Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered, 31282-31294 [2011-13224]
Download as PDF
31282
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
to operate in traffic, it should be
accompanied by escort vehicles or in
some other way separated from the
public traffic. This equipment may also
be subject to State or local permit
requirements with regard to escort
vehicles, special markings, time of day,
day of the week, and/or the specific
route.
§ 383.3 Question 7 and § 390.5
Question 8: What types of equipment
are included in the category of off-road
motorized construction equipment?
Guidance: The definition of off-road
motorized construction equipment is to
be narrowly construed and limited to
equipment which, by its design and
function is obviously not intended for
use, nor is it used on a public road in
furtherance of a transportation purpose.
Examples of such equipment include
motor scrapers, backhoes, motor
graders, compactors, tractors, trenchers,
bulldozers and railroad track
maintenance cranes.
The FMCSA proposes to issue new
regulatory guidance to address
implements of husbandry, consistent
with the approach used for off-road
motorized construction equipment. The
Agency requests public comment on
this issue and the following proposal.
Specifically, the Agency requests
comments on whether there are specific
examples of implements of husbandry
that should be included in the guidance
to assist the enforcement community
and the industry in achieving a common
understanding of how to apply the
safety regulations.
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Regulatory Guidance:
Applicability of the FMCSRs to
Implements of Husbandry
§ 383.5 Question 13 and § 390.5
Question 33
Question: Do implements of
husbandry meet the definitions of
‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ as used in
49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5?
Guidance: No. Implements of
husbandry are outside the scope of these
definitions when operated: (1) At a
farm; or (2) on a public road open to
unrestricted public travel, provided the
equipment is not designed or used to
travel at normal highway speeds in the
stream of traffic. This equipment,
however, must be operated in
accordance with State and local safety
laws and regulations as required by 49
CFR 392.2 and may be subject to State
or local permit requirements with regard
to escort vehicles, special markings,
time of day, day of the week, and/or the
specific route.
Question: What types of equipment
are included in the category of
implements of husbandry?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Guidance: The term implements of
husbandry should be narrowly
construed and limited to equipment
which, by its design and function is
obviously not designed or used to travel
at normal highway speeds in the stream
of traffic. Examples of such equipment
include, but are not limited to, farm
tractors, subsoilers, cultivators, reapers,
binders, combines, cotton module
builders, planters, and discs.
Request for Comments
FMCSA requests public comment on:
(1) The distinction between interstate
and intrastate commerce in making the
determination whether certain
transportation by CMVs, within the
boundaries of a single State, is subject
to the FMCSRs; (2) the relevance of the
distinction between direct and indirect
compensation in deciding whether
certain farm vehicle drivers working
under a crop share arrangement are
subject to the Agency’s CDL regulations;
and, (3) the determination whether
certain off-road farm equipment and
implements of husbandry operated on
public roads for limited distances
should be considered CMVs and subject
to the Agency’s vehicle safety
equipment regulations.
The Agency will consider all
comments received by close of business
on June 30, 2011. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket
at the location listed under the
‘‘Addresses’’ section of this notice. The
Agency will consider to the extent
practicable comments received in the
public docket after the closing date of
the comment period.
Issued on: May 20, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–13035 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0026; MO
92210–0–0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Puerto Rican Harlequin
Butterfly as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce a 12-month
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
finding on a petition to list the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea
tulita) as endangered and to designate
critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. After
reviewing all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is warranted. Currently,
however, listing the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is precluded by
higher priority actions to amend the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication
of this 12-month petition finding, we
will add the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly to our candidate species list. If
an emergency situation develops with
this species that warrants an emergency
listing, we will act immediately to
provide additional protection. We will
develop a proposed rule to list the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as our
priorities allow. We will make any
determination on critical habitat during
development of the proposed listing
rule. During any interim period, we will
address the status of the candidate taxon
through our annual Candidate Notice of
Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R4–ES–2010–0026. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office, Road
´
301, Km. 5.1, Boqueron, PR 00622.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Marelisa Rivera, Assistant Field
Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological
Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491,
´
Boqueron, PR 00622; by telephone at
(787) 851–7297; or by facsimile at (787)
851–7440. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that for any petition to revise the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific and commercial information
indicating that listing the species may
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we determine
whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted; (b) warranted; or (c)
warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On February 25, 2009, we received a
petition dated February 24, 2009, from
Mr. Javier Biaggi-Caballero requesting
that we list the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly as endangered and designate
critical habitat under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, as
required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an
April 9, 2009, letter to the petitioner, we
responded that we had received the
petition. We stated that we would make
a finding, to the maximum extent
practicable within 90 days, as to
whether or not the petition presented
substantial information.
In that letter, we also stated that if the
initial finding concludes that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted, we
must commence a review of the status
of the species concerned and at the
conclusion of our status review, we
would prepare and publish our 12month finding on the petition to list the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as
endangered or threatened and, if
prudent and determinable, designate
critical habitat under the Act.
On April 26, 2010, we published a 90day finding (75 FR 21568) in which we
concluded that the petition provided
substantial information that listing of
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
may be warranted, and we initiated a
status review. To assist us in that status
review, we requested comments and
information from the public and asked
that they be submitted on or before June
25, 2010. This notice constitutes the 12month finding on the February 24, 2009,
petition to list the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly as endangered.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
is endemic to Puerto Rico and is one of
the four species endemic to the Greater
Antillean genus Atlantea (BiaggiCaballero 2009, p. 1). The species was
described by German lepidopterist Dr.
Herman Dewitz in 1877, from
specimens collected by Dr. Leopold
Krug in the Municipality of
Quebradillas, Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
has a wing span of about 2 to 2.5 inches
(in) (6 centimeters (cm)) wide. Female
and male harlequin butterflies are
similar in color patterns and size. This
butterfly is brownish black at the dorsal
area with deep orange markings and
confused black markings at the half
basal anterior wing. The posterior wing
has a wide black border enclosing a set
of reddish-bronze sub-marginal points.
The ventral side of the anterior wing is
similar to the dorsal anterior wing, and
the posterior is black with orange basal
spots and a complete postdiscal beige
band with a band of reddish spots
distally and sub-marginal white halfmoons. The costa, the most anterior
(leading) edge of a wing, in males is gray
and wide.
Females are multivoltine ovipositors
(they produce several broods in a single
season) (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 2).
Habitat
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
occurs within the subtropical moist
forest life zone on limestone-derived
soil in the Northern karst Region (Ewel
and Whitmore 1973, p. 25) and in the
subtropical wet forest on serpentinederived soil in the Maricao
Commonwealth Forest (Ewel and
Whitmore 1973, p. 32). The subtropical
moist forest life zone on limestonederived soil covers about 1.15 percent
(10,338 ha (25,545.75 ac)) of the total
area of Puerto Rico (USDA 2008, p. 21),
however, the subtropical wet forest on
serpentine-derived soil cover about 0.04
percent (358 ha (884.63 ac)) of the total
area of Puerto Rico (USDA 2008, p. 20).
It has been observed on a forest
associated with the coastal cliffs of the
area in Quebradillas and on
sclerophullous forest (type of vegetation
characterized by hard, leathery,
evergreen foliage that is specially
adapted to prevent moisture loss) in
Maricao Commonwealth Forest. The
vegetation in the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly’s habitat in Quebradillas
consists of Oplonia spinosa (prickly
bush), Cocoloba uvifera (sea grape),
Boureria suculenta (palo de vaca),
Lantana camara (cariaquillo), Lantana
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31283
imvolucrata (cariaquillo), Randia
aculeate (tintillo), Vernonia albicaulis
(no common name), Poitea paucifolia
(no common name), Leucaena
leucocephala (leucaena), Eupatorium
odoratum (no common name), Erithalis
fructicosa (no common name), Distictis
lactifolia (no common name), Bidens
pilosa (no common name), Croton
rigidus (adormidera), Staehytarpeta
jamaicensis (no common name),
Stigmaphyllon emargiuatum (bull reed),
and Tabebuia heterophylla (roble).
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
has only been observed utilizing the
Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its
host plant (plant used for laying the eggs
and serves as a food source for the
development of the larvae). Oplonia
spinosa is a common tropical coastal
shrub and is widely distributed in
Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly only lays eggs in the vegetative
(green) stems on the apical zone (the
tenderest zone on Oplonia spinosa new
growth) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). No
other stage of host plant is used for
ovoposition (action of laying eggs). The
chrysalis is also attached to dried twigs
of the host plant (Biaggi-Caballero 2009,
p. 3). The adult butterflies feed from the
nectars of the flowers available at the
site but have not been observed feeding
from the prickly bush. The majority of
the individuals were found feeding on
flowers of sea grape, palo de vaca, and
cariaquillo.
´
Carrion-Cabrera (2003, p. 40) states
that the dispersion of the species is
limited by the monophagus habit of the
larvae (only utilizes the prickly bush).
Additionally, the butterfly flies slowly
and is weak and fragile; the species is
considered relatively sedentary (not able
to move or disperse in a given
´
environment) (Carrion-Cabrera 2003,
p. 51).
Distribution
The historic range of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly includes the
Northern karst Region, the Centralwestern Volcanic Region, and the
Southern karst Region of Puerto Rico.
Within these three regions, the species
historically had been reported from five
municipalities: (1) In the Northern karst
Region, the species was reported from
the Municipalities of Quebradillas and
Arecibo; (2) in the Central-western
Volcanic Region, the species was
reported from the Municipalities of
Maricao and Sabana Grande; and (3) in
the Southern karst Region, the species
was reported from the Municipality of
´
˜
Penuelas (Carrion-Cabreara 2003, p. 32).
