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On October 13, 2020, we proposed to list the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly as a threatened species with a section 4(d) rule and 
designate critical habitat for the species (85 FR 64908), and made 
available the associated draft economic analysis (DEA). The public 
comment period for that proposed rule was open for 60 days, ending 
December 14, 2020. During the open comment period, we received 11 
public comments on the proposed rule; the majority of comments 
supported the proposed rule, none opposed the proposed rule, and some 
included suggestions on how we could refine or improve the critical 
habitat designation and 4(d) rule. All substantive information provided 
to us during the comment period is addressed below.
    (1) Comment: One commenter concurred with the Service that the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly should be listed as a threatened 
species. However, they stated that, although certain land where a golf 
course is located has special value for wildlife in general, that area 
does not meet the definition of critical habitat under the Act. Thus, 
they requested that the Service amend the proposed critical habitat 
designation to remove the golf course from critical habitat for the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Also, they recommended that the 89 
acres of government land at Isabela that is protected habitat managed 
by a conservation trust be designated as critical habitat for the 
species.
    Our Response: We proposed to designate critical habitat on adjacent 
public lands and on private lands within the golf course development. 
Within these privately held lands, only the areas that have the 
essential physical or biological features for the species were included 
in the proposed critical habitat, and those areas are included in this 
final designation. The proposed critical habitat did not, and this 
final designation does not, include the golf course proper (e.g., 
fairways, greens, manmade structures) nor other private land that is 
part of the golf course development but lacks the physical or 
biological features essential for the species. The 89 acres managed by 
the conservation trust on land adjacent to the golf course was included 
in our proposed designation and is included in this final designation 
of critical habitat.
    (2) Comment: A commenter contends that the proposed 4(d) rule is 
ineffective, fails to conserve the species because it does not 
adequately address pesticide use as a threat to the species, and fails 
to comply with section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 
commenter states that the Service has recognized the severe threat of 
pesticide spraying to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's survival 
since 2011, when the Service described this threat as significant and 
imminent in its finding that listing the species was warranted but 
precluded. For these reasons, they state that the 4(d) rule should 
prohibit any spraying of pesticides in or adjacent to Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly habitat and require adequate buffer setbacks.
    Our Response: While the Service has characterized pesticide use as 
a current and ongoing threat, we have not characterized it as 
``severe.'' Rather, it has been described as ``significant'' in 
connection with other threats to the species, including the 
destruction, modification, and curtailment of the species' habitat, as 
well as the species' limited distribution and specialized ecological 
requirements, which are the most significant threats to the species. 
Pesticide use was identified as one of several other threats acting 
cumulatively with other threats, particularly in regard to habitat 
destruction and fragmentation. Because we identified improper 
application of pesticides as one of the threats to the species, and in 
consideration of public comments we received, in this final 4(d) rule 
we are not providing an exception for incidental take associated with 
pesticide applications in or contiguous to habitat known to be occupied 
by the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (see Summary of Changes from 
the Proposed Rule, above). However, it is not our intent to preclude 
application of pesticides in all circumstances. Accordingly, we use the 
phrase ``known to be occupied'' to clarify that there is a geographical 
limit on the extent of the prohibitions. For example, the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly would have to be exposed to particular actions for 
those actions to cause take, and the butterfly could only be exposed if 
it is known to occupy the project area. This prohibition does not apply 
in areas the butterfly does not occupy as there is no risk of take of 
butterflies in unoccupied areas. The Service can provide technical 
assistance to help determine whether the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly occupies a specific area. If noxious weed control is needed 
where the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is present, the Service will 
work with landowners or land managers to identify techniques to control 
weeds that avoid take of or minimize effects to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly.
    (3) Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed 4(d) rule 
unnecessarily places a substantial focus on preventing and controlling 
overcollection of the species, with four out of five prohibitions 
focused on possession and commerce of unlawfully taken specimens. The 
commenter explained that although collection could theoretically be a 
threat to this species, the Service's SSA report and other relevant 
research have shown no substantiated indications that collection is 
actually occurring, and that the proposed 4(d) rule provides little 
tangible protection to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
    Our Response: The provisions in section 4(d) of the Act give us 
discretion to apply the prohibitions provided in section 9 of the Act 
for endangered species to threatened species. Accordingly, our 4(d) 
rule generally extends these same prohibitions to the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly as a threatened species, which include a 
prohibition on selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce. We determined these prohibitions

