[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28776-28862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13800]
[[Page 28775]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
quino); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 28776]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV23
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha quino)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating final revised critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Approximately 62,125 acres (ac) (25,141
hectares (ha)) of habitat in San Diego and Riverside Counties,
California, are being designated as critical habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. This final revised designation constitutes a
reduction of approximately 109,479 ac (44,299 ha) from the 2002
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat will be available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006 and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.
Supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA
92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
in this final revised critical habitat designation. For more
information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), the original final
critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on April 15,
2002 (67 FR 18356); the Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (Service 2003a); and the proposed
revised critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328).
New Information on Subspecies' Description, Life History, Ecology,
Habitat, and Range
We received little new information pertaining to the description,
life history, distribution, ecology, or habitat of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly following the 2008 proposed rule to revise
critical habitat for this subspecies. The following paragraphs discuss
the new information that we received, including recent information
about another host plant species brought to our attention, and
clarification regarding the subspecies' likely expanded range and
larval diapause. Please refer to the final listing rule published in
the Federal Register on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), and the proposed
revised critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2008 (72 FR 3328), for an in-depth discussion of the
subspecies' biology.
In 2008, oviposition and larval development of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly were recorded for the first time on a native host
plant, Collinsia concolor (Chinese houses). The Quino checkerspot
butterfly was observed using numerous individual C. concolor plants at
multiple locations in Riverside County (Pratt 2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 1;
2008c, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. concolor commonly occurs in
habitats with Plantago erecta (erect plantain), P. patagonica
(Patagonian plantain), and Anterrhinum coulterianum (Coulter's
snapdragon) (Pratt 2001, pp. 42-43; Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this
plant is typically found on north-facing slopes in cooler and moister
microclimates than where the other host plant species occur (Pratt
2001, p. 40: Pratt 2008b, p. 1). Quino checkerspot butterflies readily
oviposit on C. concolor in captivity (Pratt 2001, p. 40). Relatively
heavy but previously undocumented use of C. concolor at multiple high-
elevation locations suggests that this host plant may become
increasingly important for maintaining the Quino checkerspot butterfly
population resilience as habitat conditions become warmer and drier
(see below and the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section
for additional discussion regarding climate change). If C. concolor is
a novel host plant important for maintaining the resilience of
established populations, it should also facilitate the subspecies'
adaptation to environmental change that may result from climate change,
including range shift (Pimm et al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas et al. 2001,
pp. 577-581; Parmesan 2006, pp. 644, 645, 647). For example, increased
preference for a novel host plant allowed the brown argus butterfly
(Aricia agestis) to use habitats that were too cool for the host plants
it already used, thus permitting the butterfly species to cross
previously large geographic gaps in its distribution that lacked its
formerly preferred host plant (Pimm et al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas et al.
2001, pp. 577-581).
Next, we did not discuss repeated diapause (the low-metabolic rate
resting stage of the life cycle) in our January 17, 2008 (72 FR 3328)
proposed revision to critical habitat. One peer reviewer suggested this
was an important aspect of the subspecies' biology (see comment 9
below); therefore, we are adding discussion here. Diapause occurs
during the larval stage, primarily during summer and fall (Service
2003a, pp. 7-8). Captive rearing and observation of Quino checkerspot
butterfly larvae indicate repeated diapause is relatively common (over
50 percent likelihood for the first year; Pratt 2006, p. 10) and larvae
can re-enter diapause up to three times (four diapause periods), but
more than three diapause periods during an individual's life span is
unusual (Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13).
Finally, the discussion of Edith's checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha; the Quino checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of
Edith's checkerspot) range shift in our January 17, 2008 (72 FR 33808),
proposed revision to critical habitat requires clarification. Although
locally adapted subspecies may shift their distribution within the
middle of a greater species distribution (which appears to be occurring
with the Quino checkerspot butterfly's elevation range), the northward
latitudinal range expansion of subspecies of Edith's checkerspot
butterfly implied by Parmesan's (1996) study does not apply to the
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Because the subspecies' current northern
range edge is approximately 26 miles (mi) (42 kilometers (km)) south of
the historical range edge, any northward expansion of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly's current range would
[[Page 28777]]
constitute recolonization within the subspecies' historical latitudinal
range (San Bernardino and Ventura counties; see Service 2003a, pp. 1-
3).
Behavior and Population Structure
The best available scientific data indicate that most Quino
checkerspot butterfly populations have some degree of metapopulation
structure (Service 2003a, p. 22) and display metapopulation dynamics
characterized by highly variable habitat occupancy patterns and
detectability, similar to most subspecies of Edith's checkerspot
butterfly (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; Service 2003a, pp. 21-27).
Edith's checkerspot butterfly metapopulation structure is described by
Ehrlich and Murphy (1987, p. 123) as the subdivision of a population
into subpopulations that occupy clusters of habitat patches and
interact extensively. Harrison et al. (1988, p. 360) described Edith's
checkerspot butterfly metapopulation structure as: ``a set of
[subpopulations] that are interdependent over ecological time.''
Although subpopulations within a metapopulation may change in size
independently, the probability of a subpopulation existing at a given
time is not independent, because they are linked by an extirpation and
mutual recolonization process that occurs every 10 to 100 generations
(Harrison et al. 1988, p. 360).
Rare high-density events and dispersal behavior are thought to be
key elements of Edith's checkerspot butterfly population dynamics that
structure populations. Harrison (1989, p. 1241) found that although
dispersal direction from habitat patches seemed to be random in the bay
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), dispersing
butterflies were most likely to move into habitat patches when they
passed within approximately 163 feet (ft) (50 meters (m)) of those
habitat patches. Dispersing bay checkerspot butterflies tended to
remain in habitat patches where existing butterfly density was low
(Harrison 1989, p. 1241). Bay checkerspot butterfly occupancy patterns
also suggested that unoccupied habitat separated from occupied habitat
by hilly terrain was less likely to be colonized than habitat separated
by flat ground (Harrison 1989, p. 1241).
Harrison (1989, pp. 1241, 1242) concluded that the long-term
habitat recolonization pattern of her study population was likely due
to relatively large numbers of bay checkerspot butterflies having
dispersed from persistent ``source'' subpopulations. Harrison (1989, p.
1239) found bay checkerspot butterfly habitat within 0.6 mi (1 km) of a
source subpopulation is 100 percent likely to be colonized by
immigrants from the source subpopulation. Harrison (1989, p. 1239) also
recaptured a significant number of individuals in habitat 0.6 mi (1 km)
from their release point. Over a 5-day period, 5 percent of butterflies
released at a single location were recaptured in an isolated ``target
habitat patch'' 0.6 mi (1 km) away (Harrison 1989, p. 1239). Assuming
mostly random initial movement direction from the release location at
such a great release distance from the recapture site (Harrison 1989,
p. 1241), many individuals likely traveled similar or further distances
outside the study area.
High habitat colonization rates probably only occur during rare
outbreak years, when relatively high local densities combine with
favorable establishment conditions in unoccupied habitat (Harrison
1989, p. 1242). These rare outbreak events are also thought to play a
crucial role in Quino checkerspot butterfly metapopulation resilience
and the subspecies' survival (Murphy and White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich
and Murphy 1987, p. 127). Therefore, protection and management of
source subpopulations likely to provide immigrants to unoccupied
habitat are required for conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly (Service 2003a, pp. 22, 25-26, 35, 94).
Long-distance dispersal has been documented in the Edith's
checkerspot butterfly, and dispersal propensity is affected by local
environmental conditions and subspecies' adaptation. White and Levin
(1981, pp. 348-357) conducted the only mark-recapture movement study
that included the Quino checkerspot butterfly. White and Levin (1981,
pp. 348-357) studied within-habitat patch movement of the Quino and bay
checkerspot butterfly subspecies in southern San Diego County (male bay
checkerspots were released into Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
late in the flight season when offspring survival was not considered
possible). They concluded that patterns of dispersal changed
``dramatically'' from year to year (White and Levin 1981, p. 348), and
the Quino checkerspot butterfly was less sedentary than the more
heavily studied bay checkerspot butterfly (White and Levin 1981, p.
105). Although the average mark-recapture distance traveled by a Quino
checkerspot butterfly in White and Levin's (1981, p. 349) study was
only 305 ft (93 m), movement records were limited to the local study
area. White and Levin (1981, p. 349) stated, ``It seems likely from the
lower rate of return in 1972 and from the observed pattern of out-
dispersal that many marked animals dispersed beyond the area covered by
our efforts that year. This out-dispersal might make the value for
average distance [traveled] in 1972 an underestimate of significant
magnitude.'' Long-distance movement in the bay checkerspot butterfly
has been documented as far as 4 mi (6.4 km) (Murphy and Ehrlich 1980,
p. 319) and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) (Harrison 1989, p. 1239).
The above information indicates that, although Edith's checkerspot
butterflies appear to be capable of long-distance dispersal, their
movement propensity is variable and driven by external environmental
factors. By extension, contiguous habitat between two butterflies
observed 1.2 mi (2 km) from each other is within reasonable flight
distance of both individuals and should be considered part of a shared
home range. Therefore, based on typical long-distance recapture
records, we conclude that Quino checkerspot butterflies observed within
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) of each other in contiguous habitat belong
to the same population, and contiguous habitat within at least 1.2 mi
(2 km) of an observed Quino checkerspot butterfly is part of that
individual's population distribution.
Delineating Population Distributions
The best scientific data available to us for use in delineating
Quino checkerspot butterfly population distributions consist of
geographic information system (GIS)-based habitat information,
subspecies observation locations, and subspecies movement data from
mark-release-recapture studies. Population-scale occupancy (a
population distribution) is defined as all areas used by adults during
the persistence time of a population (years to decades; Service 2003a,
p. 24). Focused distribution studies over multiple years are required
to quantify Quino checkerspot butterfly population distributions.
Therefore, the Recovery Plan described Quino checkerspot butterfly
population locations in terms of ``occurrence complexes'' (Service
2003a, p. 35), which were simple non-habitat-based estimators of
population distributions (well-mixed or metapopulation structure) and
population membership of observed butterflies. Occurrence complexes are
mapped in the Recovery Plan using a 0.6-mi (1-km) movement radius from
each butterfly observation and may be based on the observation of a
single individual. Occurrence locations within at least 1.2 mi (2 km)
of each other are considered to be part of the same occurrence complex,
as these occurrences are proximal enough that
[[Page 28778]]
the observed butterflies were likely to have come from the same
population (Service 2003a, p. 35).
Occurrence complexes may expand due to new butterfly observations,
or contract due to habitat loss (for example, mapped occurrence
complexes were limited by development, see Service 2003a p. 78).
According to recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly movement distances
(Gilbert and Singer 1973, pp. 65, 66; Harrison et al. 1988, pp. 367-
380; Harrison 1989, pp. 1239, 1240), occurrence complexes appropriately
describe the area within which a significant proportion of the habitat
patch associated with individual observed butterflies is likely to
occur (see above discussion and Service 2003a, p. 35).
Some occurrence complexes were identified in the Recovery Plan
(Service 2003a, p. 35) as ``core.'' Core occurrence complexes are those
that appear to be centers of population density based on geographic
size, number of reported individuals, repeated observations, and
evidence of reproduction. Such population density centers are likely to
contain ``source'' subpopulations for a Quino checkerspot butterfly
metapopulation (Murphy and White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich and Murphy 1987,
p. 125; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; Service 2003a pp. 25-26), or
``source'' populations for megapopulations (a group of populations also
dependent on one another, but on a time scale greater than that of
subpopulations; Service 2003a, pp. 21, 24, 25-26). A source
subpopulation is one in which the emigration rate typically exceeds the
immigration rate, and is thus a source of colonists for unoccupied
habitat patches (Service 2003a, p. 166). Therefore, for the purposes of
critical habitat designation, we defined a core occurrence complex as
an area where at least two of the following criteria apply: (1)
Surveyors reported 50 or more adults during a single survey at least
once; (2) immature life stages were recorded; or (3) the geographic
area within the occurrence complex (within 0.6 mi (1 km) of subspecies
occurrences) is greater than 1,290 ac (522 ha; the size of the smallest
Core Occurrence Complex where reproduction has been documented on
multiple occasions and there are historical collection records
indicating long-term resilience).
Status and Local Distribution of Populations in Riverside County
Occurrence data collected in Riverside County since publication of
the Recovery Plan in 2003 resulted in expansion of all core occurrence
complexes and merging of some core occurrence complexes with non-core
occurrence complexes (see discussion below). In particular, occurrence
data collections in Riverside County since listing (62 FR 2313; January
16, 1997) have continued almost annually to expand the known elevation
limit of the subspecies' range (Pratt et al. 2001, pp. 169-171; Service
2003a, p. 44; Goldberg 2005, pp. 8, 9; Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5,
11-12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) GIS
database). The Bautista Road Occurrence Complex (described as non-core
in the Recovery Plan) is in a relatively high-elevation valley east of
Temecula and north of the community of Anza, California. Multiple new
observations have occurred within and around the Bautista Road
Occurrence Complex (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Mooney Jones and Stokes 2005, p.
10). Consistent with criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service
2003a, p. 35) and above, we now consider the Bautista Road Occurrence
Complex to be a Core Occurrence Complex.