Recently, the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly has been reported from two
populations in two regions: (1) The
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31284
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Quebradillas population in the Northern
karst Region, and (2) the Maricao
population in the Central-western
´
Volcanic-Serpentine Region (Perez-Asso
et al. 2009, p. 94). The Quebradillas
population occurs in approximately 144
ha (356 acres) strip of forested habitat
located on the northern coastal cliff
between the Municipalities of Isabela,
Quebradillas, and Camuy (BiaggiCaballero 2009, p. 4). Here, the species’
habitat is limited to the east by the
Bellacas Creek, to the west by the
Guajataca River, to the north by the
Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by
Puerto Rico (PR) Highway 2 (a state road
that runs parallel to the north coast from
Aguadilla to San Juan) and deforested
areas utilized for agricultural practices
such as cattle grazing. Within the
Northern karst Region, the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly occurs in:
• 10 scattered patches in the
´
Terranova and San Jose wards in the
Municipality of Quebradillas that
occupy an area of 1.05 ha (2.6 acres
´
(10,525 square meters)) (MonzonCarmona 2007, p. 42);
• One patch in the forested cliff of
Coto ward in the Municipality of Isabela
´
(Monzon-Carmona 2007, p. 41) that
occupy an area of 0.26 ha (0.65 acres
(2,630.5 square meters)); and
• One small patch in Puerto Ermina
in the Municipality of Camuy (BiaggiCaballero 2010, pers. comm.).
The Quebradillas population occurs
in private lands and public lands. Five
of the 10 patches known in the
Municipality of Quebradillas fall within
El Merendero, a public land managed
´
for recreation (Monzon-Carmona 2007,
p. 84). The other 7 patches, including
the patch in the Municipality of Isabela
and the patch in the Municipality of
Camuy are located in private lands.
In the Central-western VolcanicSerpentine Region, the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly occurs in the
Maricao Commonwealth Forest, a public
forest managed for conservation by the
Puerto Rico Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources. The Maricao
Commonwealth Forest is located
between the Municipalities of Maricao
and Sabana Grande in the central-west
section of the island to the west of
Mayaguez, approximately 108.88
kilometers (km) (67.66 miles (mi)) from
´
San Juan (Perez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 94).
The discrete population of Puerto Rican
harlequin butterflies occurs near PR
Highway 120, a state road that provides
access from the Municipality of Maricao
to the Municipality of Sabana Grande.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
has not been found in the Southern
karst Region since 1926 (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 4).
´
Carrion-Cabrera (2003, p. 60) observed
only 235 Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly imagoes (mature adult stage) in
12 months of surveys (2 sample days per
month) on 0.82 acre in Quebradillas.
However, more recently, BiaggiCaballero (2009, p. 4) estimated the
population to be 45 or fewer adults on
any given day in the Municipality of
Quebradillas. Larva counts were
reported to be between 10 and 100 per
census day (2 man-hours of search
efforts), and the presence of more than
one generation confirms the species’
multivoltine (producing several broods
in a season) nature. From July to
December, the larva population is lower
than during the rest of the year.
Since 2002, only 3 imagoes (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 5) and 12 larvae (H.
Torres 2010, pers. comm.) of the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly have been
reported in the Maricao Commonwealth
Forest between the 16.0-km (9.94-mi)
and 16.8-km (10.44-mi) points of PR
Highway 120.
TABLE 1—CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUERTO RICAN HARLEQUIN BUTTERFLY IN PUERTO RICO (USFWS, 2011)
Regions of Puerto Rico
Municipalities
Estimated populations
Hectare (ha) (acres)
Species presence
Northern Karst Region ......
Isabela, Quebradillas and
Camuy.
Maricao .............................
1.3 ha (3.2 acres)
´
(Monzon-Carmona 2007,
p. 44).
Not determinate (unknown)
Current population (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 4).
Central-western VolcanicSerpentine Region.
Sabana Grande .................
45 or less imagoes/10 to
´
100 larva (CarrionCabreara 2003, p. 34).
No more than 5 imagoes/
no more than 10 larva
´
(Carrion-Cabrera 2003,
p. 48).
Unknown ...........................
Unknown ...........................
˜
Penuelas ...........................
Unknown ...........................
Unknown ...........................
Southern Karst Region ......
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
population has been estimated at
around 50 imagoes in the Northern karst
Region (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 4) and
fewer than 20 imagoes in the Volcanicserpentine center mountain of the island
´
(Carrion-Cabrera 2003, p. 48).
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or education
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly in relation to the five factors
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
´
Current population (PerezAsso et al. 2009, p. 94).
Not observed since 1980’s
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010,
p. 4).
Not observed since 1926
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010,
p. 4).
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a particular factor to evaluate whether
the species may respond to that factor
in a way that causes actual impacts the
species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and, during the
status review, we attempt to determine
how significant a threat it is. The threat
is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
are defined in the Act. However, the
identification of the factors that could
impact a species negatively may not be
sufficient to compel a finding that the
species warrants listing. The
information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
are operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Habitat modification and habitat
fragmentation have been identified by
species experts as the main threat to the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
´
´
(Carrion-Cabrera 2003, p. 44; MonzonCarmona 2007, p. 54; Biaggi-Caballero
´
2009, p. 1; Perez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 11;
DNER 2010, p. 11). The consequences of
the loss and fragmentation of natural
habitat for the species is detrimental
because the species: (a) Is sedentary, (b)
has limited distribution, (c) has highly
specialized ecological requirements
(discussed in more detail under Factor
E), and (d) is considered a specialist
species because of the larvae’s
monophagous habit of feeding only on
´
Oplonia spinosa (Carrion-Cabrera 2003,
p. 40).
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
faces significant threats from the
existing and imminent destruction,
modification, and curtailment of its
habitat and geographic range in the
Municipalities of Isabella, Quebradillas,
and Camuy. Most of the suitable habitat
for the species, especially in the
Municipality of Quebradillas, is
currently fragmented by urban
development. Dr. Stuart Ramos reported
that, in 1997, one of the healthiest
populations of the species showed a
drastic decrease after the use of heavy
equipment to clear vegetation in the
´
Puente Blanco area (Carrion-Cabrera
2003, p. 13). Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p.
3) expects that between 2010 and 2011
more than 30 percent of existing habitat
in the Municipality of Quebradillas
would be lost as a result of urban
development. In areas where
undeveloped land remains, the species’
larval food plant is likely to be affected
by existing agricultural practices that
result in deforestation to increase grass
lands, such as cattle grazing.
Currently, the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is threatened by large-scale
residential and tourist projects, which
are planned within and around its
habitat in northern Puerto Rico. For
instance, in the municipalities of
Isabella and Quebradillas, occupied
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
suitable habitat is within an area
classified by both municipalities and
the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB)
as a ‘‘Zone of Tourist Interest’’ (PRPB
2009, online data at https://
www.jp.gobierno.pr). Zone of Tourist
Interest is an area that by its natural
features and historic value has the
potential to be developed to promote
tourisms. Further, the coastline of
Isabella and Quebradillas is under
pressure of urban and tourist
development, with only small remnants
of coastal vegetation conserved in the
steeper areas of the northern cliff. In this
area, landowners clear vegetative cover
to the edge of the cliff so that potential
buyers have a better view of the
property and its landscape (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 9). According to the
PRPB, 11 development projects are
under evaluation around the species’
habitat, possibly affecting 74.8 cuerdas
(29.4 ha (72.6 ac)) in Quebradillas
(PRPB 2010, online data). Urban
development in or around the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly’s habitat
would directly and indirectly fragment
and impact its habitat and would limit
its population expansion in the area.
Additionally, the establishment of
residential and tourist developments is
expected to increase traffic and
therefore is likely to require road
improvements in proximity to the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly’s
habitat. The biological effects to the
species of the existing roads have not
been studied and are not understood in
Quebradillas and Maricao. However,
increasing vehicle traffic on the roads
within the essential habitat of a species
with difficulties to move or disperse can
result in mortality due to collisions and,
in some instances, can be catastrophic
to the population and should not be
underestimated (Glista 2007, p. 85). The
combination of habitat fragmentation
and high road density may negatively
impact the species and its habitat.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the above, we believe that
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
currently threatened by residential and
tourist development and habitat
fragmentation. Development and habitat
fragmentation within suitable habitat
would substantially affect the
distribution and abundance of the
species, as well as its habitat,
throughout its range. The scope and
timing of this factor are considered by
the Service to be high and imminent
because the known populations occur in
areas that are subject to development,
increased traffic, and increased road
maintenance and construction.
Therefore, based on the existing and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31285
likely future trends in habitat loss and
fragmentation from development, we
find that the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is threatened by the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
An unknown number of Puerto Rican
harlequin butterflies have been
collected for scientific purposes and
deposited in universities and private
collections (J. Biaggi-Caballero 2011,
pers. comm.). However, at the present
time, only a few researchers are working
with the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, and collection of the species is
regulated by Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER).
We are not aware of any information
that indicates the butterflies are being
sought by collectors or collected for
other purposes. Therefore, we do not
find that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes threatens the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p. 8) suggests
the abundance of spiders (Misumenus
bubulcus, Peucetia viridians, Argiope
argentata and Nephila clavipes) as a
possible source of predation to the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. He
also mentions lizards (Anolis
cristatellus and Anolis striatus) and
birds (Tyrannus dominguensis,
Dendroinca adelaida adelaida, and
Quiscalus brachypterus) as possible
predators. Although no predator has
been documented attacking and eating
imagoes, larvae, or eggs, the sudden
disappearance of larvae under
observation suggests depredation
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 8). Although
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
may face predation by spiders, lizards,
and birds, we are not aware of any data
that indicate that predation is a
significant threat to the species.