[[Page 73657]]

concerning overcollection by private butterfly enthusiasts or 
collection for commercial purposes are necessary because, when listed, 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly will likely be more appealing to 
private collectors. Although observations of trafficking the species 
are rare, it does not necessarily mean such collection is not 
occurring. Such collection would be incompatible with the species' 
recovery needs. However, the 4(d) rule allows for scientific 
collection, e.g., for propagation, which may entail a low level of take 
to promote the conservation of the species. In addition to the 
prohibitions on take to avoid overcollection of the species and the 
provision for conservation via scientific collection and propagation, 
our 4(d) rule addresses the threats to the species and its conservation 
needs by providing for habitat conservation and restoration.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    Please refer to the October 13, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 64908) 
and the SSA report (Service 2019, entire) for a full summary of species 
information. These documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083.
    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 (pupa), 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. 
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.
    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 species has been 
observed to disperse up to approximately 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mile 
(mi)) from one breeding site to another. Eggs and larvae are found only 
on Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush). First instars feed only on this 
plant. While prickly bush 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 and also drink water. Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterflies have been found only within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a water source 
(e.g., creek, river, pond, puddle).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and 
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 
27, 2019). At the same time the Service also issued final regulations 
that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26, 
2019, eliminated the Service's general protective regulations 
automatically applying to threatened species the prohibitions that 
section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (collectively, the 
2019 regulations).
    As with the proposed rule, we are applying the 2019 regulations for 
this final rule because the 2019 regulations are the governing law just 
as they were when we completed the proposed rule. Although there was a 
period in the interim--between July 5, 2022, and September 21, 2022--
when the 2019 regulations became vacated and the pre-2019 regulations 
therefore governed, the 2019 regulations are now in effect and govern 
listing and critical habitat decisions (see Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 
5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland) (vacating the 2019 regulations and thereby 
reinstating the pre-2019 regulations)); In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 
22-70194 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (staying the district court's order 
vacating the 2019 regulations until the district court resolved a 
pending motion to amend the order); Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-5206-JST, Doc. Nos. 197, 198 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 
2022) (granting plaintiffs' motion to amend July 5, 2022 order and 
granting government's motion for remand without vacatur).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We 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

[[Page 73658]]

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 
Services 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 https://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 (the ``3Rs'') (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. In the final stage of the SSA, we made 
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 also 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, prickly bush, 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), and a water source within 1 km (0.6 mi) for hydration. 
Suitable 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 prickly bush covering more than 30 percent) connecting 
breeding sites.

Current Condition of Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly

    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 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 
extant populations have been observed as recently as 2018. Each of the 
extant 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.
    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

[[Page 73659]]