From 2004 to 2006, multiple new occurrence locations were also
reported in the community of Anza, and north and northwest of the
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, Pine Grove Non-core Occurrence
Complex, and Lookout Mountain Non-core Occurrence Complex. These new
Non-core Occurrence Complexes are: (1) Cave Rocks within the community
of Anza, just north of the intersection of Bautista Road and State
Route (SR) 371 (AMEC 2004, p. 9); (2) Quinn Flat located between Fobes
Ranch Road and Morris Ranch Road northeast of Quinn Flat and SR 74
(Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5, 11-12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; SBNF GIS
database); (3) Horse Creek adjacent to Bautista Road, southeast of
Bautista Spring (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Malisch 2006, p. 1); and (4) North
Rouse Ridge located on Rouse Ridge in the hills east of Bautista
Canyon, near where Bautista Road exits the foothills (Goldberg 2005,
pp. 8, 9; SBNF GIS database ). None of these new observation locations
met two or more of the criteria needed to categorize them as a core
occurrence complex. However, these new Non-core Occurrence Complexes
resulted in: (1) An increased number of known occupied areas near the
community of Anza; (2) an expansion of the subspecies' known geographic
range at its northeastern extreme (where it had not been previously
recorded, but within historical latitudinal limits of the subspecies'
distribution); and (3) an increase in the subspecies' known elevation
range (Service Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database).
Recent monitoring information indicates the Tule Peak and Silverado
Core Occurrence Complexes described in the Recovery Plan (Service
2003a, p. 44) are part of a single high-density population distribution
supporting periodic density increases, similar to historical outbreak
events (Service 2003a, p. 29), such as the 1977 outbreak in San Diego
County reported by Murphy and White (1984, p. 351) (see also Ehrlich
and Murphy 1987, p. 127; Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO) 2004;
Pratt 2004, p. 17). Occupancy in the Silverado Core Occurrence Complex
was first documented in 1998 (Pratt 2001, p. 17), followed by the
discovery of hundreds of Quino checkerspot adults in 2001 within the
Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex (TeraCor 2002, p. 14). Such reports
of hundreds of adults in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex were
unprecedented since the 1970s, because, typically, five or fewer
individuals are reported during project-based surveys (Service GIS
database).
In 2004, following a year of above-average host plant density in
the Anza area (CFWO 2004), another Quino checkerspot butterfly outbreak
event occurred with even higher abundance than was reported in 2001. An
estimated 500 to 1000 adult Quino checkerspot butterflies were reported
from the Silverado Core Occurrence Complex in a single day in 2004
(Anderson 2007, p. 1; CFWO 2004; Pratt 2004, pp. 16, 17). Additionally,
more than 30 new occurrence locations with high adult densities were
reported in 2004 in the vicinity of Tule Peak Road (92 to more than 100
observations in a single day) south of the Cahuilla Band of Mission
Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, California (Cahuilla Band of
Indians), and the community of Anza (Osborne 2004, pp. 1-6, 8-10;
Anderson 2007, p. 5; CFWO 2004; Osborne 2007, pp. 13-16). Based on
these new observations, it is appropriate to merge the Tule Peak
(core), Silverado (core), and Southwest Cahuilla (non-core) occurrence
complexes to form a single, expanded Tule Peak/Silverado Core
Occurrence Complex. This population contains higher densities and
likely produces more emigrants than any other population within the
subspecies' range.
The best available scientific data (including recent outbreaks in
the closest core occurrence complex) suggest the new Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex supports ongoing range shift for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly upslope in elevation, and other non-core
occurrence complexes north of the community of Anza may be the result
of recent colonization events.
[[Page 28779]]
Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that the average (not actual)
position of known Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations had shifted
north and up in elevation, likely due to a warming, drying climate
(conclusion supported by the technical recovery team, Service 2003a,
pp. 64, 65). Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) compared the distribution of
the Edith's checkerspot butterfly in the early part of the 20th century
to its distribution from 1994 to 1996 using historical records and
field surveys. This study identified a rangewide pattern of local
Edith's checkerspot butterfly extirpations and noted that 80 percent of
historically recorded populations in the southern part of the range
were extinct at the time of the re-census in the mid-1990s (with the
majority being Quino checkerspot butterfly populations). In contrast,
historically recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations in the
mid-latitude part of the species' range experienced only 40 percent
extirpations, and the extirpation rate in the northern part was as low
as 20 percent (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766). Fewer than 15 percent of
the Edith's checkerspot butterfly extirpations occurred in the highest
elevation band (above 7,874 ft (2,400 m)) (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766).
Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that this pattern of
extirpation indicates contraction of the southern boundary of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly's overall distribution by almost 100 mi (160 km)
and a shift in the average location of an Edith's checkerspot butterfly
occurrence northward by 57 mi (92 km). A parallel elevation gradient in
extirpations shifted the mean location of Edith's checkerspot butterfly
populations upward by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint in the pattern of
extirpations occurred at approximately 7,874 ft (2,400 m), with about
40 percent of all populations below the breakpoint recorded as
extirpated in suitable habitats, while less than 15 percent were
extirpated above the breakpoint. This pattern matched trends in
snowpack dynamics in the Sierra Nevada (where the high-elevation
populations are found) over the same period as the butterfly study,
with significant trends toward lighter snowpack and earlier melt date
below 7,874 ft (2400 m), and heavier snowpack and a (non-significant)
trend toward later melt date above 7,874 ft (2400 m) (Johnson et al.
1999, pp. 63-70). This range shift closely matched shifts in mean
yearly temperature (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766; Karl et al. 1996, pp.
279-292). Parmesan's study found extirpations to be most common at
lower elevations and latitudes, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly's
range includes both the lower elevation and lower latitude range
extremes for Edith's checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, the Quino
checkerspot butterfly may be the subspecies of Edith's checkerspot
experiencing the greatest effects associated with changes in climate.
Studies have demonstrated a correlation of population distribution
and phenology changes with climate change for many other butterfly and
insect species in California and around the world (Parmesan et al.
1999, p. 580; Forister and Shapiro 2003, p. 1130; Parmesan and Yohe
2003, pp. 38, 39; Karban and Strauss 2004, pp. 251-254; Thomas et al.
2004, pp. 146-147; Osborne and Ballmer 2006, p. 1; Parmesan 2006, pp.
646-647; Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 415-416). Metapopulation viability
analyses of other endangered nymphalid butterfly species indicate that
current climate trends pose a major threat to butterfly metapopulations
by reducing butterfly growth rates and increasing subpopulation
extirpation rates (Schtickzelle and Baguette 2004, p. 277; Schtickzelle
et al. 2005, p. 89). Most recently, Preston et al. (2008, p. 2506)
incorporated biotic interactions into niche models to predict suitable
habitat for species under the range of climate conditions predicted for
southern California in recent climate change models (see also Hayhoe et
al. 2004, pp. 12422-12427; IPCC 2007, p. 9).
Preston et al. (2008, p. 2508) found that Quino checkerspot
butterfly habitat decreased and became fragmented under altered climate
conditions based on the climate-only model. For increasing temperatures
and 110 percent precipitation, there was a shift in habitat to the
eastern portion of the currently occupied range corresponding with an
upslope movement of the species to higher elevations in adjacent
mountains (Preston et al. 2008, p. 2508). The abiotic-biotic model
(better-performing model) predicted 98 to 100 percent loss of suitable
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat when the temperature increased 1.7
and 2.8 [deg]C (1.5 and 2.5 [deg]F) and when the precipitation was 50
percent or 150 percent of current levels (Preston et al. 2008, p.
2508). An increase of less than 1 [deg]C (1.1 [deg]F) with no change in
current precipitation resulted in no predicted habitat shift, although
there was an eastward (upslope) shift within the current distributional
footprint at 110 percent precipitation (Preston et al. 2008, p. 2508).
Similar climate response patterns in modeled habitat and related and
co-occurring insect species further support the validity of Parmesan's
(1996, pp. 765-766) Quino checkerspot butterfly observations and
conclusions (Preston et al. 2008, pp. 2511, 2512). Therefore, the
hypothesis of range shift driven by changing climate and precipitation
patterns occurring in the foothills north of the community of Anza is
well supported by the best available scientific information.
Documented environmental changes that have already occurred in
California (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 124; Croke et al. 1998, pp.
2128, 2130; Davis et al. 2002, p. 820; Breshears et al. 2005, p.
15144), future drought predictions for the state (such as Field et al.
1999, pp. 8-10; Brunell and Anderson 2003, p. 21; Lenihen et al. 2003,
p. 1667; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144;
Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9), and
extirpation of Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations following
extreme climatic events (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. 101-105; Singer and
Ehrlich 1979, pp. 53-60; Singer and Thomas 1996, pp. 9-39) model and
predict that prolonged drought and other environmental changes related
to changing climate patterns will continue into the near future, and
these changes may affect Quino checkerspot butterfly populations.
Thomas et al. (2004, p. 147) estimated that 29 percent of species in
scrublands (habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly) face eventual
extinction, and 7 (with dispersal) to 9 (without dispersal) percent of
butterfly species in Mexico will become extinct (mid-range climate
predictions; Thomas et al. 2004, p. 146). During drought conditions in
2007, surveyors noted that, for the first time since the subspecies was
listed, no Quino checkerspot butterflies were observed during Riverside
County surveys or core occurrence complex monitoring (CFWO 2007).
Therefore, recent subspecies field evidence corresponds with the
hypothesis that changing environmental conditions throughout the
subspecies' range is resulting in reduced densities at lower
elevations.
Maintenance of the Tule Peak/Silverado and Bautista Road core
occurrence complexes and habitat connectivity to higher elevation non-
core occurrence complexes is needed to prevent an increase in the
subspecies' extinction probability and support range shift resulting
from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (Service
2003a, pp. 46, 47; Osborne 2007, pp. 9-10). The Anza/Mount San Jacinto
foothills area (in and adjacent to the Bautista Road Core Occurrence
Complex) is proximal to what is likely the highest density
[[Page 28780]]
population that produces the most emigrants within the subspecies'
range (Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex) and supports the
greatest elevation gradient within the extant range of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. Regardless of range-shift dynamics, this area
likely supports the most resilient populations within the subspecies'
current range (see above discussion of recent observations in this
area). As discussed above, evidence of range shift resulting from
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns includes the
following: (1) Parmesan's (1996) subspecies-specific study; (2) Preston
et al.'s (2008, pp. 2501-2505) subspecies-specific habitat model
predictions; (3) recent documented Quino checkerspot butterfly outbreak
events (discussed above); (4) the complete lack of Quino checkerspot
butterfly observations in Riverside County during 2007 monitoring; (5)
documented drought conditions and the likelihood that recurrent drought
conditions will persist into the near future (see above discussion);
and (6) the discovery of new non-core occurrence complexes in the most
northern, highest elevation habitat areas (see above discussion of
recent observations in this area). Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766)
range-shift statistics and Preston et al.'s habitat models (2008, pp.
2501-2505) predict the following Quino checkerspot butterfly population
changes: (1) Declines in, and loss of, the southernmost and lowest
elevation populations (lowest elevation range edge already retracted
likely due to a combination of development and the 1980s drought),
especially in drier areas where rainfall is most variable (such as
southwest Riverside County; Anderson 2000, pp. 3, 6); (2) increases in
the density in the highest elevation populations, especially in wetter
areas (such as the Anza area; Service 2003a, p. 44); and (3)
establishment of new populations higher in elevation where range shift
is least impeded by habitat loss due to land-use changes (such as the
Mount San Jacinto foothills; Service GIS database and satellite
imagery).
The highest elevation core occurrence complexes (Tule Peak/
Silverado and Bautista Road) also support the highest (co-occurring)
diversity of host plant species (Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum
coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus (rigid bird's
beak), and Castilleja exserta (purple owl's-clover)) within the range
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a factor known to increase
population resilience (Service 2003a, p. 17) and mitigate the effects
of climate extremes on Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations
(Hellman 2002, p. 925). Therefore, prudent design of reserves and other
managed habitats near the community of Anza, where the subspecies'
range is likely expanding upslope in elevation, should include
landscape connectivity to other habitat patches and ecological
connectivity (habitat patches linked by dispersal areas; Service 2003a,
p. 162) to accommodate such range shift (Service 2003a, p. 64).
Status and Local Distribution of Populations in San Diego County
New Quino checkerspot butterfly observations (Service GIS database)
between occurrence complexes identified in the Recovery Plan have
resulted in merging of the Otay Valley (core), West Otay Mountain
(core), Otay Lakes (core), Proctor Valley (non-core), Dulzura (non-
core), and Honey Springs (non-core) occurrence complexes into a single,
expanded Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex. This merging of
occurrence complexes in the Otay area was anticipated in the Recovery
Plan, as authors noted that occupied habitat in the vicinity of Otay
Lakes and Rancho Jamul appeared to be an area of key landscape
connectivity for all subpopulations in southwest San Diego County
(Service 2003a, pp. 53, 54).
Several widely distributed new observation locations have been
reported since 2002 in central San Diego County (Dudek 2005, p. 1;
Faulkner 2005, p. 1; Tierra Environmental Services 2005, p. 4), and
between Interstate 8 and State Route 94 (TRC 2008, pp. 33-38) resulting
in four new San Diego County non-core occurrence complexes (Fanita
Ranch, Sycamore Canyon, and Mission Trails Park, and Barrett Lake). The
proximity of these occurrence complexes to historical collection
locations (compare above-cited documents to Service 2003a, p. 3)
indicates recent detections may reflect short-term increases in
population densities; however, it is not likely that increasing
densities will persist, given observed and predicted environmental
shifts associated with changing climate patterns (see above
discussion), increasing nonnative plant invasion, and the relative
isolation of these non-core occurrence complexes from core occurrence
complexes. Therefore, the best available data indicate that these new
observation locations may be the result of surveys in areas not
previously searched and likely represent residual, relatively low-
density populations experiencing a long-term trend of decreasing
abundance.