We are not aware of any information
regarding any impacts from either
disease or predation on the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. Therefore, we do
not find that disease or predation
threatens the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER) designated the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly as Critically
Endangered under Commonwealth Law
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31286
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
241 and Regulation 6766 on February
11, 2004 (DNER 2007, p. 42; DNER
2010, p. 1). Article 2 of Regulation 6766
includes all prohibitions and states that
the designation as ‘critically
endangered’ prohibits any person to
take the species; including harm,
possess, transport, destroy, import or
export individuals, nests, eggs, or
juveniles without previous
authorization from the Secretary of
DNER (DNER 2007, p. 28). At the
present time, the DNER has not
designated critical habitat for the
species under Regulation 6766.
Therefore, protection of the species’
habitat does not exist at this time.
Although the Commonwealth Law
241 and Regulation 6766 provide
adequate protection for the species,
however the lack of effectiveness of
enforcement makes them inadequate for
the protection of the habitat of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and
particularly its host plant (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 9). Biaggi-Caballero
(2010, p. 9) states that constant violation
of the law occurs when the species’
habitat is modified, destroyed, or
fragmented by urban development and
vegetation-clearing activities. The host
plant is considered a common species
associated with edges of forested lands
and is not protected by Commonwealth
Law 241 or Regulation 6766. Under
Factor A and Factor E, we discuss in
more detail certain cases of lack of
enforcement that have led to threats to
the species and its habitat. For these
reasons, we conclude that existing
regulatory mechanisms may be
inadequate to protect the habitat of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Summary of Factor D
Commonwealth Law 241 and
Regulation 6766 provide protection for
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly but
not to its habitat. Based on the above
information, we conclude that the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
threatened by the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Based on a review of the best
available information, we have
determined that the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly may also be
threatened by: Its limited distribution,
low reproductive capacity, and
ecological requirements; humaninduced fire; use of herbicides and
pesticides; vegetation management; and
climate change.
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
is vulnerable to extinction due to low
population numbers and restricted
distribution (only two isolated
colonies), coupled with habitat
alteration or loss, and the monophagus
´
habit of its larvae (Carrion-Cabrera 2003,
p. 40). The Quebradillas population
occupy about 0.9 percent of the total
area of the forested habitat located on
the northern cliff between the
Municipality of Isabela, Quebradillas
and Camuy. For instance, in
Quebradillas, where the most significant
population occurs, the species occupies
only 10,525 square meters (m2) (2.6 ac2
(1.05 ha2)) distributed in 10 scattered
patches that fluctuate from 77 m2 (0.019
ac2 (0.007 ha2)) to 3,287 m2 (0.812 ac2
´
(0.387 ha2)) (Monzon-Carmona 2007,
p. 44). Its small range may reflect a
remnant population of a once widelydistributed butterfly whose habitat has
been altered or lost due to previous land
uses. Dr. Hernan Torres, entomologist at
the University of Puerto Rico, suggests
that its limited distribution may be an
effect of deforestation for agricultural
practices and of pesticides uses for pest
and mosquito control (H. Torres 2010,
pers. comm.).
Although the host plant Oplonia
spinosa has been found widely
distributed throughout Puerto Rico, the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly was
´
only detected in two localities (CarrionCabreara 2003, p. 39). Additionally,
´
Monzon-Carmona (2007, p. 43) suggests
that although the species can disperse
several hundred meters (approximately
800 meters (2,625 feet)) and has the
capacity to colonize adjacent patches of
Oplonia spinosa, it also shows the
smallest geographic range of any
butterfly in Puerto Rico. This
information suggests that the current
limited distribution of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is based on an
undetermined ecological requirement of
the species found in these particular
sites at Isabela, Quebradillas, Camuy
and Maricao.
Low Reproductive Capacity and Highly
Specialized Ecological Requirements
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Limited Distribution
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly’s
low reproductive capacity and its highly
specific ecological requirements for
reproduction are a threat to the species
because it has been reduced from a
larger historical range and population
size, and these characteristics make the
species less resilient and resistant to
stressors that may impact existing
´
popluations. Carrion-Cabrera (2003, p.
60) conducted a species survey where
only 235 adult individuals were
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
observed in 12 months. Eggs and larvae
have been found only on Oplonia
spinosa (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). Its
broods generally contain 50 to 150 eggs,
with an average of 102 eggs per brood
´
(Carrion-Cabrera 2003, p. 38). The
author also found that the number of
larvae decreased as the number of adult
individuals increased. This information
suggests that the population dynamic of
the species may be synchronized with
an undetermined environmental factor
´
(Carrion-Cabrera 2003, p. 46).
Human-Induced Fire
Human-induced fire is a current
threat for the species at Quebradillas
and at Maricao (Biaggi-Caballero 2009 p.
5; Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 10). Fire
may kill adult, young and larva of
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and
temporarily/permanent eliminates its
habitat. The Maricao Commonwealth
Forest had been subjected to humaninduced fire, affecting habitat
potentially used by the species. At the
Maricao Commonwealth Forest, the
species occurs in the driest section of
the forest near PR Road 120. On
February 25, 2005, arson burned more
than 400 acres with unknown effects to
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
population (Biaggi-Caballero 2010,
p. 10). This fire likely had at least
temporary effects on the butterfly’s
habitat, but we have no information
regarding these effects and whether or
not they were permanent. In
Quebradillas, the species’ habitat in the
Puente Blanco area (which is where the
most significant population occurs) is
threatened by fires associated with
clandestine garbage dumps on Road
4485 (DENR 2010, unpublished data,
p. 23).
Use of Herbicides and Pesticides
The use of herbicides is a current
threat to the species and its host plant,
Oplonia spinosa, which is found at the
edges of roads and open areas. The use
of herbicides is a current practice
implemented by neighborhoods to
eliminate vegetation along the access
road to Puente Blanco (Road 4485) and
private properties, and it affects an
undetermined number of Oplonia
spinosa plants in Quebradillas (C.
Pacheco, USFWS, personal observation
2009).
Further, fumigation programs are
being implemented by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and local
health officials at Terranova and San
´
Jose wards to control dengue fever (a
virus-based disease spread by
mosquitoes) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010,
p. 9). The area where this population
occurs in Quebradillas is surrounded by
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
residential development. No pesticide
use guidelines have been developed
where the species occurs (BiaggiCaballero 2010, p. 9).
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Vegetation Management
Vegetation management at El
Merendero in Quebradillas (public land
managed as a recreational area and
where the species currently occurs) may
adversely affect the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly and its host plant.
Oplonia spinosa grows on both sides of
the existing hiking trails and around the
picnic areas. Maintenance personnel
frequently trim the new growth of
Oplonia spinosa to remove vegetation
from the trails and picnic areas. The
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly uses
the tenderest vegetative branches of new
growth of the host plant for bearing its
eggs and feeding during the larval stages
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). Trimming
the host plant and clearing the
vegetation in these areas may result in
mortality of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly’s eggs and larvae. Currently, no
guidelines about vegetation
management and clearing have been
developed to avoid or minimize effects
to the species and its host plant.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
evidence of warming of the climate
system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p.
30). Numerous long-term climate
changes have been observed, including
changes in arctic temperatures and ice,
and widespread changes in
precipitation amounts, ocean salinity,
wind patterns, and aspects of extreme
weather, including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, and the
intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC
2007b, p. 7). While continued change is
certain, the magnitude and rate of
change is unknown in many cases.
Species that are dependent on
specialized habitat types, that are
limited in distribution or that have
become restricted to the extreme
periphery of their range will be most
susceptible to the impacts of climate
change. As previously mentioned, the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is only
known from the North karst Region and
the central-western Volcanic-serpentine
Region of Puerto Rico, and requires a
very specialized habitat type. Therefore,
we found the data to be restrictive and
did not find any site-specific climate
change information for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly or its habitat. We
searched for studies and literature
related to the effects of climate change
throughout the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly’s historical and currently
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
known range and did not identify any
data related to the effects of climate
change on the species. We also searched
for similar data related to the prickly
bush and did not find any data.
Additionally, there is no information
regarding naturally occurring fires, wind
patterns, and extreme weather
(including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, and the
intensity of tropical cyclones) as a result
of weather. Potential effects of climate
change on the species and its habitat are
currently unknown. Therefore, at this
time, we do not consider climate change
to be a threat to the species and its
habitat.
Summary of Factor E
The primary natural or manmade
threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly appear to be the species’
limited distribution and its highly
specialized ecological requirements.
The scope of these threats is considered
high and imminent. These threats may
promote susceptibility to declines and
affect the species’ populations directly
during all life stages. [ In combination
or by themselves, the primary natural or
manmade threats explained above may
exacerbate the intensity, duration, and
exposure level of any other threats
acting upon the species, including the
use of herbicides and pesticides,
vegetation management, and humaninduced fires. Based on this
information, we conclude that other
natural or manmade factors affecting the
continued existence of the species
constitute a threat to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly now, and that this
threat is expected to continue and
potentially increase in the foreseeable
future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted
a review of the status of the species and
considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats faced by the species.
We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly experts
and other Federal and State agencies.
This status review identified threats
to the species attributable to Factors A,
D, and E. One of the primary threats to
the species comes from the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat (Factor A) in the form of past,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31287
current, and future urban, agricultural,
and commercial development. Available
information indicates that a substantial
portion of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly’s habitat will be affected in the
near future. One of the surviving
populations is located on private lands
and the other population is located in
the Maricao Commonwealth Forest. Any
habitat modification that results in loss
or fragmentation may cause irreversible
damage to the species’ natural habitat
and will cause further declines in the
number of individuals. Threats by
modification of the natural habitat are
evidenced by the decrease in
individuals in recent years and by
development pressure on Quebradillas
(see Factor A).