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, because we do not have the habitat metrics-as identified in 
Table 1 below- for this population at this time. After the initial 
discovery of three adults in July 2019, two more visits of the site 
were made that summer. During one of those visits, 43 caterpillars were 
observed, and during the other visit, 9 caterpillars and 3 chrysalides 
were observed. Habitat metrics that, in combination with relative 
population size estimates, enable estimates of resiliency have not yet 
been collected. Therefore, in the resiliency discussion below, where we 
refer to five populations instead of six, we are omitting the Guajataca 
population. To date, the area still has not been reviewed. This 
population was used to assess the redundancy and representation (see 
below).
    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,'' ``moderately high,'' ``moderate,'' ``moderately low,'' 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
                                                       Vegetation clearing/   Other natural or      Habitat score                              score
       Habitat  protection            Connectivity        pesticide use       manmade factors                           Population size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<34 percent protected...........  Isolated             Areas subjected to   Subpopulations       1 point each; 4      0-5 adults and                   4
                                   subpopulations       vegetation           located in areas     points total.        <100 larvae
                                   greater than 1 km    clearing             more vulnerable to                        observed per
                                   apart; habitat       (including use of    stochastic events                         hectare.
                                   between              herbicides) and      (e.g., fire,
                                   populations highly   use of pesticides    severe drought,
                                   disturbed.           for mosquito         hurricanes).
                                                        control or
                                                        agriculture.
34-66 percent protected.........  Subpopulations       Areas where          Subpopulations in    2 points each; 8     6-20 adults and                  8
                                   within 1 km of       vegetation           areas with           points total.        100-500 larvae
                                   each other;          clearing and use     moderate                                  observed per
                                   habitat between      of herbicides and    vulnerability to                          hectare.
                                   subpopulations       pesticides occur     stochastic events.
                                   moderately           rarely.
                                   disturbed.
>66 percent protected...........  Subpopulations       Areas where          Subpopulations       3 points each; 12    >20 adults and                  12
                                   within 1 km of       vegetation           located in areas     points total.        >500 larvae per
                                   each other;          clearing and use     with lower                                hectare.
                                   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 (habitat
           Population condition                 metrics +  population
                                                       metric)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low: Tallaboa (presumed extirpated).......  8.
Moderately Low: Sus[uacute]a population...  11.
Moderate: IQC; R[iacute]o Abajo;            18; 15; unknown; 14.
 Guajataca; R[iacute]o Encantado
 populations.
Moderately High: Maricao population.......  19.
High: None................................  >21.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 small. 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 (and has likely always been). The 
species is narrow-ranging, with all six populations (each less than 50 
individuals) likely to incur similar effects of a catastrophic event 
such as a hurricane or drought. In addition, with the exception of the 
IQC and Maricao populations, the populations range in size from small 
to very small (Service 2019, p. 73).
    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly representation is influenced by 
the breadth of adaptive diversity possessed by the species and by 
maintaining the evolutionary processes (for example, gene flow and 
natural selection) that drive adaptation. Representation improves with 
increased genetic and/or ecological diversity within and among 
populations. Presently there is substantial uncertainty regarding 
representation for this species, due to lack of knowledge on genetic 
diversity,

[[Page 73660]]

adaptive potential and differences among the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly populations. Currently, representation appears to be moderate 
to high because the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly occurs in two 
physiographic provinces and four life zones. Thus, the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly appears to have the capacity to adapt to different 
landscapes as long as the fundamental needs for nesting (host plant) 
and foraging are met. (Service 2019, pp. 75-76).

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, small population size, 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.
Habitat Modification and Fragmentation--Urban Development and 
Agricultural Practices
    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 (Service 2019, p.45). 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 (Service 2019, pp. 23-38). 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, prickly bush. Historically in the 
IQC area, forests were converted to farms, pastures, or cropland. 
Conversion of these forest areas to urban development, roads, 
recreational parks, and golf courses has been the most significant 
change in suitable habitat. 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 (Service 2019, p. 45). Currently in the IQC, 
occupied habitat is within an area classified as a ``Zone of Tourist 
Interest'' (PRPB 2010, 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. While it is uncertain whether 
these single homes will be constructed in the near future, landowners 
have removed vegetation from the proposed project sites, affecting the 
suitability of the habitat for the butterfly (Service 2019, p. 46).
    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 Final 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, however. 
For example, from 2000 to 2010, 90 percent of protected areas showed 
increases in housing in surrounding lands (Service 2019, p. 47). 
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 2013, 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. Construction and maintenance of tower 
facilities, which includes clearing vegetation along security fences, 
access roads, and under power lines, leads to habitat loss and direct 
plant mortality. As such, these towers are a threat to plant species, 
including the host plant prickly bush, that may occur on top of mogotes 
(limestone hills) or mountaintops where towers often are situated.
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 (Service 2019, 
p. 49), 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. 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. In 
Quebradillas, the species' habitat in the area where the largest 
subpopulation occurs (Puente Blanco) is affected by fires associated 
with illicit garbage dumps. In the Sus[uacute]a Commonwealth Forest, a 
garbage dump fire recently burned approximately 25 square meters (82 
square feet) of occupied butterfly habitat. 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 1.6 square kilometers (0.6 square miles) 
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 (269 square feet) 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 (Service 2019, p. 50).
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 prickly bush, 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