Multiple new Quino checkerspot butterfly observation locations have
been reported in south-central San Diego County since 2002 east of the
community of Campo (Dicus 2005a, pp. 1-2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18;
2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 2006, pp. 2-4). This cluster of occurrence
complexes near Campo is over 7 mi (11 km) from the closest previously
identified core occurrence complex near the community of Jacumba
(Service 2003a, p. 52; Service GIS satellite imagery and database) and
over 12 mi (19 km) from the Tecate (non-core) Occurrence Complex
(Service 2003a, p. 47; Service GIS satellite imagery and database). We
believe the Quino checkerspot butterfly distribution east of the
community of Campo is under-documented because of: (1) The small number
of surveys conducted in this area (Service survey report files); (2)
the existence of contiguous habitat between observation locations
(Service GIS vegetation database and satellite imagery); and (3) the
presence of relatively high densities of Antirrhinum coulterianum and
Collinsia cocolor host plants in occupied habitat (Bureau of Indian
Affairs 1992, p. c-5; Allen and Kurnow 2005, pp. 10, 13-16; Dicus
2005a, pp. 1-2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 26; O'Conner
2006, pp. 1-4, Science Applications International Corporation 2006, pp.
33, 34, 37).
Methods used in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 35) to
determine membership of occurrence locations in an occurrence complex
using the sparse available occurrence data would likely underestimate
the population distribution associated with this obviously independent
population near the communities of La Posta and Campo. Therefore,
although not quite proximal enough to be considered a single occurrence
complex based on overlapping 0.6-mi (1-km) movement distances (Service
2003a, p. 35), we consider this cluster of new observations near Campo
to belong to a single new La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex.
Quino checkerspot butterflies were recently observed in a new
location in southeast San Diego County that resulted in expansion of
the Jacumba Occurrence Complex (Essex and Osborne 2005, p. 82).
Additionally, data collected from the Jacumba Occurrence Complex since
publication of the Recovery Plan led us to reclassify the Jacumba
complex as a core occurrence complex. The Jacumba Occurrence Complex
was not classified as a core occurrence complex in the Recovery Plan
(Service 2003a, p. 52) due to its relatively small geographic size.
[[Page 28781]]
However, adult Quino checkerspot butterflies are consistently observed
in the area, even during drought years and under difficult survey
conditions (high winds) (CFWO 2002-2007; Klein 2007, p. 1). An
estimated 50 individuals were observed in a single day near Jacumba
Peak (Pratt 2007b, p. 1). Furthermore, reproduction was documented in
the Jacumba Occurrence Complex in 1998 and again in 2004 (Pratt 2007c,
p. 1). Therefore, given ongoing documentation of occupancy (Service
2004, 2005, 2008), documented reproduction over multiple years (Pratt
2007c, p. 1), reported observations of large numbers of individuals
(50; Pratt 2007b, p. 1), and an increased occurrence complex area
(approximately 522 ac (1,290 ha)), we now consider the Jacumba
Occurrence Complex to be a core occurrence complex associated with what
appears to be a relatively resilient population.
The prediction that drought conditions are likely to continue into
the near future (Service 2003a, pp. 63, 64; see above discussion)
highlights the importance of conserving populations locally adapted to
drier climates and diverse habitat types (Service 2003a, p. 76). The La
Posta/Campo and Jacumba core occurrence complex habitats are warmer and
drier than the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex and differ
substantially in other habitat characteristics (Service 2003a, pp. 36-
54; O'Conner 2006, p. 4). Therefore, maintenance of these core
occurrence complexes is essential for recovery and survival of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly in San Diego County. These new core
occurrence complexes were also the only complexes in the subspecies'
southern range not affected by the 2003 and 2005 fires. Therefore, new
information indicates the La Posta/Campo and Jacumba Core Occurrence
Complexes contribute significantly to reducing the subspecies'
extinction probability.
Previous Federal Actions
The Homebuilders Association of Northern California, et al., filed
suit against the Service in March 2005 challenging the merits of the
final critical habitat designations for several taxonomic entities,
including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. A settlement was reached in
March 2006 that required the Service to re-evaluate five final critical
habitat designations, including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The
settlement stipulated that proposed revisions to the Quino checkerspot
butterfly designation would be submitted for publication to the Federal
Register by December 7, 2007, and final revisions would be submitted by
December 7, 2008. In accordance with a court-approved amendment to the
settlement agreement, dated December 5, 2007, the proposed revisions
were published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR
3328). Subsequently, a court-approved amendment to the settlement
agreement dated November 6, 2008, stipulated the Service deliver the
final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by
June 6, 2009. For more information on previous Federal actions
concerning the Quino checkerspot butterfly, refer to the proposed
revisions to critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule
to revise critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly during
two comment periods. The first comment period opened with the
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 17,
2008 (73 FR 3328), and closed on March 17, 2008. The second comment
period opened with the publication of the notice of availability of the
Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on December 19,
2008 (73 FR 77568) and closed on January 20, 2009. During both public
comment periods, we contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule to revise critical habitat
for this subspecies and the associated DEA. During the comment periods,
we requested all interested parties submit comments or information
related to the proposed revisions to critical habitat, including (but
not limited to) the following: unit boundaries; species occurrence
information and distribution; land use designations that may affect
critical habitat; potential economic effects of the proposed
designation; benefits associated with critical habitat designation;
areas proposed for designation and associated rationale for the non-
inclusion or considered exclusion of these areas; and methods used to
designate critical habitat.
During the first comment period, we received 17 comment letters (15
letters addressing the proposed revision of critical habitat, and 2
letters from a single commenter that were not related to proposed
revisions to critical habitat): two from peer reviewers, three from
Federal agencies, six from representatives of five Native American
tribes, and six from public organizations or individuals. During the
second comment period, we received nine comments addressing the
proposed critical habitat designation and the DEA. Of these latter
comments, two were from peer reviewers, two from Federal agencies, two
from Native American tribes, and three from public organizations or
individuals. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species
Act Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
expert opinions from 10 knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise that included familiarity with the subspecies, the geographic
region in which it occurs, and conservation biology principles. Four
peer reviewers submitted responses. They provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions that we incorporated into
the rule to improve the final revised critical habitat rule.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
All comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated
into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment 1: One peer reviewer stated they had recently communicated
with residents in and around the community of Anza and concluded that
residents moved to this area based on an appreciation of nature and the
outdoors. The peer reviewer suggested the Service should inform
residents on how to improve Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat. The
peer reviewer also asserted that residents of Anza are suspicious of
government intervention and value their personal freedom more than
endangered species preservation. The peer reviewer expressed
willingness to help organize a meeting that would provide private
landowners from Anza with information on how to preserve the
subspecies. The peer reviewer concluded that, because of their
appreciation for nature, Anza residents would be willing to improve
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat on their lands, but that
willingness would be decreased by critical habitat designation;
therefore, we should exclude any lands in the vicinity of Anza from our
revised critical habitat designation.
[[Page 28782]]
Our Response: We agree that species conservation benefits provided
by landowner partnerships to conserve federally listed species may
minimize the conservation benefits of designating privately owned lands
as critical habitat, and we appreciate the peer reviewer's interest in
participating in such an endeavor. We encourage the peer reviewer to
continue to communicate and work with residents of Anza (Units 6 and 7)
to conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly, within and outside of
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Should residents of
Anza or surrounding areas be interested in developing a partnership to
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly, Service biologists are
available to participate and provide information on such partnership
programs as Safe Harbor Agreements for private landowners. Safe Harbor
Agreements provide assurances to landowners under the Act that no
additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed if
conservation practices on their land attract or perpetuate federally
listed species. At this time, there is no formal partnership between
the peer reviewer, residents of Anza, or the Service to conserve the
Quino checkerspot butterfly or its habitat, other than the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western
Riverside County MSHCP; Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003), under which
some areas south of the community of Anza are already excluded (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
Comment 2: One peer reviewer observed Quino checkerspot butterflies
``by the 100s'' near the community of Anza during a subspecies
``outbreak.'' The peer reviewer observed several unique behaviors in
the Anza area in 2004 (they stated 2006 but our records indicate 2004),
including a female deep within a stand of Adenostoma sparsifolium
(redshank), likely searching for sites to deposit eggs. Despite
extensive survey efforts prior to this 2004 observation, the peer
reviewer had never observed Quino checkerspot butterflies in dense A.
sparsifolium, and previously assumed the subspecies never went into
such areas.
The peer reviewer asserted that Quino checkerspot butterflies move
many more miles during periods of high subspecies density than observed
during average density years. The peer reviewer hypothesized that,
under certain environmental conditions, hormonal changes could be
responsible for the behavioral changes he observed. The peer reviewer
also noted that, during historical ``outbreaks,'' Quino checkerspot
butterflies were observed in downtown San Diego. The peer reviewer
hypothesized this movement behavior may be unique to the Quino
checkerspot butterfly among Edith's checkerspot subspecies, and
movement between populations may be important for replacing extirpated
populations and maintaining gene flow between extant populations.
Finally, the peer reviewer stated a lack of conserved ``intermediate
habitat'' between populations may cause extirpation of populations and,
eventually, subspecies extinction.
Our Response: We were aware of the peer reviewers' observations and
had incorporated those observations into our analysis (for example,
inclusion of closed-woody canopy areas in Primary Constituent Element
(PCE) 2; see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below). We
appreciate the peer reviewers' insights and contributions to our
knowledge of the subspecies' biology.
Although we are not aware of any recorded long-distance movements
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, the one within-habitat patch
movement study completed at Otay Lakes (White and Levin 1981, pp. 350,
355) concluded that Quino checkerspot butterflies were ``less
sedentary'' than bay checkerspot butterflies and may disperse greater
distances. Plasticity and variability of movement behavior is typical
among Euphydryas spp. (Service 2003a, pp. 10-13), as demonstrated by
the historical observations of Quino checkerspot butterflies in
downtown San Diego that were cited by the peer reviewer. These
observations indicate that, when many individuals were dispersing
during at least one unusually high-density historical event, developed
areas did not prevent such movement. Therefore, because the best
available scientific information supports the need for within-
population movement areas, but does not support the necessity or
identification of ``intermediate habitat'' for dispersal between
populations, we included only movement areas within habitat-based
population distributions in our critical habitat designation (see
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below).
Comment 3: Based on personal experience maintaining captive
populations, the peer reviewer asserted that Quino checkerspot
butterfly populations are more susceptible to inbreeding depression
than most other butterfly species. The peer reviewer stated that, when
closely related Quino checkerspot butterfly individuals are bred ``for
some time'' without out-crossing, they observe greater egg and larval
mortality than generally observed in butterfly species in the family
Lycaenidae (coppers and blues). The peer reviewer concluded the Service
should consider assisting genetic exchange between populations that
appear to be losing genetic variability, such as the small population
in Unit 1 (Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex). The peer
reviewer stated they suspected low genetic diversity was a primary
cause of the Gavilan Hills/Lake Mathews population extirpation.
Our Response: We recognize that the increased mortality observed
during captive rearing could be indicative of inbreeding depression;
however, we have no basis upon which to determine whether or not
populations of the Quino checkerspot butterfly outside of a laboratory
setting experience inbreeding depression. We agree with the commenter's
recommendation that an evaluation of the population genetics of this
butterfly could assist its recovery, and we discussed the possible
effects of genetic drift and inbreeding depression in the listing rule
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Service 1997, pp. 2319-2320). We
appreciate this information; however, we do not believe it is relevant
to our final revised critical habitat designation.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer stated that populations in Units 6 and
7 near the community of Anza are ``continuous and not actually
separate.'' The peer reviewer indicated that extensive suitable habitat
exists between these two units (especially in Terwilliger Valley),
which is probably occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Additionally, the peer reviewer noted there are multiple public land
parcels in the area and some have extensive stands of the food plant
Antirrhinum coulterianum.
Our Response: While landscape connectivity does exist between Units
6 and 7 in the Anza area, and some occupied habitat exists in the area
that was not included in our proposed revised critical habitat units
(Cave Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core occurrence complexes), habitat
within the community of Anza is fragmented, and large areas of
landscape connectivity occur outside our mapped habitat-based
population distributions (that is, not occupied). Our habitat-based
population distributions are the best estimate of population occupancy
based on the best available scientific data. Because the habitat-based
population distributions are not continuous, we must assume the
Bautista Road and Tule Peak/Silverado core occurrence complexes and the
Cave Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core
[[Page 28783]]
occurrence complexes are not part of a single population. We determined
that habitat captured by the core occurrence complex habitat-based
population distributions in Units 6 and 7 provide the PCEs laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Our criteria used to identify critical
habitat focused on core occurrence complex habitat-based population
distributions designed to capture all habitats likely to support
resilient metapopulations, including those likely to support local
source or mainland populations (also called subpopulations) and
movement areas between habitat patches required for metapopulation
resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term definitions).
Finally, Terwilliger Valley is not located between Units 6 and 7, it is
located east of Unit 6 (Unit 7 is north). Please see ``Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat'' section below for further discussion.