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) is a threat
because populations located on public
and private lands lack effective
enforcement of existing regulatory
mechanisms to protect the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly.
We also consider the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly’s limited
distribution and specialized ecological
requirements (Factor E) to be significant
threats to the species and its habitat.
The use of herbicides and hand-clearing
of vegetation may change the conditions
necessary for the species to complete its
cycle or life, and may affect Oplonia
spinosa’s seed germination or seedling
recruitment at Quebradillas. However,
at this time, we have no evidence of any
regulation of pesticide or herbicide use,
or of manual cutting of vegetation in
and around the species’ habitat.
Additionally, the effects of fire on the
population is unclear at Maricao (see
Factor E). In addition, the low numbers
of individuals per population, the
specialist requirements of the species,
and fragmented distribution may
threaten the existence of the species (see
Factor E).
The Service does not have
information that suggests overutilization
(Factor B) or disease and predation
(Factor C) may threaten the continued
existence of the species. In general, the
majority of the factors mentioned in the
five-factor analysis may adversely affect
the known populations of the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly. Depending on
the intensity and the immediacy of such
threats, these factors, either by
themselves or in combination, are
operative threats that act on the species
and its habitat.
On the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that the listing of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly as endangered or
threatened is warranted. Moreover,
because of the small and restricted
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
populations of this species and because
of the threats described above, the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly should
be listed as endangered or threatened
throughout its entire range. We will
make a determination on the status of
the species as endangered or threatened
during the proposed listing process. As
explained in more detail below, an
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing this action is precluded
by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
We reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the
species at risk of extinction now such
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species in
accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the
Act is warranted. We determined that
issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species is not
warranted for this species at this time,
even though the threats are of a high
magnitude and imminent. We base that
decision on the existence of two
populations known to occur in Puerto
Rico. We do not have any information
that these populations are at risk of
extinction now. However, if at any time
we determine that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the
species is warranted, we will initiate
such action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to
establish a rational system for utilizing
available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
species listed as threatened to
endangered status. These guidelines,
titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,’’ address the immediacy
and magnitude of threats, and the level
of taxonomic distinctiveness by
assigning priority in descending order to
monotypic genera (genus with one
species), full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population
segments of vertebrates). We assigned
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly a
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2
based on our finding that the species
faces threats that are of high magnitude
and are imminent. These threats include
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and other
natural or manmade factors affecting the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
species’ continued existence. This is the
highest priority that can be provided to
this species under our guidance. Our
rationale for assigning the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly an LPN of 2 is
outlined below.
Under the Service’s LPN guidance,
the magnitude of threats is the first
criterion we look at when establishing a
listing priority. The guidance indicates
that species with the highest magnitude
of threats are those species facing the
greatest threats to their existence. These
species receive the highest listing
priority. We consider the threats to the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to be
high in magnitude because many of the
threats that we analyzed are present
throughout the range and are likely to
result in an adverse impacts to the
status of the species because of its small
population size and limited
distribution.
Under our LPN guidance, the second
criterion we consider in assigning a
listing priority is the immediacy of
threats. This criterion is intended to
ensure that species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority
over those for which threats are will
likely occur in the future, or species that
are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing threats.
Not all threats to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly are imminent, but
we do have evidence of some currently
ongoing threats. Studies show that the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
limited by its lack of recruitment and
low reproductive capacity, both of
which are likely due to habitat
fragmentation.
Threats under Factor A are high in
magnitude and imminent because the
known populations occur in areas
subject to development, increased
traffic, and increased road maintenance
and construction. The potential for
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) due to enforcement is
considered moderate in magnitude and
imminent. The majority of the threats
under Factor E are high in magnitude
and imminent because they are
currently occurring throughout the
range of the species and result in the
lack of successful recruitment. Threats
under Factor E have occurred in the past
and are clearly a threat today and in the
near future. These impacts directly
affect the species’ ability to reproduce
and expand to larger areas, and may
promote susceptibility to population
declines.
The third criterion in our LPN
guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing
highly distinctive or isolated gene pools
as reflected by taxonomy. We have
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
carefully reviewed the available
taxonomic information to reach the
conclusion that Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is a valid taxon at the species
level. The Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly faces high magnitude,
imminent threats. Thus, in accordance
with our LPN guidance, we have
assigned the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly an LPN of 2.
We will continue to monitor the
threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly, and the species’ status, on an
annual basis, and should the magnitude
or the imminence of the threats change,
we will revise the LPN accordingly.
Work on a proposed listing
determination for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is precluded by work
on higher priority listing actions with
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or
court-approved deadlines and final
listing determinations for those species
that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work
includes all the actions listed in the
tables below under Preclusion and
Expeditious Progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing
priority of a species in relation to the
resources that are available and the cost
and relative priority of competing
demands for those resources. Thus, in
any given fiscal year (FY), multiple
factors dictate whether it will be
possible to undertake work on a listing
proposal or whether promulgation of
such a proposal is precluded by higher
priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support
work involving the following listing
actions: Proposed and final listing rules;
90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) or to change the status
of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’
petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as
required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat). The work involved in
preparing various listing documents can
be extensive and may include, but is not
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into
final rules. The number of listing
actions that we can undertake in a given
year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that
is, more complex actions generally are
more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule
with critical habitat, $345,000; and for
a final listing rule with critical habitat,
$305,000.
We cannot spend more than is
appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In
addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds that may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal
to the amount expressly appropriated
for that purpose in that fiscal year. This
cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery funds for
removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs, from being used
for Listing Program actions (see House
Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget
has included a critical habitat subcap to
ensure that some funds are available for
other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The
critical habitat designation subcap will
ensure that some funding is available to
address other listing activities’’ (House
Report No. 107—103, 107th Congress,
1st Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002
and each year until FY 2006, the Service
has had to use virtually the entire
critical habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical
habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been
available for other listing activities. In
some FYs since 2006, we have been able
to use some of the critical habitat
subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority
candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations, we did use some
of this money to fund the critical habitat
portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed
listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be
combined into one rule, thereby being
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
more efficient in our work. At this time,
for FY 2011, we do plan to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations.
We make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
on a nationwide basis. Through the
listing cap, the critical habitat subcap,
and the amount of funds needed to
address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of
money available for other listing
activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those
needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species,
set the limits on our determinations of
preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of
resources as the only basis for deferring
the initiation of a rulemaking that is
warranted. The Conference Report
accompanying Public Law 97–304
(Endangered Species Act Amendments
of 1982), which established the current
statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ‘‘not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for
any reason other than that the existence
of pending or imminent proposals to list
species subject to a greater degree of
threat would make allocation of
resources to such a petition [that is, for
a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’
Although that statement appeared to
refer specifically to the ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable’’ limitation
on the 90-day deadline for making a
‘‘substantial information’’ finding (see
16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), that finding is
made at the point when the Service is
deciding whether or not to commence a
status review that will determine the
degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the
statement is more relevant to the use of
the warranted-but-precluded finding,
which is made when the Service has
already determined the degree of threats
facing the species and is deciding
whether or not to commence a
rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 9, 2011,
Congress passed a continuing resolution
which provides funding at the FY 2010
enacted level through April 15, 2011.
Until Congress appropriates funds for
FY 2011 at a different level, we will
fund listing work based on the FY 2010
amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011,
the Service anticipates an appropriation
of $22,103,000 for the listing program
based on FY 2010 appropriations. Of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31289
that, the Service anticipates needing to
dedicate $11,632,000 for determinations
of critical habitat for already listed
species. Also $500,000 is appropriated
for foreign species listings under the
Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000
available to fund work in the following
categories: compliance with court orders
and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition
findings or listing determinations be
completed by a specific date; section 4
(of the Act) listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing
program-management functions; and
high-priority listing actions for some of
our candidate species. In FY 2010, the
Service received many new petitions
and a single petition to list 404 species.
The receipt of petitions for a large
number of species is consuming the
Service’s listing funding that is not
dedicated to meeting court-ordered
commitments. Absent some ability to
balance effort among listing duties
under existing funding levels, it is
unlikely that the Service will be able to
initiate any new listing determination
for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing
foreign species under the Act was
transferred from the Division of
Scientific Authority, International
Affairs Program, to the Endangered
Species Program. Therefore, starting in
FY 2010, we used a portion of our
funding to work on the actions
described above for listing actions
related to foreign species. In FY 2011,
we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work
on listing actions for foreign species,
which reduces funding available for
domestic listing actions; however,
currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although
there are no foreign species issues
included in our high-priority listing
actions at this time, many actions have
statutory or court-approved settlement
deadlines, thus increasing their priority.
The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the
Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part
of our administrative record).
For the above reasons, funding a
proposed listing determination for the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
precluded by court-ordered and courtapproved settlement agreements, listing
actions with absolute statutory
deadlines, work on final listing
determinations for those species that
were proposed for listing with funds
from FY 2011, and work on proposed
listing determinations for those
candidate species with a higher listing
priority.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Based on our September 21, 1983,
guidelines for assigning an LPN for each
candidate species (48 FR 43098), we
have a significant number of species
with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines,
we assign each candidate an LPN of 1
to 12, depending on the magnitude of
threats (high or moderate to low),
immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of
the species (in order of priority:
monotypic genus (a species that is the
sole member of a genus); species; or part
of a species (subspecies, distinct
population segment, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the
listing priority number, the higher the
listing priority (that is, a species with an
LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority).
Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked
the candidate species with an LPN of 2
by using the following extinction-risk
type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank;
Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe); Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe); and species
currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations.