[[Page 73661]]

vegetation also impacts the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Even in 
areas used for recreation, prickly bush is trimmed or completely 
removed along trails and in picnic areas. Homeowners often clear 
vegetation to have unobstructed views of the landscape. In addition to 
eliminating host and nectar plants, vegetation removal and road 
construction can elevate local temperatures (see ``Recent and Current 
Climate'' below, for more information on the potential impacts of 
elevated temperatures).
    Although prickly bush 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. Additionally, clearing 
prickly bush 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 (Service 2019, p. 52). 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, and toxicity 
thresholds for the species are unknown (Service 2019, p. 51). The 
toxicological effects of pesticides to non-target butterfly species 
have been documented within the families Nymphalidae (which includes 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly), Lycaenidae, Papilionidae, 
Hesperiidae, and Pieridae (Davis et al. 1991, entire; Eliazar and Emmel 
1991, entire; Salvato 2001, entire; Bargar 2012, entire; Hoang et al. 
2011, entire; Hoang and Rand 2015; and Mul[eacute] et al. 2017, 
entire).
Recent and Current Climate
    The 2018 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 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 (Service 2019, p. 
54).
    Although we do not have information showing Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterflies have been 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 it may affect seasonal 
colonization and migrations (Service 2019, pp. 54-55). 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, which is a threat to butterflies because of their large 
surface-to-volume ratio (Service 2019, p. 55). 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)), but maximum 
temperatures are predicted to increase to 89-98 degrees Fahrenheit by 
2045 (Service 2019, p. 56).
Cumulative Effects
    The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's rangewide population 
consists of six populations containing one or more subpopulations. 
Current and ongoing threats, including human-induced fires, application 
of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides), and land development, have 
acted together at the rangewide scale by diminishing habitat quality or 
causing habitat loss. In turn, these impacts on habitat reduce the size 
of populations and subpopulations as well as their connectivity, 
reducing population resilience because small populations are at risk of 
loss of genetic diversity (a measure adaptive capacity) and are more 
likely to become extirpated due to a single stochastic event in 
comparison to larger populations. All six populations are affected to 
varying degrees by the current threats, although those populations that 
have large portions managed for conservation (R[iacute]o Abajo, 
Maricao, and Sus[uacute]a) are less affected by land development 
threats. Future climate change is likely to combine with and exacerbate 
the negative effects of all ongoing threats rangewide.

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 (Service 2019, pp. 89-105). 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 and we can reasonably determine 
that both the future threats and species' responses to those threats 
are likely. 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, pp. 89-105).
    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, and we focused on temperature and precipitation 
projections, which are important environmental variables for Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly viability (Service 2019, pp. 76-86). The 
models for Puerto Rico used the mid-high (A2), mid-low (A1B), and low 
(B1) Intergovernmental Panel 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)

[[Page 73662]]

(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 areas with 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. Climate 
models consistently project that significant drying in the U.S. 
Caribbean region will occur by the middle of the century. 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 (Service 2019, pp. 82-86). 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, while 
the condition of the other four 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 scenario      Most likely scenario        Best case scenario          total
                                                                                                                                          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..................  Moderately Low............  Extirpated............  Extirpated...............  Moderately Low...........              16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current estimate, based on counts of adults (Barber 2019, entire).