Comment 5: Two peer reviewers stated the Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex was probably occupied at the time of listing, but
occupancy was not documented because that area was not adequately
surveyed at that time. The second peer reviewer asserted that, prior to
1998, butterfly experts did not know much about habitats near the
community of Anza, and all high-elevation observations were thought to
be dispersing individuals because the only known primary host plant,
Plantago erecta, did not occur above 3,000 ft (914 m) in elevation. The
second peer reviewer noted that Dr. John Emmel observed a Quino
checkerspot butterfly [near the community of Anza] along Bautista Road
in the 1970s. The second peer reviewer also suggested that surveys be
conducted in higher elevation areas where the Quino checkerspot
butterfly may eventually colonize to determine if the subspecies is
absent and to document possible establishment of new populations in the
future. Finally, the second peer reviewer asserted that movement of
this subspecies into new areas will not be easy because of inbreeding
depression (see Comment 3 above), and suggested the subspecies may move
by local and gradual movements and eventually expand into higher
elevation sites.
Our Response: We agree that it is possible that the Bautista Road
Core Occurrence Complex was occupied at the time of listing; however,
we have insufficient documentation to support that assertion. We
received subsequent confirmation of Dr. Emmel's historical Quino
checkerspot butterfly observation referenced by the peer reviewer. Dr.
Emmel (2008, p. 1) stated that, on March 26, 1988, he observed what
appeared to be a single female Quino checkerspot butterfly at the
intersection of Bautista Road and Tripp Flats Road at 3,840 ft (1,170
m) elevation. Dr. Emmel (2008, p. 1) further stated that this
historical observation within the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex
may have been of a dispersing individual from a more southern
population, and the subspecies may have almost exclusively used
Plantago spp. in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore, we are uncertain when
the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex was initially colonized;
however (as stated above in the ``Background'' section), we believe it
currently provides colonists to higher elevations and, through this
mechanism, likely facilitates range shift resulting from environmental
changes that degrade suitable habitat conditions.
Inbreeding depression may slow colonization of new areas. However,
when gene flow is restricted (for example, by mountainous terrain;
Service 2003a, p. 13), local adaptation can occur quickly because
peripheral populations are not swamped by genes adapted to
environmental conditions specific to the range core (Zakharov and
Hellman 2008, p. 199). Higher rates of local adaptation at a species'
range edge may counteract any negative effects of inbreeding depression
on colonization rate. Therefore, we did not base any of our conclusions
on the hypothesis that inbreeding depression slows colonization of new
areas in this subspecies.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer asserted the use of host plant species
other than Plantago spp. and Antirrhinum coulterianum in Riverside
County should be investigated before assuming they are not used. The
peer reviewer stated that the western San Diego County populations may
also use many undocumented host plants, including Castilleja affinis
(coast Indian paintbrush), Castilleja foliolosa (woolly paintbrush),
Collinsia heterophylla, and Antirrhinum nuttallianum (Nuttall's
snapdragon).
Finally, the peer reviewer expressed the opinion that Penstemon
centranthifolius (scarlet bugler) may also be an important Quino
checkerspot host plant near the community of Anza. The peer reviewer
stated that they observed Quino checkerspot butterflies in early spring
near the community of Anza and that subspecies' presence appears to be
positively correlated with relatively heavy feeding damage on P.
centranthifolius by an as-yet-undetected herbivore. The peer reviewer
hypothesized the feeding damage on P. centranthifolius could be caused
by late-instar Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae because they had
difficulty detecting Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae on host plants
other than Plantago spp. The peer reviewer concluded that P.
centranthifolius might be important for post-diapause larval feeding
because it is the only potential host plant species available for adult
egg deposition and post-diapause larval feeding during periods of
drought. Therefore, the peer reviewer believes P. centranthifolius may
be an important food source for the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae
in high-elevation sites during drought.
Our Response: We agree the Quino checkerspot butterfly may use
different host plant species across its range. We provided a list of
all host plant species where egg deposition has been documented in our
``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below, including Collinsia
concolor, documented in 2008 to be used in the field by the Quino
checkerspot. We appreciate information on potential use of Penstemon
centranthifolius as a host plant; however, Quino checkerspot butterfly
use of this potential hostplant species has not been documented, and
any related changes to this final revised critical habitat designation
would not be appropriate.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer noted that, based on his experience,
Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), Chaenactis glabriuscula (pinchusion
flower), and Ericameria linearifolia (narrowleaf goldenbush) are
important nectar sources for Quino checkerspot butterfly survival. The
peer reviewer stated some of the nectar sources on page 3335 of the
proposed revised critical habitat rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008)
are not important because they are rarely visited by females and,
therefore, do not contribute to increased production of eggs or
subspecies survival.
Our Response: We appreciate this information based on the peer
reviewer's experience and have revised our list of nectar source
examples in the PCEs to include the species named by the peer reviewer.
The peer reviewer did not specify which nectar sources on the existing
PCE list they did not believe were important. Our list of nectar
sources is not exhaustive, and nectar source importance can be site
specific. Therefore, we believe our current PCE nectar source list is
appropriate (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below).
Comment 8: One peer reviewer stated that overcollection did not
play a role in
[[Page 28784]]
the loss of Quino checkerspot butterfly populations.
Our Response: The listing rule (62 FR 2313; January 16, 1997)
identified over-collection as a threat to the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. The Service has initiated a 5-year review on this subspecies
and is re-evaluating the magnitude and extent of all threats. We
appreciate this information; however, we do not believe it is relevant
to our final revised critical habitat designation.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer stated that they believe all areas
containing low shrubs should be included in the PCEs because diapause
constitutes the majority of the Quino checkerspot butterfly's annual
life cycle, and larvae diapause in low shrubs such as Eriogonum
fasciculatum (California buckwheat).
Our Response: This critical habitat designation includes all
habitat-based population distributions associated with core occurrence
complexes (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section
below), and the PCEs include all vegetation with an open woody canopy,
including shrublands (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section
below). Therefore, habitat containing low shrubs essential to the
conservation of the subspecies, such as Eriogonum fasciculatum, is
included in this final revised critical habitat designation.
Comment 10: One peer reviewer maintained that the availability of
prominent hilltops should be ``weighed carefully in any decision
relating to the possible exclusion of critical habitat and associated
conservation plans'' because the loss of such courtship areas could
result in the loss of populations even if other PCEs are present in
designated critical habitat.
Our Response: This peer reviewer is apparently concerned that
exclusion of areas from critical habitat will result in the loss of the
excluded habitat, especially habitat containing hilltops. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to designate critical
habitat after taking into consideration the economic impacts, national
security impacts, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designating a particular area as critical
habitat, unless the failure to designate will result in the extinction
of the species. We believe the exclusions made in this final revised
rule are legally supported under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
scientifically justified. The peer reviewer specifically commented on
exclusions where conservation plans are in place. Areas excluded under
section 4(b)(2) based on completed habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or
other Service-approved management plans receive long-term protection
and conservation; therefore, areas excluded from critical habitat
designation should not result in the loss of the excluded habitat,. As
discussed below, we fully considered and weighed the benefits to the
conservation of the subspecies from including the specific areas we
determined contain the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly (including
prominent hilltops used for mating) within the habitat conservation
plan areas, in light of our determination that these areas will be
adequately protected on lands covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP and the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP), City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section
below).
Comment 11: One peer reviewer stated, ``Although annual surveys for
the presence of [Quino checkerspot] butterfly adults are important * *
* a population can be represented for several consecutive bad years by
diapausing larval clusters that have been shown to survive for at least
4 years.'' The peer reviewer added that other butterfly and moth
species have adapted to drought conditions in the western United States
and are capable of diapausing for up to 30 years.
Our Response: We are aware Quino checkerspot butterflies can
diapause for multiple years (Service 2003a, pp. 8-9), and under extreme
drought conditions, no larvae in a surveyed area may have metamorphosed
into adults. We are also aware that captive rearing and observations of
the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae indicate that repeated diapause
is relatively common (over 50 percent likelihood for the first year;
Pratt 2006, p. 10). Larvae can re-enter diapause up to three times
(four diapause periods), but more than three diapause periods during an
individual's lifespan is unusual (Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Captive-
rearing and field data indicate that larvae typically undergo extended
diapause when environmental conditions are not favorable for growth
(Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Negative surveys are not considered credible
if unfavorable weather, such as drought, limits Quino checkerspot
butterfly detectability (Service 2002, p. 6). Therefore, we have
confidence in the quality of surveys conducted by individuals with
recovery permits under section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Act and the relative
rarity of spurious results. We did not base any of our criteria on
negative surveys, and included contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km)
of all documented observations within a core occurrence complex (see
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below),
therefore we believe the apparent concerns of this peer reviewer have
been adequately addressed in this rule.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer suggested the analysis of Quino
checkerspot butterfly nectar resources in the proposed revisions to
critical habitat was not sufficient. The peer reviewer maintained that
nectar plant availability can vary to a large degree among occupied
areas, and the relative importance of nectar plant species will change
over the flight period of the butterfly and from year-to-year. The peer
reviewer emphasized that it is important to consider the contribution
of nectar to increased female longevity and egg production.
Our Response: We agree that a more detailed nectar-resource-needs
analysis would be desirable. However, we are not aware of any
quantitative nectar-use data specific to the Quino checkerspot
butterfly that would further inform our analysis. Consequently, we
determined that the peer-reviewed scientific publications that
characterize Quino checkerspot butterfly nectar resources are the best
scientific and commercial information available. Furthermore,
variability in nectar source availability is not relevant to this final
revised critical habitat designation because the PCE description
relevant to nectar resources is not dependent on temporal variability
(for example, many herbaceous plants are not detectable or identifiable
during the fall or winter seasons).
Comment 13: One peer reviewer (A) asserted that, although climate
change may affect insect distributions globally, the hypothesis that it
is affecting the Quino checkerspot butterfly is not supported by
``sound'' biological evidence. Peer reviewer A recommended removing the
climate change discussion to save taxpayer dollars, suggesting that
this modification would not affect the proposed or final revised
critical habitat designation. Peer reviewer A further asserted that our
suggestion that the newly identified colonies of Quino checkerspot
butterflies (unspecified location, presumed north of the community of
Anza) are a result of climate change is speculative. Peer reviewer A
noted that Parmesan's (1996)
[[Page 28785]]
study did not find new northern or higher elevation populations.
Additionally, the peer reviewer claimed Parmesan's (1996) range shift
results were a ``statistical artifact'' of the apparent loss of low-
lying southern populations, and that her negative occupancy data might
have been the result of surveys conducted during ``bad'' years when all
individuals were diapausing larvae.
Conversely, two other peer reviewers (B and C) expressed support
for use of evidence and predictions of range shift resulting from
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns to determine
what lands meet the definition of critical habitat. Peer reviewer B
noted that Quino checkerspot butterfly populations show dramatic
changes in abundance from year to year, including responses to yearly
patterns of precipitation and temperature. Peer reviewers B and C noted
that, because the Edith's checkerspot species is known to respond
strongly to climate, the species would also be expected to respond to
climate change. Peer reviewer B further stated there is no reason to
expect the Quino checkerspot butterfly to respond to ongoing climate
change differently from other insects, and every reason to expect it to
respond similarly to other climate-sensitive species. Peer reviewer C
stated specifically, ``The summary of likely impacts of climate change
for the near and long-term future of the Quino checkerspot butterfly
(largely on page 3332 [of the proposed revised rule]) is well thought
out. I fully agree with the recommendations outlined for revision and
expansion of protected areas. The recommendations represent a rational
adaptation plan to allow the Quino checkerspot butterfly to persist in
the face of on-going climate change which is affecting habitat
suitability in the region.'' Peer reviewer C further stated that shifts
upslope in elevation are more probable than latitudinal shifts because
the Quino checkerspot butterfly's historical range was bounded on the
northern and eastern sides by desert habitat, and elevation shifts
require less adaptation than latitudinal shifts.
Peer reviewer C described two possible drivers of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly's upslope range shift: (1) The main host plant
species may shift upslope; or (2) the subspecies could switch to other
host plant species occurring higher in elevation as that habitat
becomes more suitable with climate change. They noted that rapid
evolution toward use of novel hosts was documented for several
subspecies of Edith's checkerspot. Both peer reviewers argued that new
scientific information (citing several sources) has further supported
Parmesan's (1996) conclusion that the range of Edith's checkerspot
butterfly has retracted at lower elevations and more southern
latitudes, and is likely expanding at higher elevations and more
northern latitudes.
Our Response: As detailed below, we agree with the opinions of peer
reviewers B and C. We agree with peer reviewer A that removing the
issue of climate change would not affect the proposed or final revised
critical habitat designation; however, we do not agree it is not a
relevant criterion for inclusion in critical habitat (see ``Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below). Unit 7 is designed
to capture the habitat occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly
population that is likely one of the two most resilient in existence,
and also most likely to provide colonists to higher elevation habitat
in the process of range shift resulting from environmental changes due
to changing climate patterns (See ``Background'' section above and
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below).
Furthermore, in response to Peer Reviewer A's concerns, we
acknowledge that inherent uncertainty exists in all conclusions drawn
exclusively from correlative ecological field studies and qualitative
observations (Peet 1991, p. 605). Nonetheless, case studies in complex
natural systems are a foundation of ecological science, and conclusions
should be drawn from generalizations based on comparison of other
systems and as much specific local information as possible (Peet 1991,
p. 605). Within the context of this critical habitat designation, we
considered all available data concerning the likelihood of elevation
range shift in the Quino checkerspot butterfly including: (1) Well-
documented loss of lower-elevation populations occurring in this
species (Edith's checkerspot) rangewide, and upslope elevation range-
shifts (including new higher-elevation populations) in related
butterfly species around the world (Parmesan et al. 1999 pp. 579-583;
Parmesan and Yohe 2003, pp. 37-42; Parmesan 2006, pp. 648-649); (2)
significantly earlier butterfly species emergence times (Parmesan 2007,
p. 1860, 1864); (3) widening phenological asynchrony between butterfly
maturation and host plant availability (Parmesan 2007; pp. 1860, 1864,
1868, 1870); and (4) habitat-based model predictions of pronounced
future upslope subspecies range shift resulting from environmental
changes due to changing climate patterns (Preston et al. 2008, p.