Those species with the highest IUCN
rank (critically endangered); the highest
Heritage rank (G1); the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent
threats); and currently with fewer than
50 individuals, or fewer than 4
populations, originally comprised a
group of approximately 40 candidate
species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to
receive funding to work on a proposed
listing determination. As we work on
proposed and final listing rules for those
40 candidates, we apply the ranking
criteria to the next group of candidates
with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the
next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered are lower priority, because
as listed species, they are already
afforded the protections of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to
work on a proposed rule to reclassify a
species to endangered if we can
combine this with work that is subject
to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger
than the amount of funds we have to
accomplish it, it is important that we be
as efficient as possible in our listing
process. Therefore, as we work on
proposed rules for the highest priority
species in the next several years, we are
preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include
species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2.
In addition, we take into consideration
the availability of staff resources when
we determine which high-priority
species will receive funding to
minimize the amount of time and
resources required to complete each
listing action.
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. As with our
‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of
whether progress in adding qualified
species to the Lists has been expeditious
is a function of the resources available
for listing and the competing demands
for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the
resource available for delisting, which is
funded by a separate line item in the
budget of the Endangered Species
Program. So far during FY 2011, we
have completed one delisting rule.)
Given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the
Listing Program. This progress included
preparing and publishing the following
determinations:
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS
Publication date
Title
Actions
10/6/2010 ..........
Endangered
Status
for
the
Altamaha
Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or Threatened.
Endangered Status and Designation of Critical
Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay
Springs Salamander as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for the
Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail,
and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.
Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium
wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.
Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the North
American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as
Endangered or Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as
Endangered or Threatened.
Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range.
Proposed Listing Endangered ..............................
75 FR 61664–61690
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ..............
75 FR 62070–62095
75 FR 66481–66552
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
75 FR 67341–67343
Final Listing Endangered ......................................
75 FR 67511–67550
Proposed Listing Endangered ..............................
75 FR 67551–67583
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
75 FR 67925–67944
Proposed Listing Endangered ..............................
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
75 FR77801–77817
75 FR 78029–78061
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
75 FR 78093–78146
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
75 FR 78513–78556
Final Listing Endangered ......................................
75 FR 81793–81815
10/7/2010 ..........
10/28/2010 ........
11/2/2010 ..........
11/2/2010 ..........
11/2/2010 ..........
11/4/2010 ..........
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
12/14/2010 ........
12/14/2010 ........
12/14/2010 ........
12/15/2010 ........
12/28/2010 ........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
FR pages
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
31291
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
1/4/2011 ............
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot
subspecies Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered.
Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and
Spectaclecase Mussels.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific
Walrus as Endangered or Threatened.
90-day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand
Verbena Moth as Endangered or Threatened.
Determination of Threatened Status for the New
Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment
of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum
conocarpum (marron bacora) as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s
Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus
hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum
soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium
friscanum as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild
Plains Bison or Each of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Unsilvered Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or
Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt.
Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered or
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas
Kangaroo Rat as Endangered or Threatened.
Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt .......
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the Flattailed Horned Lizard as Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Berry
Cave Salamander as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Spring
Pygmy Sunfish as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Peary
Caribou and Dolphin and Union population of
the Barren-ground Caribou as Endangered or
Threatened.
Proposed Endangered Status for the Three
Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino
Springsnail, and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Spring
Mountains Acastus Checkerspot Butterfly as
Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Prairie
Chub as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Hermes
Copper Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Arapahoe Snowfly as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the SmoothBilled Ani as Threatened or Endangered.
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the
Mountain Plover as Threatened.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 304–311
Proposed Listing Endangered ..............................
76 FR 3392–3420
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 7634–7679
76 FR 9309–9318
Final Listing Threatened .......................................
76 FR 9681–9692
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded & Not Warranted.
76 FR 9722–9733
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 10299–10310
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 10310–10319
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
76 FR 12667–12683
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 12683–12690
Notice of Status Review .......................................
Proposed rule withdrawal .....................................
76 FR 13121–31322
76 FR 14210–14268
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 15919–15932
1/19/2011 ..........
2/10/2011 ..........
2/17/2011 ..........
2/22/2011 ..........
2/22/2011 ..........
2/23/2011 ..........
2/23/2011 ..........
2/24/2011 ..........
2/24/2011 ..........
3/8/2011 ............
3/8/2011 ............
3/10/2011 ..........
3/15/2011 ..........
3/22/2011 ..........
4/1/2011 ............
4/5/2011 ............
4/5/2011 ............
4/12/2011 ..........
4/13/2011 ..........
4/14/2011 ..........
4/14/2011 ..........
4/26/2011 ..........
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
4/26/2011 ..........
5/12/2011 ..........
Our expeditious progress also
includes work on listing actions that we
funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but
have not yet been completed to date.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Frm 00030
76 FR 991–10003
76 FR 10166–10203
76 FR 18138–18143
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not Warranted and Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 18684–18701
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 18701–18706
Proposed Listing Endangered ..............................
76 FR 20464–20488
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 20613–20622
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 20911–20918
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted
but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial .....
76 FR 20918–20939
76 FR 23256–23265
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 23265–23271
Proposed Rule, Withdrawal ..................................
76 FR 27756–27799
These actions are listed below. Actions
in the top section of the table are being
conducted under a deadline set by a
court. Actions in the middle section of
PO 00000
FR pages
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the table are being conducted to meet
statutory timelines, that is, timelines
required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
priority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with
an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above,
selection of these species is partially
based on available staff resources, and
when appropriate, include species with
a lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority.
Including these species together in the
same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them
in the future.
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ......
4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth
macaw) 5.
4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested
cockatoo) 5.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ..............................................................................................................
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
Casey’s june beetle .........................................................................................................................
6 Birds from Eurasia ........................................................................................................................
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ...................................................................................
Queen Charlotte goshawk ...............................................................................................................
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom,
and laurel dace) 4.
Ozark hellbender 4 ...........................................................................................................................
Altamaha spinymussel 3 ..................................................................................................................
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute
Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.
Salmon crested cockatoo ................................................................................................................
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia .............................................................................................................
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ...............................................
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 .................................................................
CA golden trout 4 .............................................................................................................................
Black-footed albatross .....................................................................................................................
Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ...............................................................................................................
Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ......................................................................................
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ......................................................................................................
Northern leopard frog ......................................................................................................................
Tehachapi slender salamander .......................................................................................................
Coqui Llanero ..................................................................................................................................
Dusky tree vole ................................................................................................................................
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis)
pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) .................................................................................
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ...............................................................................
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ........................................................................
Gopher tortoise—eastern population ..............................................................................................
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ......................................................................
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ....................................................
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species
petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ............................
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from
475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ......................................................
14 parrots (foreign species) ............................................................................................................
Striped Newt 1 ..................................................................................................................................
Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ....................................................................................
Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ...............................................................................................................
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 .....................................................................................................
Western gull-billed tern ....................................................................................................................
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ..................................................................
HI yellow-faced bees .......................................................................................................................
Giant Palouse earthworm ................................................................................................................
Whitebark pine .................................................................................................................................
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...................................................................................
Ashy storm-petrel 5 ..........................................................................................................................
Honduran emerald ...........................................................................................................................
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ..............................................
Eagle Lake trout 1 ............................................................................................................................
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ...........................................................
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ..................................................................................................
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ..........................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding/Proposed listing.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
31293
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
Bay skipper ......................................................................................................................................
Eastern small-footed bat .................................................................................................................
Northern long-eared bat ..................................................................................................................
10 species of Great Basin butterfly .................................................................................................
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles .........................................................................................................
Golden-winged warbler 4 .................................................................................................................
404 Southeast species ....................................................................................................................
Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ...................................................................................................................
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ...................................................................
American eel 4 .................................................................................................................................
Gila monster (Utah population) 4 .....................................................................................................
Leona’s little blue 4 ..........................................................................................................................
Aztec gilia 5 ......................................................................................................................................
White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ..................................................................................................................
San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 .......................................................................................................
Bicknell’s thrush 5 ............................................................................................................................
Chimpanzee .....................................................................................................................................
Sonoran talussnail 5 .........................................................................................................................
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ...........................................
I’iwi 5 .................................................................................................................................................
Carolina hemlock .............................................................................................................................
Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) ......................................................................................
Thermophilic ostracod (Potamocypris hunteri) ................................................................................
Sierra Nevada red fox 5 ...................................................................................................................
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
High-Priority Listing Actions
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
species 2
19 Oahu candidate
(16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1
with LPN = 9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae) (LPN = 2) .......................................................
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean
(LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 .....................................
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ...............................................................................................................
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ................................
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ............................................................................................................
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 .................................................................................................
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 ...........................................................................
Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ....................................................................................................................
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ....................................................................................................
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2),
Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN =2)) 5.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ...........................................................................................................
3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound
applecactus (Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort
(Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN = 2)) 5.
21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—6 plants & 2 animals; 4 with LPN =
2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.)
(LPN = 3), streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper
(LPN = 8)) 3.
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ................
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 .......................................................................................
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
1 Funds
for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing
priorities, these actions are still being developed.
3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
4 Funded with FY 2010 funds.
5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.
2 Although
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
31294
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
We have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
actions described above collectively
constitute expeditious progress.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
will be added to the list of candidate
species upon publication of this 12month finding. We will continue to
monitor the status of this species as new
information becomes available. This
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
review will determine if a change in
status is warranted, including the need
to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed
classification of the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly will be as accurate as
possible. Therefore, we will continue to
accept additional information and
comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
from the Caribbean Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: May 15, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–13224 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31282-31294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13224]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0026; MO 92210-0-0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-
month finding on a petition to list the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly (Atlantea tulita) as endangered and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After
reviewing all available scientific and commercial information, we find
that the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is warranted.