    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, which are predicted to have low and moderately low 
resiliency at best under these two scenarios, 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.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly conservation efforts have been 
directed towards land acquisition and conservation easements by 
government and nongovernment organizations (PRPB 2013, 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 hectares (ha) 
(9,874.8 acres (ac)) of public land managed for conservation (Caribbean 
LLC 2016, website data) that harbors habitat for the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly. Moreover, in 2000, the Puerto Rico Department of 
Natural and Environmental Resources (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

[[Page 73663]]

covered by Puerto Rico Law No. 292 of August 21, 1999 (known as Act for 
the Protection and Preservation of Puerto Rico's Karst Region), which 
provides protection of that habitat.
    The DNER designated the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as 
critically endangered under the New Wildlife Act of Puerto Rico (Law 
No. 241 of August 15, 1999) and Regulation 6766 (February 11, 2004). 
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. 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. While these laws and regulations 
provide some protections, the species' habitat continues to be 
modified, destroyed, or fragmented by urban development and vegetation 
clearing. 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.

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 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 Act's 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 (Tallaboa). 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 by the species.
    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 
the five populations are single populations, 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 application of pesticides (insecticides and 
herbicides), human-induced fires, and climate change (Factor E), 
contribute to the fragmentation and isolation of populations. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), provide some protections to the 
species, but the threats of habitat degradation or loss, the 
application of pesticides, and human-induced fires continue to 
negatively impact the viability of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
(Service 2019, pp. 59-60).
    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 (Service 2019, p. 58). 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, but there are no data indicating predation is a 
species-level threat affecting the overall viability of the butterfly 
(Service 2019, p. 59). Likewise, there is no information indicating 
impacts on the species from disease.
    As noted previously, six populations occur in the presence of 
current threats and are dispersed across 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. 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 ``moderate'' and ``moderately high'' resiliency populations would 
simultaneously become extirpated under a single catastrophic event. 
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout its range. 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.
    We determined foreseeable future for the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly to be 25 years 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. Over this time frame, we find 
that our predictions for both the threats to this species and the 
species' response to these threats are sufficiently reliable.
    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.

[[Page 73664]]

We anticipate that 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. Given the 
outcomes projected by these two scenarios, we expect the two remaining 
reduced populations would be at high risk of extirpation due to 
stochastic events. 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. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 
F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the aspect of the Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578; July 
1, 2014) that provided that the Service does not undertake an analysis 
of significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants 
listing as threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we 
proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion 
of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; 
and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. 
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, 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.
    The Service's most recent definition of ``significant'' within 
agency policy guidance has been invalidated by court order (see Desert 
Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 
1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). In undertaking this analysis for the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly, we considered whether any portion of the 
species' range may be significant based on its biological importance to 
the overall viability of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. 
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 potentially 
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. The Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly is not in danger of extinction now in either of the 
potentially significant portions we identified. 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. Current 
redundancy of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is low because the 
species is narrow ranging. 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. However, representation appears to be 
moderate to high because the butterfly occurs in two physiographic 
provinces and four life zones.
    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. As a measure of 
redundancy, there are five subpopulations in this region, three in the 
Maricao population and two in the Susua population. Resiliency of the 
Maricao population is moderately high and is low in the Susua 
population. There are no genetic data to assess adaptive capacity or 
representation within the West-central Volcanic-serpentine region. 
However, based on its small size, genetic diversity in the Susua 
population is likely low, whereas in the large Maricao population (more 
than 500 larvae and 20 imagoes observed), genetic diversity is more 
likely sustained across generations. 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, which are occupied 
by both populations, and (2) the absence of intense development (which 
would itself present a concentration of threats) like that occurring in 
the Northern Karst region.
    Thus, there are no portions of the species' range where the species 
has a different status from its rangewide status, as these two portions 
constitute the entire range of the species. Therefore, no portion of 
the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is 
in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range. 
Therefore, we determine that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is 
not in danger of extinction now in any

[[Page 73665]]

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. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 
1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly meets 
the Act's definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing 
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 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 subsequent to 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 (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species).
    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.
    Following publication of this rule, 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 will 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: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    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 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 any 
endangered or threatened 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 may include, but are not limited to, 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 listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. 
The discussion below regarding protective regulations under section 
4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.