2508). The best available scientific data indicate that the Quino
checkerspot butterfly is undergoing range shift and inclusion of
unoccupied habitat and non-core occurrence complexes in Unit 7
encompasses habitat that is essential for the conservation of the
species in light of this documented range shift regardless of causation
or correlation. However, our interpretation of the data documenting and
supporting apparent range shift in the Quino checkerspot butterfly is
associated with environmental changes due to changing climate patterns.
We acknowledge that Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766) study was
restricted to known historical occupancy locations and, as a result,
did not document any new higher elevation populations. However, we are
not aware of any peer-reviewed or other data contradicting Parmesan's
(1996) upslope range shift conclusions, and the conclusions are
supported by the findings of Preston et al. (2008, p. 2512). The peer-
reviewed scientific publications and original data we relied on in this
critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
constitute the best available scientific or commercial data.
Recent qualitative field observations of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly further support the reality of range shift associated with
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns. These
observations include: (1) Multiple habitat-occupancy documentations at
new elevation records; (2) new early emergence records indicating an
extended breeding period at higher elevations; (3) higher abundance in
populations on the edge of the subspecies' upper elevational range
relative to lower elevations; and (4) use of a likely novel host plant
species, Collinsia concolor, growing in cooler, wetter micro-habitats
than known preferred host plant species (see ``Background'' section
above). Although new occupancy sites have also been reported at
intermediate elevations, these areas were more likely to have been
extirpated by the 1980s drought (and subsequently recolonized) than
habitats above the subspecies' known elevation range where higher
average precipitation and cooler temperatures would have made habitat
more suitable. Intermediate elevation sites were also already within
the subspecies' known range and, therefore, more likely to have been
occupied in the past. Lepidopterists have been searching for Quino
checkerspot butterflies where C. concolor occurs for as long as they
have been collecting butterflies. C. concolor is common in most
habitats occupied by the butterfly (see ``Background'' section above);
however, no lepidopterists had
[[Page 28786]]
documented use of this plant by the butterfly prior to 2008.
Furthermore, Dr. Gordon Pratt has been personally searching for Quino
checkerspot butterfly larvae on C. concolor at the microhabitat scale
for approximately 10 years, since 1999 or earlier (Pratt 2001; pp. 34-
43, 60-61), but 2008 was the first time he was able to document use by
the subspecies; therefore, it is likely this host plant was not used
historically.
In summary, while acknowledging some inherent uncertainty, we
believe our conclusion--that newly identified high-elevation occurrence
complexes (such as Quinn Flats Non-core Occurrence Complex) are likely
a result of range shift associated with environmental changes due to
changing climate patterns--is based on sound scientific information. We
agree with the opinion of peer reviewers B and C that our use of
evidence and predictions of climate change-driven range shift in
determining what lands meet the definition of critical habitat is
valid. The data documenting and supporting apparent range shift in the
Quino checkerspot butterfly support our inclusion of unoccupied habitat
adjacent to known occupied habitat and non-core occurrence complexes in
Unit 7 as essential for the conservation of this subspecies.
Comment 14: One peer reviewer stated that our conclusion that
observations in central San Diego County represent residual low-density
populations with decreasing abundance is speculative. The peer reviewer
maintained that the importance of these populations cannot be assessed
without knowing the status of possible diapausing larval clusters in
the area.
Our Response: We did not conclude in the proposed revised rule that
Quino checkerspot butterfly observations in central San Diego County
represent residual low-density populations with decreasing abundance;
we stated, ``we cannot determine whether these new non-core occurrence
complexes represent: (1) Residual, low-density populations decreasing
in abundance; (2) resilient, low-density populations increasing in
abundance; or (3) recent colonization events.'' We then specified the
most likely status is residual, low-density populations decreasing in
abundance. These statements do not address apparent short-term
abundance or presence trends attributable to diapausing larvae that
cannot be detected. Therefore, we edited the ``Background'' section of
this final rule to specify that observations in central San Diego
County likely represent a long-term (not short-term) decreasing
abundance trend.
Assessment of populations using direct detection of diapausing
larvae is not possible. Although a preliminary study of diapause site
preference was recently undertaken (Pratt 2006, pp. 1-11), field
surveys for diapausing larvae are not feasible given the current
biological knowledge of the subspecies.
Comment 15: One peer reviewer (A) expressed concern that heavy use
of metapopulation terminology in the proposed rule may be confusing to
members of the public. Additionally, the peer reviewer said that it
would be valuable to think of Quino checkerspot butterfly populations
as actual populations with mostly diapausing larval clusters waiting
for a good year, rather than what the peer reviewer interprets the
Service describing as a hypothetical [meta]population model involving
periodic extirpation of local populations. Conversely, two other peer
reviewers (B and C) expressed support for the use of metapopulation
ecology as a basis for determining what lands meet the definition of
critical habitat. Peer reviewer A pointed out that relatively isolated
habitat patches have a much lower conservation value because natural
extinctions there are not likely to be ``rescued'' by natural
recolonization. Peer reviewer A stated metapopulation ecology applies
to the subfamily to which the Quino checkerspot butterfly belongs
(Melitaeine butterflies) and to the subspecies, citing numerous peer-
reviewed, published studies of related species. Peer reviewer A
emphasized that, in the absence of direct studies of population
structure in this subspecies, it would be unwise to assume
metapopulation ecology does not apply to the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. Peer reviewer C agreed that scientific evidence supports the
conclusions that the structure of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
is inherently patchy, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly has a
slightly higher typical dispersal distance than its close relative, the
bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis); both are indicators of
metapopulation structure.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's concern that use of
scientific terminology associated with complex population models can be
confusing. As a result, we tried to minimize the use of scientific
terminology and simplified our explanations of metapopulation theory in
this final revised critical habitat rule, and referred simply to
``populations'' wherever metapopulation structure was irrelevant (the
language applied to any population structure). We did not receive any
additional comments indicating that our use of metapopulation
terminology was confusing or that a reader could not understand the
basic model concepts.
We agree with the peer reviewers who supported the use of
metapopulation dynamics in our population structure analysis. Our
critical habitat units are core occurrence complex habitat-based
population distributions designed to capture networks of habitat
patches occupied by metapopulations. These units would also protect the
next most-likely type of Quino checkerspot butterfly population--
diffuse but well-mixed populations that may also have shifting
densities and population ``footprints'' (see ``Background'' section
above). Because at least some elements of metapopulation dynamics
models apply to Quino checkerspot butterfly populations, the technical
recovery team authors of the Recovery Plan agreed that metapopulation
models should be a foundation of the recovery strategy (Service 2003a,
pp. 21-31). Nevertheless, the concepts of shifting population
distributions and the need to protect areas of temporarily unoccupied
habitat that apply to metapopulations also apply to any large
population and, therefore, also support critical habitat units based on
habitat-based population distributions regardless of specific
population dynamics (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
section below). The best available scientific data (Service 2003a, pp.
21-31) indicate that local populations within a metapopulation or
similar geographically defined sections of Quino checkerspot butterfly
populations are periodically extirpated, and these habitats within
population distributions are generally recolonized at some future time.
Therefore, our consideration of metapopulation dynamics in this
critical habitat revision is appropriate.
Peer reviewer A seems to conclude that very few Quino checkerspot
butterfly individuals in a population mature to adulthood during any
given ``flight season.'' Available captive-rearing data on the Quino
checkerspot butterfly's repeated diapause indicate that, in a typical
year, approximately 50 percent of a given population does not return to
diapause (Pratt 2006, p. 10). The best available scientific data
(laboratory observations) indicate that, in a presumably a typical or
average growth year, approximately half the post-diapause larvae in a
Quino checkerspot butterfly population will mature to adulthood. We are
not aware of any other data that contradict our conclusions regarding
Quino checkerspot butterfly population dynamics.
[[Page 28787]]
Comment 16: One peer reviewer stated that fritillaries (various
butterflies of the family Nymphalidae, especially of the genera
Speyeria and Boloria, having brownish wings marked with black or
silvery spots on the underside) are no longer included in the subfamily
Melitaeinae and that most recent publications place fritillaries in the
subfamily Heliconiinae.
Our Response: In the proposed revised critical habitat rule, we
mentioned that fritillaries were one type of butterfly belonging to the
same subfamily as the Quino checkerspot butterfly. While the
information provided by the peer reviewer is appreciated, such a
taxonomic change does not affect Quino checkerspot butterfly taxonomy
and, therefore, does not need to be addressed in this final rule.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer offered several technical editorial
suggestions with regard to our discussion of Parmesan's (1996) study
and climate change-driven range shift. The peer reviewer stated that
the methods used by Parmesan (1996) were slightly different than
described in the proposed revised critical habitat rule and suggested
the following specific corrections. The first year of the field census
was actually 1992, not 1994 as stated in the proposed revised rule. The
historical records ranged from 1860 to 1982, with most dating from
1930-1975. The re-census of these records began in mid-season 1992 and
continued through the April field season of 1996 (thus 1996 included
the southern populations, but not those in the high-latitude and high-
elevation sites in the Sierra Nevada and Canada that don't fly until
July and August). The peer reviewer stated that none of Parmesan's
(1996) re-censusing included wet El Ni[ntilde]o or drought years;
therefore, the skewed patterns of extirpations are not attributable to
climatic or geographic bias across census years.
The peer reviewer stated that the phrase ``experienced 80 percent
of all recorded local extirpations'' on page 3331 of the proposed
revised rule is not accurate. The peer reviewer suggested replacing
this phrase with: ``* * * and noted that 80 percent of historically
recorded populations in the southern part of the range were currently
extinct at the time of the re-census in the mid-1990s, while other
areas of Edith's checkerspot butterfly further north experienced only
40 percent in the mid-latitudes to as low as 20 percent extirpations
along the northern range boundary, and with fewer than 15 percent
extirpations in the highest elevation band (above 2,400 m).''
The peer reviewer recommended adding the documentation of upward
elevational shift in Edith's checkerspot butterfly from Parmesan (1996)
to the description of the northward shift in population distributions
on page 3331 of the proposed revised rule. The peer reviewer suggested
the following text to be inserted after the statement, ``This shift in
range closely matched shifts in mean yearly temperature (Parmesan 1996,
pp. 765-766): A parallel elevational gradient in extirpations shifted
the mean location of Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations upward
by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint in the pattern of extirpations occurred
at 7,874 ft (2,400 m), with about 40 percent of all populations below
7,874 ft (2,400 m) recorded as extirpated in otherwise suitable
habitats, while less than 15 percent were extirpated above 7,874 ft
(2,400 m; up to the highest known population at 11,319 ft (3,450 m)).
This pattern matched trends in snowpack dynamics in the Sierra Nevada
(where the high-elevation populations are found) over the same time
period as the butterfly study, with significant trends toward lighter
snowpack and earlier melt date below 7,874 ft (2,400 m), and heavier
snowpack and a (non-significant) trend toward later melt date above
7,874 ft (2,400 m; Johnson et al. 1999).'' Furthermore, the peer
reviewer stated that Karl et al. 1996 should be added to the latter
statement as a citation for the temperature shift over the 20th century
across the Edith's checkerspot butterfly's range.
The peer reviewer suggested we add Ehrlich et al. 1980; Singer and
Ehrlich 1979; and Singer and Thomas 1996 to the list of citations on
page 3332 supporting the statement ``Documentation of climate-related
changes that have already occurred in California'' as examples of
Edith's checkerspot butterfly population extirpations following extreme
climatic events.
The peer reviewer stated that, on page 3331 of the proposed revised
rule, ``Thomas, et al. 2006, pp. 146-147'' should be the year 2004, and
this paper is properly cited as discussing projected population
extinctions and species range shifts, not observed shifts as all the
other cited papers.
Our Response: We edited the above ``Background'' section to reflect
these technical corrections.
Comment 18: One peer reviewer noted the statement ``The hundreds of
adults observed during surveys in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex
in 2001 were unprecedented'' (p. 3331 of the proposed revised rule) is
not accurate and cited historical precedents.
Our Response: We agree this statement was in error. We are aware of
greater magnitude historical Quino checkerspot butterfly ``outbreaks''
than those observed in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex (see
``Background'' section above). We meant that such outbreaks were
unprecedented since the 1970s, starting with the 1980s drought and
subsequent subspecies decline. The paper we intended to cite was
Thomas, et al. 2006, pp. 146-147 (not 2004). We have edited the above
``Background'' section to accurately characterize this information.
Public Comments
Comments Related To Primary Constituent Elements and Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat
Comment 19: One commenter requested that we designate Wright's
Field in the community of Alpine as revised critical habitat because:
(1) Adult Quino checkerspot butterflies were observed for 3 years at a
site within approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) of Wright's Field; (2) habitat
at Wright's field appears to be ``ideal;'' (3) Wright's Field provides
``connectivity'' for core Quino checkerspot butterfly populations to
the south (populations not otherwise identified by commenter); (4)
designation of Wright's Field would facilitate recovery; and (5) the
Quino checkerspot butterfly (not currently known from this location)
could be discovered at Wright's Field.