Currently, however, listing the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is
precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month
petition finding, we will add the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to
our candidate species list. If an emergency situation develops with
this species that warrants an emergency listing, we will act
immediately to provide additional protection. We will develop a
proposed rule to list the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as our
priorities allow. We will make any determination on critical habitat
during development of the proposed listing rule. During any interim
period, we will address the status of the candidate taxon through our
annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0026. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office,
Road 301, Km. 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marelisa Rivera, Assistant Field
Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491,
Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622; by telephone at (787) 851-7297; or by
facsimile at (787) 851-7440. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for any petition
to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
that contains substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating that listing the species may
[[Page 31283]]
be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt
of the petition. In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted, but the
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species
are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date
of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made
within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On February 25, 2009, we received a petition dated February 24,
2009, from Mr. Javier Biaggi-Caballero requesting that we list the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered and designate critical
habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 9, 2009,
letter to the petitioner, we responded that we had received the
petition. We stated that we would make a finding, to the maximum extent
practicable within 90 days, as to whether or not the petition presented
substantial information.
In that letter, we also stated that if the initial finding
concludes that the petition presents substantial information indicating
that the requested action may be warranted, we must commence a review
of the status of the species concerned and at the conclusion of our
status review, we would prepare and publish our 12-month finding on the
petition to list the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered or
threatened and, if prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat
under the Act.
On April 26, 2010, we published a 90-day finding (75 FR 21568) in
which we concluded that the petition provided substantial information
that listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly may be warranted,
and we initiated a status review. To assist us in that status review,
we requested comments and information from the public and asked that
they be submitted on or before June 25, 2010. This notice constitutes
the 12-month finding on the February 24, 2009, petition to list the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as endangered.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto Rico and
is one of the four species endemic to the Greater Antillean genus
Atlantea (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 1). The species was described by
German lepidopterist Dr. Herman Dewitz in 1877, from specimens
collected by Dr. Leopold Krug in the Municipality of Quebradillas,
Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has a wing span of about 2 to
2.5 inches (in) (6 centimeters (cm)) wide. Female and male harlequin
butterflies are similar in color patterns and size. This butterfly is
brownish black at the dorsal area with deep orange markings and
confused black markings at the half basal anterior wing. The posterior
wing has a wide black border enclosing a set of reddish-bronze sub-
marginal points. The ventral side of the anterior wing is similar to
the dorsal anterior wing, and the posterior is black with orange basal
spots and a complete postdiscal beige band with a band of reddish spots
distally and sub-marginal white half-moons. The costa, the most
anterior (leading) edge of a wing, in males is gray and wide.
Females are multivoltine ovipositors (they produce several broods
in a single season) (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 2).
Habitat
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly occurs within the subtropical
moist forest life zone on limestone-derived soil in the Northern karst
Region (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 25) and in the subtropical wet
forest on serpentine-derived soil in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest
(Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 32). The subtropical moist forest life zone
on limestone-derived soil covers about 1.15 percent (10,338 ha
(25,545.75 ac)) of the total area of Puerto Rico (USDA 2008, p. 21),
however, the subtropical wet forest on serpentine-derived soil cover
about 0.04 percent (358 ha (884.63 ac)) of the total area of Puerto
Rico (USDA 2008, p. 20). It has been observed on a forest associated
with the coastal cliffs of the area in Quebradillas and on
sclerophullous forest (type of vegetation characterized by hard,
leathery, evergreen foliage that is specially adapted to prevent
moisture loss) in Maricao Commonwealth Forest. The vegetation in the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's habitat in Quebradillas consists of
Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush), Cocoloba uvifera (sea grape), Boureria
suculenta (palo de vaca), Lantana camara (cariaquillo), Lantana
imvolucrata (cariaquillo), Randia aculeate (tintillo), Vernonia
albicaulis (no common name), Poitea paucifolia (no common name),
Leucaena leucocephala (leucaena), Eupatorium odoratum (no common name),
Erithalis fructicosa (no common name), Distictis lactifolia (no common
name), Bidens pilosa (no common name), Croton rigidus (adormidera),
Staehytarpeta jamaicensis (no common name), Stigmaphyllon emargiuatum
(bull reed), and Tabebuia heterophylla (roble).
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only been observed
utilizing the Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (plant
used for laying the eggs and serves as a food source for the
development of the larvae). Oplonia spinosa is a common tropical
coastal shrub and is widely distributed in Puerto Rico. The Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly only lays eggs in the vegetative (green)
stems on the apical zone (the tenderest zone on Oplonia spinosa new
growth) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). No other stage of host plant is
used for ovoposition (action of laying eggs). The chrysalis is also
attached to dried twigs of the host plant (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p.
3). The adult butterflies feed from the nectars of the flowers
available at the site but have not been observed feeding from the
prickly bush. The majority of the individuals were found feeding on
flowers of sea grape, palo de vaca, and cariaquillo.
Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 40) states that the dispersion of
the species is limited by the monophagus habit of the larvae (only
utilizes the prickly bush). Additionally, the butterfly flies slowly
and is weak and fragile; the species is considered relatively sedentary
(not able to move or disperse in a given environment) (Carri[oacute]n-
Cabrera 2003, p. 51).
Distribution
The historic range of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly includes
the Northern karst Region, the Central-western Volcanic Region, and the
Southern karst Region of Puerto Rico. Within these three regions, the
species historically had been reported from five municipalities: (1) In
the Northern karst Region, the species was reported from the
Municipalities of Quebradillas and Arecibo; (2) in the Central-western
Volcanic Region, the species was reported from the Municipalities of
Maricao and Sabana Grande; and (3) in the Southern karst Region, the
species was reported from the Municipality of Pe[ntilde]uelas
(Carri[oacute]n-Cabreara 2003, p. 32).
Recently, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has been reported
from two populations in two regions: (1) The
[[Page 31284]]
Quebradillas population in the Northern karst Region, and (2) the
Maricao population in the Central-western Volcanic-Serpentine Region
(P[eacute]rez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 94). The Quebradillas population
occurs in approximately 144 ha (356 acres) strip of forested habitat
located on the northern coastal cliff between the Municipalities of
Isabela, Quebradillas, and Camuy (Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 4). Here,
the species' habitat is limited to the east by the Bellacas Creek, to
the west by the Guajataca River, to the north by the Atlantic Ocean,
and to the south by Puerto Rico (PR) Highway 2 (a state road that runs
parallel to the north coast from Aguadilla to San Juan) and deforested
areas utilized for agricultural practices such as cattle grazing.
Within the Northern karst Region, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
occurs in:
10 scattered patches in the Terranova and San Jos[eacute]
wards in the Municipality of Quebradillas that occupy an area of 1.05
ha (2.6 acres (10,525 square meters)) (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p.
42);
One patch in the forested cliff of Coto ward in the
Municipality of Isabela (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 41) that occupy
an area of 0.26 ha (0.65 acres (2,630.5 square meters)); and
One small patch in Puerto Ermina in the Municipality of
Camuy (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, pers. comm.).
The Quebradillas population occurs in private lands and public
lands. Five of the 10 patches known in the Municipality of Quebradillas
fall within El Merendero, a public land managed for recreation
(Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 84). The other 7 patches, including the
patch in the Municipality of Isabela and the patch in the Municipality
of Camuy are located in private lands.
In the Central-western Volcanic-Serpentine Region, the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly occurs in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest, a public
forest managed for conservation by the Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources. The Maricao Commonwealth Forest is
located between the Municipalities of Maricao and Sabana Grande in the
central-west section of the island to the west of Mayaguez,
approximately 108.88 kilometers (km) (67.66 miles (mi)) from San Juan
(P[eacute]rez-Asso et al. 2009, p. 94). The discrete population of
Puerto Rican harlequin butterflies occurs near PR Highway 120, a state
road that provides access from the Municipality of Maricao to the
Municipality of Sabana Grande.
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has not been found in the
Southern karst Region since 1926 (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 4).
Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 60) observed only 235 Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly imagoes (mature adult stage) in 12 months of
surveys (2 sample days per month) on 0.82 acre in Quebradillas.
However, more recently, Biaggi-Caballero (2009, p. 4) estimated the
population to be 45 or fewer adults on any given day in the
Municipality of Quebradillas. Larva counts were reported to be between
10 and 100 per census day (2 man-hours of search efforts), and the
presence of more than one generation confirms the species' multivoltine
(producing several broods in a season) nature. From July to December,
the larva population is lower than during the rest of the year.
Since 2002, only 3 imagoes (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 5) and 12
larvae (H. Torres 2010, pers. comm.) of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly have been reported in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest between
the 16.0-km (9.94-mi) and 16.8-km (10.44-mi) points of PR Highway 120.
Table 1--Current Distribution of the Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly in Puerto Rico (USFWS, 2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Hectare (ha)
Regions of Puerto Rico Municipalities populations (acres) Species presence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Karst Region........... Isabela, 45 or less imagoes/ 1.3 ha (3.2 acres) Current population
Quebradillas and 10 to 100 larva (Monz[oacute]n- (Biaggi-Caballero
Camuy. (Carri[oacute]n- Carmona 2007, p. 2010, p. 4).
Cabreara 2003, p. 44).
34).
Central-western Volcanic- Maricao........... No more than 5 Not determinate Current population
Serpentine Region. imagoes/no more (unknown). (P[eacute]rez-
than 10 larva Asso et al. 2009,
(Carri[oacute]n- p. 94).
Cabrera 2003, p.
48).
Sabana Grande..... Unknown........... Unknown........... Not observed since
1980's (Biaggi-
Caballero 2010,
p. 4).