II. Final 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 she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring

[[Page 73666]]

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 almost infinite 
number of options available to [her] with regard to the permitted 
activities for those species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, 
but not importation of such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both 
taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species'' 
(H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a 
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 habitat 
modification and fragmentation caused by urban development and 
agriculture, human-induced fire, pesticide use (including insecticides 
and herbicides), and climate change. The provisions of this 4(d) rule 
will 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 rule are one of many tools that the Service will use 
to promote the conservation of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
    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.
    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 State, Tribal, 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 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.
    This obligation does not change in any way for a threatened species 
with a species-specific 4(d) rule. Actions that result in a 
determination by a Federal agency of ``not likely to adversely affect'' 
continue to require the Service's written concurrence and actions that 
are ``likely to adversely affect'' a species require formal 
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    This 4(d) rule will 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 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 prickly bush, 
the sole host plant species for egg laying and larval feeding.
    A range of activities has 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 take associated 
with activities that remove host plant or forested habitat--including 
construction or maintenance of roads or trails, buildings, utility 
corridors, or communications towers--will 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 will 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

[[Page 73667]]

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 for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
    Under this 4(d) rule, take of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
is not 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 the 
Service 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 the 
Service 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 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 Service 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, 
will 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 statutory and regulatory exceptions to the 
prohibitions described above, certain species-specific exceptions to 
the prohibitions provide for the conservation of the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly. Under this 4(d) rule, take of the Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly that is incidental to the following otherwise 
lawful activities is not prohibited:
    (1) 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: (a) clearing or disturbing forest or prickly 
bush to create or expand agricultural areas, or (b) applying pesticides 
in or contiguous to habitat known to be occupied by Puerto Rican 
harlequin butterfly.
    (2) Normal residential and urban landscape and lawn maintenance 
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 prickly bush 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.
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule will 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.

III. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. None of the situations 
identified at 50 CFR 424.12(a) for when designation of critical habitat 
would be not prudent or not determinable is present. We therefore are 
designating critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
concurrently with listing it.
    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

[[Page 73668]]

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. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 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.
    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 and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
    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.
    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 other 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 States and counties; 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 the 4(d) rule. 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.

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, alkali 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

[[Page 73669]]

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 or 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 (prickly bush), 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 (Service 2019, p. 54). 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 (Service 2019, pp. 25-31).
    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. These life zones are 
distinguished by mean annual precipitation and mean annual temperature 
(Service 2019, pp. 86-87). 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 (Service 
2019, p. 119).
    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 threat due to 
their large surface-to-volume ratio. 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 0.4 ha (1 ac), separated by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) 
and embedded in a landscape with few barriers for dispersal of the 
species. Populations in patches this small likely rely on the existence 
of populations in nearby patches to ensure their long-term persistence 
(Service 2019, pp. 36-37).
    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 prickly bush, 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 https://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) Forest area greater than 0.4 ha (1 ac) 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) Prickly bush 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

[[Page 73670]]

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 may 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. Some examples of beneficial management activities would 
include the following: establishing a reforestation program 
incorporating the host plant and other native plants to provide 
sufficient nectar sources; installing fencing enclosures in areas 
containing hostplants in order to provide protection from maintenance 
activities; develop an effective educational outreach program to help 
protect identified Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly habitat. These 
management activities will protect from losses of habitat large enough 
to preclude conservation of the species.

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.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    As discussed above in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, an 
area is considered to be occupied by the species if it was detected in 
surveys no earlier than 2018. The areas designated 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. These areas contain all 
the physical or biological features defined for the species. We are not 
designating 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, within the geographic area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries 
using the following criteria:
    1. Forested habitat that is currently occupied and contains some or 
all of the physical or biological features.
    2. Forested habitat that is located between the breeding sites, and 
within a 1 km (0.6 mi) radius around each subpopulation. These 
additional areas serve as an extension of the habitat within the 
geographic area of an occupied unit and promote connectivity among the 
breeding sites in an occupied unit, fostering 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 for designation 
because 1 km (0.6 mi) is the maximum distance the butterfly has been 
observed to disperse to a mating site (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 
42).