Our Response: We acknowledge that some areas not included in this
final revised critical habitat designation may contain suitable habitat
and be proximal to occupied areas. We also acknowledge that management
of some habitat areas not designated or proposed as revisions to
critical habitat would likely contribute to the conservation (recovery)
of this subspecies. However, the Act defines critical habitat as: (1)
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it is listed on which are found those physical and
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species,
and (b) which may require special management considerations or
protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. Not all areas that may contribute to a species' recovery
are necessarily essential for conservation of the species. The best
available data (including the information provided by the commenter) do
not demonstrate that
[[Page 28788]]
the Wright's Field area is essential for the conservation of the
subspecies.
We delineated proposed revised critical habitat using criteria
based on the conservation and biological needs of the subspecies
according to the best available science. Areas proposed as critical
habitat are: (1) Currently occupied, core occurrence complex habitat-
based population distributions (contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km)
of Quino checkerspot butterfly occurrence records); (2) consistent with
recommendations in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 35, 165); and
(3) designed to include additional habitat contiguous with the Bautista
Road Core Occurrence Complex habitat-based population distribution
needed to support core occurrence complex resiliency and range shift
resulting from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns.
These criteria determine the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of this subspecies, as identified by the PCEs in
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement, and capture the areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the Quino checkerspot
butterfly at the time of listing that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies (see the ``Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat'' section below). Therefore, we believe our proposed
designation and this final designation accurately describe all specific
areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly, and we did not propose Wright's Field for
designation as revised critical habitat.
Comment 20: One commenter requested increasing the extent of the
proposed critical habitat designation to include all recovery units,
all occurrence complexes outside of recovery units, and sufficient
habitat for dispersal (Service 2003a, pp. 31, 34, 35, 71, 73-76).
Our Response: The Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 75) states
``Recovery units include lands both essential and not essential to the
long-term conservation of the butterfly, and comprise a variety of
habitat types.'' Therefore, designation of all land within all recovery
units, and all occurrence complexes as revised critical habitat is not
appropriate. Moreover, critical habitat designations do not signal that
habitat outside of the designation is unimportant or may not contribute
to recovery (see response to Comment 19 above). Occupied habitat
outside the final revised critical habitat designation will continue to
be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act, and regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.
According to 50 CFR 424.12(e), the Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied
by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would
be inadequate to ensure conservation of the species. Accordingly, when
the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that
limiting designation of critical habitat to areas within the
geographical area presently occupied by the species is adequate to
ensure the conservation of the species, we will not designate critical
habitat outside those areas. In this designation, we did include
habitat in Unit 7 that is outside the geographical area currently known
to be occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly because available
data support a determination that this habitat is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies. However, we are not aware of any data
supporting the commenter's request to include all recovery units, all
occurrence complexes outside of recovery units, and unoccupied habitat
as critical habitat. For discussions of areas for movement and
dispersal that meet the definition of critical habitat, see responses
to comments 2 and 4 above.
Comment 21: One commenter stated that the proposed revised rule did
not consider inclusion of the higher-elevation habitat needed to
accommodate the subspecies ability to respond to a changing climate in
any units except Unit 7, and requested expansion of the critical
habitat designation to include all ``stepping stone'' habitat patches
that would facilitate dispersal into unoccupied habitat patches at
higher elevations (cited Service 2003a, p. 65).
Our Response: We believe our criteria capture all areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. Vegetation and host plant
distribution data and new distribution information (see response to
Comment 20 above) indicate the Bautista Road Core Occurrence complex is
part of a greater population distribution, which also shows evidence of
supporting range expansion to areas outside of this unit resulting from
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns in this area.
Hence, we are designating areas between occurrence complexes in Unit 7
where occupancy is expected but has not been documented, but not as
stepping-stone habitat patches to facilitate dispersal into unoccupied
habitat patches at higher elevations.
We are not aware of any specific data supporting the commenter's
request to expand critical habitat to include all possible ``stepping
stone'' habitat patches that would facilitate dispersal into unoccupied
habitat patches at higher elevations. The recovery plan describes
``stepping stone'' movement areas in reference to landscape
connectivity between local habitat patches within a metapopulation
distribution (Service 2003a, pp. 13, 162); these movement areas were
captured by proposed revised critical habitat units (see also the
discussion of movement and dispersal areas in response to comments 2
and 4 above).
Comment 22: One commenter asserted the specificity of PCEs were
over-restrictive. The commenter maintained having host plant species as
required PCEs creates the risk that critical habitat will not be
identified when plants do not germinate under dry environmental
conditions.
Our Response: The PCEs include known nutritional and physiological
requirements and sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of
offspring. Presence of a host plant is an appropriate PCE because the
Quino checkerspot butterfly requires host plants for reproduction and
rearing of offspring. We list all known host plants within PCE 1(B) and
1(C). Designation of critical habitat is a regulatory process that
results in hard-line boundaries, so the only lands ``excluded'' by text
are small, developed areas such as roads and single-family homes.
Regardless of regulatory implications, large numbers of host plants
(usually more than one species) are required during most years to
support continued occupancy. Therefore, some host plants should always
be detectible in habitat supporting a core occurrence complex, even in
drought years when a majority of seeds fail to germinate and most
larvae return to diapause. Furthermore, areas can be determined to
support PCE 1 by the presence of nectar sources alone within open woody
canopy vegetation (see ``Primary Constituent Elements for the Quino
Checkerspot Butterfly'' section below). Therefore, suitable habitat
within critical habitat units should be identifiable, no matter how low
densities of germinating host plants are.
Comment 23: One commenter requested that we amend PCE 2 to include
areas beyond 656 ft (200 m) of a habitat patch to facilitate movement
within and among habitat patches in a metapopulation distribution. The
commenter asserted that PCE 2 describes features that only allow for
within-habitat patch movement of Quino checkerspot butterflies, not
among-patch movement. In support of
[[Page 28789]]
their request, the commenter cited White and Levin's (1981, pp. 350-
351) findings that adult Quino checkerspot butterfly within-patch
movement often exceeded 656 ft (200 m).
Our Response: The term ``habitat patch'' within the context of
Quino checkerspot butterfly population dynamics and movement refers to
a set of host plant ``micro-patches'' within the typical flight range
of adult butterflies (about 160 to 660 ft (50 to 200 m)) (Service
2003a, p. 22), and all nectar sources within the same distance of these
host plant ``micro-patches'' (Service 2003a, p. 19) in areas of
contiguous, open woody canopy vegetation (Service 2003a, pp. 10-11). A
habitat patch defines either the entire distribution of a ``well-
mixed'' (non-metapopulation or typical) population, or the distribution
of a subpopulation (also called a local population) within a
metapopulation (Service 2003a, p. 27). We did not map habitat patches
because no such detailed measurements were conducted for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. The critical habitat units in this designation
were designed using the best available scientific or commercial data to
capture population-scale distributions for either a metapopulation or a
well-mixed population.
Areas between habitat patches occupied by subpopulations of a
metapopulation within a critical habitat unit should be connected to
other habitat patches by open-woody canopy areas with at least one PCE.
Movement areas within population distributions are already captured by
PCEs 1, 2 and 3; therefore, PCE 2 need not be amended to capture
movement within habitat patches or between habitat patches occupied by
subpopulations of a metapopulation (see also the discussion of movement
and dispersal areas in response to comments 2 and 4 above).
The purpose of PCE 2 is to capture closed-woody canopy vegetation
on the periphery of a habitat patch that is used by adults and is also
likely to deter adult dispersal out of the habitat patch under typical
environmental conditions (Service 2003a, p. 10). All movements recorded
during White and Levin's (1981, p. 349) study occurred in contiguous,
open-woody canopy areas containing host plants and nectar sources
already captured by PCE 1. Therefore, areas where movement distances
greater than 656 ft (200 m) were recorded by White and Levin (1981, p.
349) near Otay Lakes occurred at locations that do not need to be
captured by PCE 2. Furthermore, although White and Levin (1981, pp.
350-352) did record a number of Quino checkerspot butterfly within-
habitat patch movement distances greater than 656 ft (200 m), it is not
appropriate to apply a study of within-habitat movement to a
determination of areas required for between-patch movement.
Comment 24: A commenter owns 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of land near Vail
Lake in Riverside County (much of which falls within proposed revised
critical habitat). The commenter asserted that the proposed revisions
are not valid based on a study conducted by Helix Environmental
Planning that the commenter claimed showed no evidence of Quino
occupancy on the commenter's land.
Our Response: We did not receive a copy of the cited study from the
commenter. However, we have a survey report in our files submitted by
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. in 2003 documenting the occurrence
of adult Quino checkerspot butterfly on the commenter's Vail Lake
property. Surveyors made only three visits (a protocol-level survey
requires at least 5) to areas distributed over a 7,500 ac (3,035 ha)
area completely surrounding Vail Lake (Helix Environmental Planning
2003, p. 1). Surveyors reported over 145 adult Quino checkerspot
butterfly observations from 16 sites broadly distributed across the
property (Helix Environmental Planning 2003, pp. 1-2). Surveyors also
described large populations of host plants and abundant nectar sources
(Helix Environmental Planning 2003, pp. 1-2). Furthermore, all areas
proposed as revised critical habitat within Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak
Mountain) are also within our core occurrence complex habitat-based
population distribution (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat'' section below). Therefore, we believe the inclusion of the
property in question in the proposed revised critical habitat unit is
valid.
Comments Related To Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Exclusions
Comment 25: One commenter stated that the designation of critical
habitat on lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP is
inappropriate because these lands do not require special management
considerations or protection; management and protection are already
provided by the regional HCP. A second commenter asserted that all
lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area boundary should be
excluded because this regional HCP adequately conserves the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. Conversely, a third commenter claimed that lands
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP should not be excluded from
critical habitat because habitat within the HCP boundaries meets the
definition of critical habitat per Center for Biological Diversity et
al. v. Norton (CV 01-409, District of Arizona, January 13, 2002), where
Judge David C. Bury stated, ``The fact that a habitat is already under
some sort of management for its conservation is absolute proof that
habitat is `critical.'''
Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) provides requirements for identifying
(defining) critical habitat, in part, as areas that require special
management considerations or protection, while section 4(b)(2) directs
the Secretary to consider the impacts of designating such areas as
critical habitat and provides the Secretary with discretion to exclude
particular areas if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. In this rule, we do not state that areas do not meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because
they are being adequately managed. Rather, we considered the management
of particular areas that do meet the definition of critical habitat in
our exclusion analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact to
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. In accordance with 50 CFR 424.19,
in conducting an impact analysis of critical habitat, the Secretary
shall identify any significant activities that would either affect an
area considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be
affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing designation of
such an area, consider the probable economic and other impacts of the
designation on proposed or ongoing activities. The Secretary may
exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction
of the species concerned. Therefore, consistent with the Act and our
implementing regulations, we must consider the relevant impacts of
designating areas that meet the definition of critical habitat prior to
finalizing a critical habitat designation.
[[Page 28790]]
After determining which areas met the definition of critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly under section 3(5)(A) of
the Act, we took into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. In this final designation, we recognize that designating
critical habitat in areas where we have partnerships with landowners
that have led to conservation or management of listed species on non-
Federal lands has a relevant, perceived impact to landowners and a
relevant impact to future partnerships and conservation efforts on non-
Federal lands. These impacts are described in detail in the
``Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section below. Based
on these impacts, we evaluated the benefits of designating areas as
critical habitat against the benefits of excluding these areas from the
critical habitat designation. Please see the ``Exclusions under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final rule for a detailed
discussion of the benefits of excluding lands covered by management
plans versus the benefits of including these areas in a critical
habitat designation. Upon weighing the benefits of inclusion against
benefits of exclusion, we determined the benefits of excluding all
lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 outweigh the benefits of
including these areas in the final revised critical habitat
designation. Further, we determined exclusion of these areas will not
result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we
excluded all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees
of the HCP in Units 1 through 6 from this final revised critical
habitat designation (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other
Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
At the time the Western Riverside County MSHCP permit was issued,
Units 1 through 6 were known to contain core occurrence complexes, and
over 90 percent of the total area of these units was already designated
critical habitat; therefore, the Quino checkerspot butterfly
populations within these units are addressed by this regional HCP.
However, the new information regarding Quino checkerspot butterfly
distribution in Unit 7 was not known at the time the HCP was developed
and the permit was issued; therefore, we agree the importance of
habitat in this area to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly is not addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This
area was not designated as critical habitat in 2002. We now have much
additional distribution information in this area and determined that
designation of Unit 7 is warranted to: (1) Maintain core population
resilience, (2) support subspecies range shift to higher elevation
habitats due to changing climate patterns that affect the environment,
and (3) educate the public about this new distributional data.
Therefore, land within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area in
Unit 7 is included in our final revised designation of critical habitat
because the conservation benefits to the subspecies of inclusion of
this unique unit outweigh the conservation partnership-related benefits
of exclusion (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant
Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below for more
information).
Comment 26: One commenter expressed concern that Federal lands
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area were not being
considered for exclusion. The commenter further stated that any
designation of critical habitat within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP boundary would be a violation of the plan's associated
Implementing Agreement (IA), citing language in section 6.9 of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and Associated Inc. 2003) and
section 14.10 of the IA.
Our Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, section 14.10
of the IA does not preclude critical habitat designation within the
plan area (Dudek and Associated Inc. 2003). Consistent with our
commitment under the IA, and after public review and comment on the
proposed revision to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly, we determined through our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act that the maximum extent of allowable exclusions under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP was limited to the exclusion of lands
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6.