Southern Karst Region........... Pe[ntilde]uelas... Unknown........... Unknown........... Not observed since
1926 (Biaggi-
Caballero 2010,
p. 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly population has been estimated
at around 50 imagoes in the Northern karst Region (Biaggi-Caballero
2009, p. 4) and fewer than 20 imagoes in the Volcanic-serpentine center
mountain of the island (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 48).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to,
removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
education purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way
that causes actual impacts the species. If there is exposure to a
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms
[[Page 31285]]
are defined in the Act. However, the identification of the factors that
could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include
evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats
that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
Habitat modification and habitat fragmentation have been identified
by species experts as the main threat to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 44; Monz[oacute]n-Carmona
2007, p. 54; Biaggi-Caballero 2009, p. 1; P[eacute]rez-Asso et al.
2009, p. 11; DNER 2010, p. 11). The consequences of the loss and
fragmentation of natural habitat for the species is detrimental because
the species: (a) Is sedentary, (b) has limited distribution, (c) has
highly specialized ecological requirements (discussed in more detail
under Factor E), and (d) is considered a specialist species because of
the larvae's monophagous habit of feeding only on Oplonia spinosa
(Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 40).
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly faces significant threats from
the existing and imminent destruction, modification, and curtailment of
its habitat and geographic range in the Municipalities of Isabella,
Quebradillas, and Camuy. Most of the suitable habitat for the species,
especially in the Municipality of Quebradillas, is currently fragmented
by urban development. Dr. Stuart Ramos reported that, in 1997, one of
the healthiest populations of the species showed a drastic decrease
after the use of heavy equipment to clear vegetation in the Puente
Blanco area (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 13). Biaggi-Caballero
(2010, p. 3) expects that between 2010 and 2011 more than 30 percent of
existing habitat in the Municipality of Quebradillas would be lost as a
result of urban development. In areas where undeveloped land remains,
the species' larval food plant is likely to be affected by existing
agricultural practices that result in deforestation to increase grass
lands, such as cattle grazing.
Currently, the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is threatened by
large-scale residential and tourist projects, which are planned within
and around its habitat in northern Puerto Rico. For instance, in the
municipalities of Isabella and Quebradillas, occupied suitable habitat
is within an area classified by both municipalities and the Puerto Rico
Planning Board (PRPB) as a ``Zone of Tourist Interest'' (PRPB 2009,
online data at https://www.jp.gobierno.pr). Zone of Tourist Interest is
an area that by its natural features and historic value has the
potential to be developed to promote tourisms. Further, the coastline
of Isabella and Quebradillas is under pressure of urban and tourist
development, with only small remnants of coastal vegetation conserved
in the steeper areas of the northern cliff. In this area, landowners
clear vegetative cover to the edge of the cliff so that potential
buyers have a better view of the property and its landscape (Biaggi-
Caballero 2010, p. 9). According to the PRPB, 11 development projects
are under evaluation around the species' habitat, possibly affecting
74.8 cuerdas (29.4 ha (72.6 ac)) in Quebradillas (PRPB 2010, online
data). Urban development in or around the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's habitat would directly and indirectly fragment and impact
its habitat and would limit its population expansion in the area.
Additionally, the establishment of residential and tourist
developments is expected to increase traffic and therefore is likely to
require road improvements in proximity to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's habitat. The biological effects to the species of the
existing roads have not been studied and are not understood in
Quebradillas and Maricao. However, increasing vehicle traffic on the
roads within the essential habitat of a species with difficulties to
move or disperse can result in mortality due to collisions and, in some
instances, can be catastrophic to the population and should not be
underestimated (Glista 2007, p. 85). The combination of habitat
fragmentation and high road density may negatively impact the species
and its habitat.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the above, we believe that the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is currently threatened by residential and tourist
development and habitat fragmentation. Development and habitat
fragmentation within suitable habitat would substantially affect the
distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat,
throughout its range. The scope and timing of this factor are
considered by the Service to be high and imminent because the known
populations occur in areas that are subject to development, increased
traffic, and increased road maintenance and construction. Therefore,
based on the existing and likely future trends in habitat loss and
fragmentation from development, we find that the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is threatened by the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
An unknown number of Puerto Rican harlequin butterflies have been
collected for scientific purposes and deposited in universities and
private collections (J. Biaggi-Caballero 2011, pers. comm.). However,
at the present time, only a few researchers are working with the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly, and collection of the species is regulated
by Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER).
We are not aware of any information that indicates the butterflies
are being sought by collectors or collected for other purposes.
Therefore, we do not find that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p. 8) suggests the abundance of spiders
(Misumenus bubulcus, Peucetia viridians, Argiope argentata and Nephila
clavipes) as a possible source of predation to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly. He also mentions lizards (Anolis cristatellus and
Anolis striatus) and birds (Tyrannus dominguensis, Dendroinca adelaida
adelaida, and Quiscalus brachypterus) as possible predators. Although
no predator has been documented attacking and eating imagoes, larvae,
or eggs, the sudden disappearance of larvae under observation suggests
depredation (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 8). Although the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly may face predation by spiders, lizards, and birds,
we are not aware of any data that indicate that predation is a
significant threat to the species.
We are not aware of any information regarding any impacts from
either disease or predation on the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Therefore, we do not find that disease or predation threatens the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER) designated the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly as Critically
Endangered under Commonwealth Law
[[Page 31286]]
241 and Regulation 6766 on February 11, 2004 (DNER 2007, p. 42; DNER
2010, p. 1). Article 2 of Regulation 6766 includes all prohibitions and
states that the designation as `critically endangered' prohibits any
person to take the species; including harm, possess, transport,
destroy, import or export individuals, nests, eggs, or juveniles
without previous authorization from the Secretary of DNER (DNER 2007,
p. 28). At the present time, the DNER has not designated critical
habitat for the species under Regulation 6766. Therefore, protection of
the species' habitat does not exist at this time.
Although the Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 provide
adequate protection for the species, however the lack of effectiveness
of enforcement makes them inadequate for the protection of the habitat
of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly, and particularly its host
plant (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9). Biaggi-Caballero (2010, p. 9)
states that constant violation of the law occurs when the species'
habitat is modified, destroyed, or fragmented by urban development and
vegetation-clearing activities. The host plant is considered a common
species associated with edges of forested lands and is not protected by
Commonwealth Law 241 or Regulation 6766. Under Factor A and Factor E,
we discuss in more detail certain cases of lack of enforcement that
have led to threats to the species and its habitat. For these reasons,
we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to
protect the habitat of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
Summary of Factor D
Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 provide protection for the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly but not to its habitat. Based on the
above information, we conclude that the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Based on a review of the best available information, we have
determined that the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly may also be
threatened by: Its limited distribution, low reproductive capacity, and
ecological requirements; human-induced fire; use of herbicides and
pesticides; vegetation management; and climate change.
Limited Distribution
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is vulnerable to extinction
due to low population numbers and restricted distribution (only two
isolated colonies), coupled with habitat alteration or loss, and the
monophagus habit of its larvae (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 40).
The Quebradillas population occupy about 0.9 percent of the total area
of the forested habitat located on the northern cliff between the
Municipality of Isabela, Quebradillas and Camuy. For instance, in
Quebradillas, where the most significant population occurs, the species
occupies only 10,525 square meters (m[sup2]) (2.6 ac[sup2] (1.05
ha[sup2])) distributed in 10 scattered patches that fluctuate from 77
m[sup2] (0.019 ac[sup2] (0.007 ha[sup2])) to 3,287 m[sup2] (0.812
ac[sup2] (0.387 ha[sup2])) (Monz[oacute]n-Carmona 2007, p. 44). Its
small range may reflect a remnant population of a once widely-
distributed butterfly whose habitat has been altered or lost due to
previous land uses. Dr. Hernan Torres, entomologist at the University
of Puerto Rico, suggests that its limited distribution may be an effect
of deforestation for agricultural practices and of pesticides uses for
pest and mosquito control (H. Torres 2010, pers. comm.).
Although the host plant Oplonia spinosa has been found widely
distributed throughout Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly was only detected in two localities (Carri[oacute]n-Cabreara
2003, p. 39). Additionally, Monz[oacute]n-Carmona (2007, p. 43)
suggests that although the species can disperse several hundred meters
(approximately 800 meters (2,625 feet)) and has the capacity to
colonize adjacent patches of Oplonia spinosa, it also shows the
smallest geographic range of any butterfly in Puerto Rico. This
information suggests that the current limited distribution of the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is based on an undetermined ecological
requirement of the species found in these particular sites at Isabela,
Quebradillas, Camuy and Maricao.
Low Reproductive Capacity and Highly Specialized Ecological
Requirements
The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's low reproductive capacity
and its highly specific ecological requirements for reproduction are a
threat to the species because it has been reduced from a larger
historical range and population size, and these characteristics make
the species less resilient and resistant to stressors that may impact
existing popluations. Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera (2003, p. 60) conducted a
species survey where only 235 adult individuals were observed in 12
months. Eggs and larvae have been found only on Oplonia spinosa
(Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 2). Its broods generally contain 50 to 150
eggs, with an average of 102 eggs per brood (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera
2003, p. 38). The author also found that the number of larvae decreased
as the number of adult individuals increased. This information suggests
that the population dynamic of the species may be synchronized with an
undetermined environmental factor (Carri[oacute]n-Cabrera 2003, p. 46).
Human-Induced Fire
Human-induced fire is a current threat for the species at
Quebradillas and at Maricao (Biaggi-Caballero 2009 p. 5; Biaggi-
Caballero 2010, p. 10). Fire may kill adult, young and larva of Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly, and temporarily/permanent eliminates its
habitat. The Maricao Commonwealth Forest had been subjected to human-
induced fire, affecting habitat potentially used by the species. At the
Maricao Commonwealth Forest, the species occurs in the driest section
of the forest near PR Road 120. On February 25, 2005, arson burned more
than 400 acres with unknown effects to the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly population (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 10). This fire likely
had at least temporary effects on the butterfly's habitat, but we have
no information regarding these effects and whether or not they were
permanent. In Quebradillas, the species' habitat in the Puente Blanco
area (which is where the most significant population occurs) is
threatened by fires associated with clandestine garbage dumps on Road
4485 (DENR 2010, unpublished data, p. 23).