Critical Habitat Maps

    When determining 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 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 rule 
have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as 
critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands 
will not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act 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 are designating critical habitat lands that we have determined 
are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied), and 
that contain all 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 designating six units as critical habitat based on the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly's life-history processes. All units contain 
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 Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the discussion of individual units below. For the critical habitat 
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps 
are generated are included in the decision file for the critical 
habitat designation and are available at the Caribbean Ecological 
Services Field Office's website. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based available to the public at 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0083 and our 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating six units as critical habitat for the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly. The critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our 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)

[[Page 73671]]

Sus[uacute]a. Table 4 shows the critical habitat units and the 
approximate area of each unit. All six units of critical habitat are 
considered occupied by the species.

                    Table 4--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)
                                                             -------------------------
    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 critical habitat being 
designated 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 prickly bush 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 or 
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 1,553.6 ha (3,839 ac) south of PR 2, between the 
municipalities Isabela and Quebradillas, 25 km (15.6 mi) southwest of 
Arecibo. The critical habitat being designated 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 
critical habitat being designated 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 or 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

[[Page 73672]]

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 critical habitat being designated 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 or 
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 critical habitat being designated 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 Unit 4 is 
composed of mature secondary moist limestone evergreen and 
semideciduous forest (Gould et al. 2008, p. 14). Thirteen percent of 
the critical habitat being designated 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 or 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 critical habitat being designated 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 or 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 critical habitat being designated 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 
critical habitat being designated 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 or 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.
    We published a final rule adopting a revised 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 State, Tribal, 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

[[Page 73673]]

Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal agency actions within the 
species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both 
include management and any other landscape-altering activities on 
Federal lands administered by the Service, Army National Guard, U.S. 
Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 
Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal 
Highway Administration. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on 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 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, the action has been modified in a manner that affects the 
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous 
consultation, new information reveals effects of the action that may 
affect the species or critical habitat in a manner not previously 
considered, or the amount of take in the incidental take statement is 
exceeded. 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 destroy or 
adversely modify 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 prickly bush host plants harboring eggs, 
caterpillars, or chrysalises;
    (2) Removal of a significant amount of prickly bush 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 (DoD), 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 being designated. There are no DoD lands 
with a completed INRMP within this 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 she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 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.

[[Page 73674]]

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 for designation. 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 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). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (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 are not 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 designation of critical habitat. The 
information contained in our IEM was 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 critical habitat designation 
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 any probable 
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already 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 the critical habitat designation 
contains any unoccupied units, the screening analysis assesses whether 
those units are unoccupied because they require additional management 
or conservation efforts that may incur incremental economic impacts. 
This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our 
IEM constitute what we consider to be our economic analysis of the 
critical habitat designation for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly; 
our economic analysis 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 critical habitat 
designation for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated April 7, 2020, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with following categories of activities: 
(1) Highways and roads; (2) power lines; (3) communication towers; (4) 
commercial or residential development; (5) monitoring of agricultural 
pests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service; and (6) and Federal agency conservation projects 
(Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service). 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. In areas where 
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is present, Federal agencies will 
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. 
Our consultation will include an evaluation of measures to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of the species' designated critical 
habitat.
    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. Because critical habitat is being designated 
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 will 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 requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or 
harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly would also likely adversely affect the essential physical or 
biological features of critical habitat. 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

[[Page 73675]]