With regard to the Federal lands within the Western Riverside
County MSHCP plan area, we determined that National Forest lands
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and therefore, meet
the definition of critical habitat (see ``Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat'' section below). We acknowledge that the San
Bernardino National Forest (Forest Service) has a Land Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) that will benefit the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat. The LRMP contains general provisions for
species conservation and suggests specific management and conservation
actions that will benefit this species and the physical and biological
features essential to its conservation. Implementation of the LRMP
should address known threats to this species on Forest Service lands.
We appreciate and commend the efforts of the Forest Service to conserve
federally listed species on its lands.
We considered the request from the commenter that we exclude Forest
Service lands from the designation because it would unnecessarily add
work in the future to determine the effect regarding critical habitat
for actions on its lands and the fact that it had already completed
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act on an LRMP. Based on the
record before us, we decided not to exclude these lands and are
designating National Forest lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We will continue to
consider on a case-by-case basis in future critical habitat rules
whether to exclude particular Federal lands from such designation when
we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits
of their inclusion.
Comment 27: One commenter claimed that lands within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP should not be excluded from critical habitat
because this regional HCP does not adequately protect the subspecies
and, therefore, the benefits of inclusion outweigh the benefits of
exclusion. The commenter provided specific examples of how they believe
the Western Riverside County MSHCP does not adequately protect the
subspecies, including: (1) Approximately 10 percent of critical habitat
in the proposed revised critical habitat rule falls entirely outside
any targeted reserve system (outside criteria cells); (2) conservation
is not likely (``only optional'') for the 14 percent of proposed
revised critical habitat that is within criteria cells but not the
conceptual reserve design; (3) the Western Riverside County MSHCP is
not being properly implemented; (4) the Western Riverside County MSHCP
does not have adequate funding for implementation; and (5) effects of
global warming on covered species was never reviewed or addressed by
the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Our Response: When we issued the permit for the Western Riverside
County MSHCP, we determined that it provides
[[Page 28791]]
adequate protection for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat
within the plan area boundary. We are monitoring the Western Riverside
County MSHCP implementation and the subspecies' status and have not
altered this determination. Additionally, we have not determined the
Western Riverside County MSHCP to be improperly implemented or
inadequately funded. We will evaluate the information submitted by the
commenter and consider it in our ongoing assessments of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, and continue to work with permittees to make
sure the HCP is adequately funded. If during our ongoing assessments of
the Western Riverside County MSHCP we determine the HCP does not
adequately protect the subspecies, is not being properly implemented,
or does not have adequate funding based on all available information,
we will take appropriate action with regard to the HCP permit, and may
again revise designated critical habitat, subject to available funding
and other conservation priorities.
Given specific Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation actions
(for example, conservation of habitat in a reserve system, maintenance
of core populations, enhancement of habitat), avoidance and
minimization measures, and management for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat, the additional conservation value that may
be afforded through a critical habitat designation in Units 1 through 6
is minimal. Furthermore, as demonstrated by comments received from
Western Riverside County MSHCP partners, designation of critical
habitat would negatively impact our existing working relationships and
partnerships that we have developed. The information provided by the
commenter does not change our determination that the benefits of
excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 from revised
critical habitat outweigh the minimal benefits of including these lands
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a complete discussion of
this exclusion).
It is true that approximately 15 percent of critical habitat in the
proposed revised critical habitat rule owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
occurs entirely outside of land targeted for reserve assembly (4,020 ac
(1,627 ha), only 4 percent of entire area proposed), and effects of
climate change on covered species were not specifically reviewed or
addressed by the HCP. The majority of proposed revised critical habitat
that is outside of criteria cells occurs in large contiguous areas
within Unit 7 (approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha)), the remainder is in
small land parcels on the periphery of Unit 2 (approximately 319 ac
(129 ha)). The inclusion of Unit 7 in revised critical habitat is in
part to protect habitat needed to support range shift resulting from
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns. In areas
outside lands targeted for reserve assembly by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP, the additional conservation benefits of critical habitat
designation are not minimized by the HCP in Unit 7, so the benefits of
inclusion are greater than those in Units 1 through 6. Therefore, we
determined the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits of
inclusion in Unit 7 and did not exclude lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in
that unit from this revised critical habitat designation (see
additional discussion in the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other
Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
Comment 28: One commenter requested that lands within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP not be excluded from critical habitat based on
conservation benefits. The commenter stated the Western Riverside
County MSHCP permittees opposition to the designation of critical
habitat suggests they believe the designation would result in a greater
conservation burden on them, and therefore would result in a higher
level of conservation for the subspecies than will occur under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Our Response: We acknowledge that stakeholder and permittee comment
letters indicate opposition to designation of lands covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP; however, these opinions are based on
perception, and as such should not be the basis for determining the
conservation value of critical habitat designation (benefits of
inclusion). Our analysis of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
provides a more informed measure of the benefits of critical habitat
designation than permittee and stakeholder opposition. Conversely,
comments received from Western Riverside County MSHCP partners do
indicate designation of critical habitat would negatively affect our
existing positive working relationships and partnerships, thereby
discouraging future HCP participation. See response to Comment 27 above
for a discussion of the benefits of inclusion of lands within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area in the revised critical
habitat designation (see additional discussion in the ``Application of
Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships''
section).
Comment 29: One commenter believes that we should not exclude lands
covered by HCPs because HCPs do not provide as much protection as
critical habitat. The commenter cited Taylor et al. (2005) as having
found that species with critical habitat are less likely to decline,
and over twice as likely to recover as those without critical habitat.
The commenter also cited Kareiva et al. (1999) as finding that most
HCPs fail to adequately protect species.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that HCPs provide less
protection than critical habitat designation. The Western Riverside
County MSHCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan incorporate on-going
management and protection for the Quino checkerspot butterfly that will
benefit the long-term conservation of the subspecies. The protection
and long-term management provided by these HCPs to Quino checkerspot
butterfly habitat extend to private lands that otherwise lack a Federal
nexus under which consultation could be triggered. These two regional
HCPs provide for proactive monitoring and management of conserved lands
important to the survival and recovery of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. Such conservation needs are typically not addressed through
application of the statutory prohibition on destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
We also note that exclusions are not based on the difference
between protection measures provided by critical habitat designation or
HCPs in isolation, but how the redundancy of protections provided by an
HCP with those provided by critical habitat designation minimizes the
overall conservation value of designation, and how the remaining
benefits of designation are negated by the benefits of exclusion
(maintaining partnerships and fostering future HCPs). Conservation
benefits provided by existing HCPs are not considered a benefit of
exclusion because they would remain in place regardless of critical
habitat designation; however, they do minimize the benefits of
inclusion to the extent they are redundant with protection measures
that would be provided by critical habitat designation.
The primary benefit of a critical habitat designation is the
requirement that Federal agencies do not fund,
[[Page 28792]]
authorize, or carry out actions on designated lands that adversely
modify or destroy critical habitat. Therefore, where there is a Federal
nexus, Federal agencies consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act. Based on the conservation benefits provided by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP (in proposed Units 1 through 6) and the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan, we believe the additional protection provided to
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by critical habitat designation
would be minimal. Therefore, we are excluding most lands within the
plan areas of these HCPs based on the benefits of maintaining our
conservation partnerships.
We also disagree with the commenter that the cited studies are
applicable to the exclusion of lands under the Western Riverside County
MSHCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan under the MSCP regarding Quino
checkerspot butterfly conservation. The results of Taylor et al. (2005,
pp. 360-367) do indicate a significant conservation benefit of critical
habitat designation; however, that study did not analyze or discuss the
effects of HCP-based exclusions. The benefits of exclusion for any
particular HCP must be analyzed independently and balanced against the
benefits of inclusion because HCPs: (1) Are variable in scope; (2)
contain variable conservation and management planning efforts; and (3)
document effects of conservation measures on species abundance trends
that may not be apparent for many years. Many HCPs analyzed by Kareiva
et al. (1999, pp. 10, 21, 22, 89) were not geographically comparable to
the large, regional multi-species plans such as Western Riverside
County MSHCP and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan under the MSCP, and only
4 percent were habitat-based like these large regional HCPs (Kareiva et
al. 1999, pp. 21, 22). Also, the stated purpose of Kareiva et al.'s
(1999, p. 9) study was to evaluate the extent to which scientific data
and methods were used in development and justification of HCP
agreements, not to evaluate what effects plans have on biological
systems or species. Kareiva et al. (1999, p. 9) stated, ``Because the
vast majority of HCPs have been initiated since 1994, it is simply too
early to evaluate whether the plans are working.'' Therefore, general
conclusions in the literature cited by the commenter do not justify
including lands covered by these HCPs.
Comments Related To Legal and Procedural Issues
Comment 30: One commenter stated designation of critical habitat on
lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP is arbitrary and
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Section 701
et seq.), given the Service frequently excludes MSHCP lands from
critical habitat designations, and the County of Riverside Regional
Conservation Authority has demonstrated good faith in assembling Quino
checkerspot butterfly habitat by purchasing the Winchester 700 property
``for a very high price,'' and by purchasing other Quino checkerspot
butterfly habitat parcels in Riverside County.
Our Response: We agree that the Service frequently excludes MSHCP
lands from critical habitat designations and the County of Riverside
Regional Conservation Authority has demonstrated good faith in
assembling Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by purchasing the
``Winchester 700'' property and other habitat parcels in Riverside
County. We do not agree that designating critical habitat on lands in
Unit 7 is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure
Act because we had a reasoned basis for our decision (see comment 25
and associated response above for further discussion).
Comment 31: One commenter believes that final revised critical
habitat boundaries should not include any additional lands that were
not specifically described in the 2008 proposed revised rule (73 FR
3328; January 17, 2008), unless these changes are first noticed to the
public and there is opportunity for public comment.
Our Response: No additional lands are included within the
boundaries of this final revised critical habitat designation that were
not described in the proposed revised critical habitat rule published
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). We did remove
some lands from our revised critical habitat proposal, and this change
was described in the notice of availability of the DEA, which published
in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568).
Tribal Comments
Comment 32: One representative of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians of California (Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians)
supported exclusion of all lands within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP area boundary because they believe the Western Riverside County
MSHCP adequately conserves the Quino checkerspot butterfly. This
commenter further stated that designation of critical habitat within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP boundary would be a violation of the
IA, stating they believe language in section 6.9 of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 2003) and section 14.10 of
the IA means no critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
should be designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area.
Our Response: Please see our responses to comments 25 and 26 above,
and see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for more information
regarding the exclusion process and why we did not exclude lands in
Unit 7 that are owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of
the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Comment 33: The Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo
Reservation, California (Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians), requested
that the Service clearly state which subsection of section 3(5)(A) of
the Act is being relied upon for each unit meeting the definition of
critical habitat. If land is defined as critical habitat under
subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) because it was not occupied at the time of
listing, the tribe suggests including an explanation for why those
lands are considered essential. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
specifically requested that if tribal lands are included in Unit 9, the
Service should explain why this habitat that was ``not occupied at the
time of listing'' is in need of special management and essential to the
subspecies' conservation.
Our Response: Table 1 of the proposed revised critical habitat rule
identifies which critical habitat units were occupied at the time of
listing, and, therefore, what subsection of section 3(5)(A) of the Act
applies to lands in each unit. Units 7 (Bautista) and 9 (La Posta/
Campo) are designated under subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) and are outside of
the geographical area occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly at
the time it was listed.
We made a determination that lands in Unit 9 are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies because it is contains unique habitat,
is distant from other units (indicating occupancy by a unique and
independent population), and because ensuring persistence of
populations associated with core occurrence complexes is essential for
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In identifying areas
that meet the definition of critical habitat, we recognize the
importance of including all lands necessary to support resilient core
populations. We are not aware of any data that contradict our
determination that tribal lands included
[[Page 28793]]
in proposed revised critical habitat are essential for the conservation
of the subspecies. With regard to special management, section
3(5)(A)(i) of the Act only requires a determination that the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species
that are found in areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing may require special management
considerations or protection. Therefore, because lands in Unit 9 are
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, we did not provide a determination of special management needs
for Unit 9 in the proposed revised rule or this final revised rule.
Comment 34: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians believes the
benefits of critical habitat designation are minimal for La Posta/Campo
Unit 9, given the likelihood habitat is occupied and consultation would
be required regardless of critical habitat designation. They support
exclusion of the entire unit based on insufficient conservation
benefits.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary to
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into consideration the economic impacts,
national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. Although we do not agree with
the tribe's assertion that all lands within the La Posta/Campo Unit 9
should be excluded based on ``insufficient'' conservation benefits, our
analyses revealed that tribally owned portions of the unit should be
excluded based on impacts to national security, government-to-
government relations, and economics. We excluded all tribally owned
lands because we determined that the impacts to government-to-
government relationships and economics outweighed the benefits of
including those areas as critical habitat, and that the exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We
also excluded lands owned or controlled by the Navy in Unit 9 due to
impacts to national security. No private lands in Unit 9 are covered by
an HCP or other management plan that addresses subspecies conservation
(see response to comments 10 and 25-29 above, and the ``Application of
Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts To Government-To-Government Relationships With
Tribes And Economics,'' and ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts
to National Security'' sections below for more details on our exclusion
analyses).
Comment 35: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated that the
proposed rule does not explain any progress toward understanding
subspecies population dynamics, habitat requirements, and population
distributions made since the Recovery Plan was published in 2003. They
requested detailed documentation of any new information and how it
supports the proposed revisions to critical habitat.