Use of Herbicides and Pesticides
The use of herbicides is a current threat to the species and its
host plant, Oplonia spinosa, which is found at the edges of roads and
open areas. The use of herbicides is a current practice implemented by
neighborhoods to eliminate vegetation along the access road to Puente
Blanco (Road 4485) and private properties, and it affects an
undetermined number of Oplonia spinosa plants in Quebradillas (C.
Pacheco, USFWS, personal observation 2009).
Further, fumigation programs are being implemented by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and local health officials at Terranova and
San Jos[eacute] wards to control dengue fever (a virus-based disease
spread by mosquitoes) (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9). The area where
this population occurs in Quebradillas is surrounded by
[[Page 31287]]
residential development. No pesticide use guidelines have been
developed where the species occurs (Biaggi-Caballero 2010, p. 9).
Vegetation Management
Vegetation management at El Merendero in Quebradillas (public land
managed as a recreational area and where the species currently occurs)
may adversely affect the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly and its host
plant. Oplonia spinosa grows on both sides of the existing hiking
trails and around the picnic areas. Maintenance personnel frequently
trim the new growth of Oplonia spinosa to remove vegetation from the
trails and picnic areas. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly uses the
tenderest vegetative branches of new growth of the host plant for
bearing its eggs and feeding during the larval stages (Biaggi-Caballero
2010, p. 2). Trimming the host plant and clearing the vegetation in
these areas may result in mortality of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's eggs and larvae. Currently, no guidelines about vegetation
management and clearing have been developed to avoid or minimize
effects to the species and its host plant.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a,
p. 30). Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed,
including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, and widespread
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and
aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation,
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7).
While continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is
unknown in many cases.
Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, that are
limited in distribution or that have become restricted to the extreme
periphery of their range will be most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change. As previously mentioned, the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly is only known from the North karst Region and the central-
western Volcanic-serpentine Region of Puerto Rico, and requires a very
specialized habitat type. Therefore, we found the data to be
restrictive and did not find any site-specific climate change
information for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly or its habitat. We
searched for studies and literature related to the effects of climate
change throughout the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's historical and
currently known range and did not identify any data related to the
effects of climate change on the species. We also searched for similar
data related to the prickly bush and did not find any data.
Additionally, there is no information regarding naturally occurring
fires, wind patterns, and extreme weather (including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones) as a
result of weather. Potential effects of climate change on the species
and its habitat are currently unknown. Therefore, at this time, we do
not consider climate change to be a threat to the species and its
habitat.
Summary of Factor E
The primary natural or manmade threats to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly appear to be the species' limited distribution and
its highly specialized ecological requirements. The scope of these
threats is considered high and imminent. These threats may promote
susceptibility to declines and affect the species' populations directly
during all life stages. [ In combination or by themselves, the primary
natural or manmade threats explained above may exacerbate the
intensity, duration, and exposure level of any other threats acting
upon the species, including the use of herbicides and pesticides,
vegetation management, and human-induced fires. Based on this
information, we conclude that other natural or manmade factors
affecting the continued existence of the species constitute a threat to
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly now, and that this threat is
expected to continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable
future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is endangered or threatened throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly experts and other Federal and State agencies.
This status review identified threats to the species attributable
to Factors A, D, and E. One of the primary threats to the species comes
from the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
(Factor A) in the form of past, current, and future urban,
agricultural, and commercial development. Available information
indicates that a substantial portion of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly's habitat will be affected in the near future. One of the
surviving populations is located on private lands and the other
population is located in the Maricao Commonwealth Forest. Any habitat
modification that results in loss or fragmentation may cause
irreversible damage to the species' natural habitat and will cause
further declines in the number of individuals. Threats by modification
of the natural habitat are evidenced by the decrease in individuals in
recent years and by development pressure on Quebradillas (see Factor
A).
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) is a
threat because populations located on public and private lands lack
effective enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly.
We also consider the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly's limited
distribution and specialized ecological requirements (Factor E) to be
significant threats to the species and its habitat. The use of
herbicides and hand-clearing of vegetation may change the conditions
necessary for the species to complete its cycle or life, and may affect
Oplonia spinosa's seed germination or seedling recruitment at
Quebradillas. However, at this time, we have no evidence of any
regulation of pesticide or herbicide use, or of manual cutting of
vegetation in and around the species' habitat. Additionally, the
effects of fire on the population is unclear at Maricao (see Factor E).
In addition, the low numbers of individuals per population, the
specialist requirements of the species, and fragmented distribution may
threaten the existence of the species (see Factor E).
The Service does not have information that suggests overutilization
(Factor B) or disease and predation (Factor C) may threaten the
continued existence of the species. In general, the majority of the
factors mentioned in the five-factor analysis may adversely affect the
known populations of the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. Depending on
the intensity and the immediacy of such threats, these factors, either
by themselves or in combination, are operative threats that act on the
species and its habitat.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the listing of the Puerto Rican harlequin
butterfly as endangered or threatened is warranted. Moreover, because
of the small and restricted
[[Page 31288]]
populations of this species and because of the threats described above,
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly should be listed as endangered or
threatened throughout its entire range. We will make a determination on
the status of the species as endangered or threatened during the
proposed listing process. As explained in more detail below, an
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is
precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species is not warranted for this species at this time, even though the
threats are of a high magnitude and imminent. We base that decision on
the existence of two populations known to occur in Puerto Rico. We do
not have any information that these populations are at risk of
extinction now. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is warranted, we
will initiate such action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of
vertebrates). We assigned the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly a
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2 based on our finding that the
species faces threats that are of high magnitude and are imminent.
These threats include the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting
the species' continued existence. This is the highest priority that can
be provided to this species under our guidance. Our rationale for
assigning the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly an LPN of 2 is outlined
below.
Under the Service's LPN guidance, the magnitude of threats is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threats
are those species facing the greatest threats to their existence. These
species receive the highest listing priority. We consider the threats
to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly to be high in magnitude because
many of the threats that we analyzed are present throughout the range
and are likely to result in an adverse impacts to the status of the
species because of its small population size and limited distribution.
Under our LPN guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are will likely occur in the future, or species that are intrinsically
vulnerable but are not known to be presently facing threats. Not all
threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are imminent, but we do
have evidence of some currently ongoing threats. Studies show that the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is limited by its lack of recruitment
and low reproductive capacity, both of which are likely due to habitat
fragmentation.
Threats under Factor A are high in magnitude and imminent because
the known populations occur in areas subject to development, increased
traffic, and increased road maintenance and construction. The potential
for inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) due to enforcement
is considered moderate in magnitude and imminent. The majority of the
threats under Factor E are high in magnitude and imminent because they
are currently occurring throughout the range of the species and result
in the lack of successful recruitment. Threats under Factor E have
occurred in the past and are clearly a threat today and in the near
future. These impacts directly affect the species' ability to reproduce
and expand to larger areas, and may promote susceptibility to
population declines.
The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. We have carefully reviewed the
available taxonomic information to reach the conclusion that Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly is a valid taxon at the species level. The
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly faces high magnitude, imminent
threats. Thus, in accordance with our LPN guidance, we have assigned
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly an LPN of 2.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly, and the species' status, on an annual basis, and
should the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will
revise the LPN accordingly.
Work on a proposed listing determination for the Puerto Rican
harlequin butterfly is precluded by work on higher priority listing
actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved
deadlines and final listing determinations for those species that were
proposed for listing with funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work
includes all the actions listed in the tables below under Preclusion
and Expeditious Progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal or whether promulgation of such
a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not
[[Page 31289]]
limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing,
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000;
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107--103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do plan to use
some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), that
finding is made at the point when the Service is deciding whether or
not to commence a status review that will determine the degree of
threats facing the species, and therefore the analysis underlying the
statement is more relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded
finding, which is made when the Service has already determined the
degree of threats facing the species and is deciding whether or not to
commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 9, 2011, Congress passed a continuing
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level through
April 15, 2011. Until Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011 at a
different level, we will fund listing work based on the FY 2010 amount.
Thus, at this time in FY 2011, the Service anticipates an appropriation
of $22,103,000 for the listing program based on FY 2010 appropriations.
Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate $11,632,000 for
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also
$500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act.
The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work in the following
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, it is
unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any new listing
determination for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table
(part of our administrative record).
For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for
the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is precluded by court-ordered and
court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines, work on final listing determinations for those
species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 2011, and
work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species
with a higher listing priority.
[[Page 31290]]
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank; Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe); Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe); and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered); the highest Heritage rank (G1); the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats); and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far
during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting rule.) Given the
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:
FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding, Not
Sacramento Splittail warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/28/2010.................. Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Endangered
Critical Habitat for (uplisting).
Spikedace and Loach
Minnow.
11/2/2010................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Bay Springs Salamander substantial.
as Endangered.
11/2/2010................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010................... Listing the Rayed Bean Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List petition finding,
Cirsium wrightii Warranted but
(Wright's Marsh precluded.
Thistle) as Endangered
or Threatened.
12/14/2010.................. Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Endangered.
12/14/2010.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition to List the petition finding,
North American Warranted but
Wolverine as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/14/2010.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition to List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population of Warranted but
the Desert Tortoise as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/15/2010.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus microcymbus Warranted but
and Astragalus precluded.
schmolliae as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/28/2010.................. Listing Seven Brazilian Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Bird Species as Endangered.
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
[[Page 31291]]
1/4/2011.....