incremental economic impacts of this designation of critical habitat.
    The final critical habitat designation for Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly includes 41,266 ac (16,699.8 ha) in six units, all which are 
occupied by the species. All public ownership consists of Commonwealth 
Forests managed by the DNER for conservation, except 5 ac (2 ha) 
managed for recreation in Unit 1. Since all areas are occupied, 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, while analysis of 
the impacts of the action of on critical habitat is necessary, and this 
additional analysis will require costs in time and resources by both 
the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most 
circumstances, these costs will predominantly be administrative in 
nature and will not be significant.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat 
designation for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are expected to be 
limited to additional administrative effort, as well as minor costs of 
conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 
consultations. From 2015 to 2019, there were 4 technical assistance 
efforts, 14 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 three actions 
related to section 7 was approximately $420, $2,500, and $5,300, 
respectively. We do not expect this critical habitat designation to 
result in an increase in the number technical assistance requests, 
informal, and formal consultations under section 7 because all of the 
units are occupied and overlap with other listed species. However, the 
cost of each action under section 7 may increase because of the 
additional time and resources needed to consider the potential for 
adverse modification of critical habitat and not just the likelihood of 
jeopardy. We anticipate that the additional cost per year to consider 
impacts on critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
(the incremental economic impact of designating critical habitat) will 
be $42,300 (IEc 2020, p. 12). Thus, the annual administrative burden 
will not reach $100 million, which is the threshold of ``significant'' 
under E.O. 12866.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    As discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the 
critical habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical 
habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly based on economic 
impacts. A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting 
documents may be obtained by contacting the Caribbean Ecological 
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Exemptions, above) may not 
cover all Department of Defense (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 have determined that the lands within 
the designation of critical habitat for Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly are not owned or managed by DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we 
anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, we did not 
exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on 
national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. 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, or candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted 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.
    In preparing this final rule, we determined that there are 
currently no permitted conservation plans or other nonpermitted 
conservation agreements or partnerships for the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly, and the final critical habitat designation does not include 
any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal 
lands, partnerships, or permitted or nonpermitted plans or agreements 
from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, we did not exclude 
any areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

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 determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    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 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

[[Page 73676]]

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 only 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, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly 
regulated by this 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 will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the 
Service certifies that this critical habitat designation will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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 
critical habitat designation will significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. There are currently no new planned power line or 
pipeline corridors in the 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 will 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 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 will be entirely 
administrative and less than $10,000 (IEc 2020, entire), with the 
burden solely on the Service and Federal action agency. As such, energy 
supply, distribution, or use should not be affected significantly. 
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 rule will 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

[[Page 73677]]

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 will 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 designation of 
critical habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and it 
concludes that 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 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 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 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 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 will 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.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule 
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical 
habitat are presented on maps, and the 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 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal 
lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat for the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly, so no Tribal lands will be affected by the 
designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment

[[Page 73678]]

Team and the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we 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. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the table ``List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' by adding an entry for 
``Butterfly, Puerto Rican harlequin'' in alphabetical order under 
INSECTS to read as follows:


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              87 FR [Insert Federal
 harlequin.                                                                               Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          12/1/22; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.47(g); \4d\ 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(i).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.47 by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.47  Special rules--insects.

* * * * *
    (f) [Reserved]
    (g) 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 (g)(2) of this section and Sec.  
17.4, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to 
commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard 
to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at 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:
    (1) Clearing or disturbing forest or prickly bush (Oplonia spinosa) 
to create or expand agricultural areas; or
    (2) Applying pesticides in or contiguous to habitat known to be 
occupied by the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
    (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, in paragraph (i), by adding an entry for ``Puerto 
Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita)'' immediately following the 
entry for ``Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus 
palosverdesensis)'', 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

[[Page 73679]]

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) Prickly bush (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 
January 3, 2023.
    (4) 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 used 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/office/caribbean-ecological-services at https://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.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita) 
paragraph (5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE22.001

    (6) Unit 1: IQC; Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy Municipalities, 
Puerto Rico.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:

Figure 2 to Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita) 
paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 73680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE22.002

    (7) Unit 2: Guajataca; Isabela and Quebradillas Municipalities, 
Puerto Rico.
    (i) 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) 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, and rural development.
    (ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:

Figure 3 to Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita) 
paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 73681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE22.003

    (9) Unit 4: R[iacute]o Encantado; Arecibo, Florida, Ciales, and 
Utuado Municipalities, Puerto Rico.
    (i) 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) 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.
    (ii) Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:

Figure 4 to Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly (Atlantea tulita) 
paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 73682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE22.004

    (11) Unit 6: Sus[uacute]a; Sabana Grande and Yauco Municipalities, 
Puerto Rico.
    (i) 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.
* * * * *

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25805 Filed 11-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P