Our Response: The Service received significantly more survey data
documenting population distributions (which inform our understanding of
population dynamics) than were available at the time the Recovery Plan
published. The ``Status and Local Distribution of Populations''
sections (for Riverside and San Diego counties) of the proposed revised
critical habitat rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008) provided detailed
documentation of new distribution information. Several relatively
isolated occurrences were recently discovered despite previously
negative survey results prior to publication of the Recovery Plan (such
as Mission Trails Park, Sycamore Canyon Open Space Preserve). Discovery
of new non-core and core occurrence complexes (including La Posta/
Campo) indicate Quino checkerspot butterfly core populations may have
larger distributions and are more resilient than believed at the time
the Recovery Plan published. Therefore, the new non-core occurrence
complexes, and new occurrences that expanded existing occurrence
complexes, support our focus on designating population distributions
associated with core occurrence complexes (see ``Criteria Used to
Designate Critical Habitat'' section below).
We have also acquired considerable additional information regarding
the types of habitat used by the Quino checkerspot butterfly since the
Recovery Plan published in 2003. Knowledge regarding the physical and
biological features essential to conservation of the species is
required for habitat delineation and descriptions (PCEs). New habitat
information acquired since Recovery Plan publication includes: (1)
Subspecies use of unique redshank chaparral habitat, where no species
of Plantago host plant occur (La Posta/Campo Unit 9, the new high-
elevation Quinn Flat Occurrence Complex in Riverside County); (2) heavy
use of Antirrhinum coulterianum host plants that can occur following
fire at lower elevations adjacent to where Plantago erecta occurs
(Skinner/Johnson Unit 2; CFWO 2004); (3) A. coulterianum and possibly
Collinsia concolor supports occupancy in habitat patches where Plantago
host plant species are absent (La Posta/Campo Unit 9); and (4) Quino
checkerspot butterflies inhabit areas above 5,000 ft (1,524 m) in
elevation (Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5, 11-12; Pratt 2005, p.1; SBNF
GIS database). Since publication of the proposed revised critical
habitat rule, we also learned another species of host plant previously
suspected of supporting reproduction is used and important to
conservation of the subspecies near the community of Anza (see
``Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical
Habitat'' section below). Therefore, our conclusion that proposed
revised units meet the definition of critical habitat is supported by
geographically specific habitat information, and the new host plant
information supports the addition of a new biological feature to our
list of PCEs.
Comment 36: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested we clarify
the criteria for designating critical habitat by defining the term
``occupied habitat,'' and define the geographic size and number of
adults (or adults and larvae) required for an occurrence complex to
qualify as ``core.'' The tribe specifically expressed concern that the
proposed rule described core occurrence complexes as likely to contain
source subpopulations for a metapopulation without providing sufficient
data to support this conclusion.
Our Response: Occupancy within a critical habitat unit is defined
by the habitat-based population distribution of an occurrence complex.
A habitat-based population distribution includes all contiguous habitat
within 1.2 mi (2 km) of a Quino checkerspot butterfly occurrence (see
``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section below).
Habitat-based population distributions are used to define population-
scale occupancy because observation locations are one-dimensional and
static, and expanded areas based solely on recorded movement distances
of a species may include non-habitat. The proposed revised critical
habitat units are the habitat-based population distributions associated
with core occurrence complexes. Therefore, the term ``occupied
habitat'' in this rule refers to areas at the spatial and temporal
scales of a population distribution described using the best available
scientific data.
We define core occurrence complexes using several criteria.
Population attributes such as subspecies abundance, total area
occupied, and evidence of reproduction are all
[[Page 28794]]
indicators of population resilience. To clarify, a ``core occurrence
complex'' is defined as an area where at least two of the following
criteria apply: (1) 50 or more adults were ever observed during a
single survey; (2) immature life stages have been recorded; and (3) the
geographic area of an occurrence complex (within 0.6 mi (1 km) of
subspecies occurrences) is greater than 1,290 ac (522 ha) (see
``Background'' section above). Therefore, all proposed revised critical
habitat units contain occurrence complexes that qualify as ``core.''
We based our conclusion that core occurrence complexes are likely
to contain source populations on sound scientific theory and
information. Quino checkerspot butterfly populations are likely to be
metapopulations (Service 2003a, pp. 21-31), and core occurrence complex
habitat-based population distributions are large enough to capture most
of a metapopulation distribution (Service 2003a, p. 24; see also
Comment 15 and associated response above). The size of proposed revised
critical habitat units are proportional to documented Edith's
checkerspot butterfly population distributions that have longer
predicted persistence times (Service 2003a, p. 24). Therefore, the
final revised critical habitat units are likely to contain source
subpopulations.
Comment 37: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested the
Service explain how it can ``violate'' its own methods for determining
occurrence complex boundaries by including geographic areas beyond the
habitat-based population distribution within Unit 9.
Our Response: Although occurrence complexes are geographically
defined in part by overlapping 0.6 mi (1 km) movement distances, we did
not map occurrence complex ``boundaries'' as described in the comment.
Our methods for determining occurrence complex status did not include
geographic boundary determination for the La Posta/Campo Core
Occurrence Complex. The only boundaries associated with occurrence
complexes we established in the proposed revised critical habitat rule
are habitat-based population distributions used to map proposed revised
critical habitat units (see response to comment 36 above and ``Criteria
Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section below). Unit 9 was limited
to lands within the habitat-based population distribution of the La
Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex, and did not include any areas
outside that geographic delineation. We revised our discussion in the
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below to clarify
our methods.
Comment 38: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians; two representatives
of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; the Barona Group of Capitan
Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California
(Barona Band of Mission Indians); the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation, California (Pauma Band of
Mission Indians); and the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the
Pala Reservation, California (Pala Band of Mission Indians), all
believe there is insufficient evidence that tribal lands included in
proposed revisions to critical habitat are essential to conservation of
the subspecies. These tribal representatives also stated that
designation of tribal lands as critical habitat will constitute a
significant burden to the affected tribes, and per Secretarial Order
3206, the Service should demonstrate that conservation needs of the
subspecies cannot be met by limiting critical habitat designation to
nontribal lands. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians specifically
requested its lands be excluded from critical habitat designation for
economic reasons based on the findings of the DEA.
Our Response: We believe our proposed revisions to critical habitat
were supported by sufficient scientific data. Section 4(b) of the Act
requires we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure our decisions are
based on the best scientific data available. We used primary and
original sources of information as the basis for our recommendations to
designate revised critical habitat.
Ensuring persistence of populations associated with core occurrence
complexes is critical to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. In identifying areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat, we recognize the importance of including all lands necessary
to support resilient core populations. The best available scientific
data indicate management of those portions of tribally owned lands (see
response to comment 37 above for more information) that were proposed
as revised critical habitat is essential to conserving the affected
core populations. We utilized GIS data to limit the proposed
designation to only those lands necessary for the conservation of the
identified core populations. Therefore, we believe our proposed
revisions to critical habitat are well supported by the best available
scientific data.
During our process of identifying lands that meet the definition of
critical habitat, we identified several tribes whose reservations
include portions of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat-based
population distributions associated with populations needed for
conservation of the subspecies, including the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians (California), and the Cahuilla Band of Indians.
Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 states, ``In
designating critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document
the extent to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be
achieved by limiting the designation to other lands,'' indicating
proposed critical habitat should be limited to nontribal lands if
conservation needs can still be met by doing so. We determined that,
without Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land and Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians' land, the remaining habitat in Unit 7 still contained
sufficient PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for
the subspecies' conservation needs. Therefore, we did not propose as
revised critical habitat any tribal reservation lands in Unit 7.
In our exclusion analyses, we evaluated the burden of critical
habitat designation on affected tribes. Section 3(B)(3) of the Appendix
to Secretarial Order 3206 states, ``[the Service shall] * * * Recognize
the [conservation] contribution to be made by affected Indian tribes *
* * and evaluate economic impacts of such proposals with implications
for tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights.'' Sections
3(B)(3) and 3(B)(4) (see above quote) of the Appendix to Secretarial
Order 3206 indicate tribal lands should be excluded from critical
habitat designation if the burden is significant and the ability to
meet species' conservation needs are not precluded by exclusion. The
final economic analysis (FEA), and new land ownership information
indicating that Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal fee-lands
outside the reservation lands were included in proposed revised
critical habitat in Unit 7, indicated the proposed designation may
impose a
[[Page 28795]]
significant economic burden on the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Cahuilla Band of Indians.
Based on the economic impact and Federal policies, including
Secretarial Order 3206, that mandate maintenance of good working
relationships with tribes and deference to tribal management authority,
we determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians', Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians', and Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands, and determined the
exclusions of lands in Units 6, 7, and 9 will not lead to the
extinction of the subspecies. Therefore, we excluded all tribal lands
proposed for revised designation from critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of
the Act. Please see the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Economic
Impact'' section below for a discussion of these tribal exclusions.
Comment 39: One representative of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians believes that, according to Secretarial Order 3206, Principle
3(C), the proposed revised critical habitat designation on property
adjacent to or near Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians lands should have
triggered consultation and written notice of proposed conservation
restrictions. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians also stated that land
proposed as revised critical habitat is adjacent to the only road that
allows access to and from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians'
Reservation. The road is critical to the health and safety of the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and designating critical habitat
adjacent to the tribes only access to and from the Ramona Indian
Reservation could potentially affect a proposed project to pave the
existing dirt road, which would make it more usable for tribal members
and health and safety service responders (Riverside County Sherriff and
local and regional fire departments). The tribe stated that a delay in
the project or denial of permits to pave the road as a result of
designating lands adjacent to the road as revised critical habitat
could cost the tribe more than $1 million already allocated to this
project. The tribe believes it would have to spend hundreds of
thousands more dollars to maintain the existing unpaved road.
Our Response: We considered the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians'
assertion described above. Section 5, Principle 3(C) of Secretarial
Order 3206 states, ``At the earliest indication that the need for
Federal conservation restrictions is being considered for any species,
the Departments, acting in their trustee capacities, shall promptly
notify all potentially affected tribes, and provide such technical,
financial, or other assistance as may be appropriate, thereby assisting
Indian tribes in identifying and implementing tribal conservation and
other measures necessary to protect such species. In the event that the
Departments determine that conservation restrictions are necessary in
order to protect listed species, the Departments, in keeping with the
trust responsibility and government-to-government relationships, shall
consult with affected tribes and provide written notice to them of the
intended restriction as far in advance as practicable.'' Section
3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 specifically states
``In keeping with the trust responsibility, [the Service] shall consult
with the affected Indian Tribe(s) when considering the designation of
critical habitat in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources,
tribally-owned fee lands, or the exercise of Tribal rights.''
We do not anticipate any additional burden to the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians due to the designation of Forest Service lands
adjacent to tribal lands. All referenced Forest Service lands are
occupied, and we were engaged in active Section 7 consultation with the
Forest Service on the road widening and paving project prior to
proposing revisions to critical habitat (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008).
Identifiable potential economic impacts in occupied Quino checkerspot
butterfly habitat that may result solely from the designation of
critical habitat are likely limited to administrative costs. Therefore,
we do not expect any additional regulatory actions or measures will be
required solely due to designation of the referenced U.S. Forest
Service lands as critical habitat and we did not initiate consultation
under the Secretarial Order with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
with regard to these lands based on proposed revisions to critical
habitat.
Following receipt of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' first
comment letter, we met with the tribe on October 16, 2008, to consult
regarding any economic and social impacts the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat would have on the tribe. After
publication of the proposed revised critical habitat rule, we learned
that Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal fee lands had been included
in the proposal. These particular lands are surrounded by nontribal
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat and were properly
proposed as critical habitat. We evaluated these tribal lands for
exclusion and determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion for Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' tribal fee
lands. Therefore, we excluded these lands from critical habitat under
4(b)(2) of the Act. See the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
- Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and
Economics'' section below and for further discussion of this exclusion.
We will continue to work cooperatively with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
Comment 40: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested its land
be excluded unless the Service demonstrates the benefits of inclusion
outweigh the benefits of ``repairing the Service's working relationship
with them.'' Specifically, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians cited
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton (240 Supp. 2d 1090, 1105; D.
Ariz. 2003) where the Service's decision to exclude tribal lands was
upheld by the court because ``the benefit of maintaining a good working
relationship with the Tribe outweighed the benefit * * * [of
designating tribal lands] as [critical habitat].''
Our Response: We evaluated the benefits of exclusion of all tribal
lands from this revised critical habitat designation. Maintaining and
fostering partnerships and good working relationships are benefits of
exclusion and are mandated by Secretarial Order 3206. Consistent with
Secretarial Order 3206 and Executive Order 13175, we also believe
tribal lands are better managed under tribal authorities, policies, and
programs than through Federal regulation wherever possible and
practicable. Consistent with the Act and Secretarial Order 3206, we
also evaluated the economic impact of critical habitat designation on
tribes. The final economic analysis (FEA) indicated the proposed
designation may impose a significant economic burden on the Campo Band
of Kumeyaay Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the
Cahuilla Band of Indians. We determined the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians',
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians', and Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands,
and determined the exclusions will not lead to the extinction of the
subspecies (see response to Comment 38 above and ``Application of
Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With
Tribes and Economics'' section of this rule). Therefore, we excluded
all tribal lands proposed for revised designation from critical habitat
under 4(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 28796]]
We recognize and value our good working relationship with the Campo
Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will continue to work cooperatively with
the tribe to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
Comment 41: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe
the Service did not fulfill the mandate of Secretarial Order 3206 by
initiating consultation with them the moment it considered taking
action that would affect tribal trust resources (critical habitat
designation). The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated that the
Service only informed them it was considering inclusion of its land at
a meeting in November 2007, requested by the Service, and that the
Service's position at that meeting was that it was ``considering''
inclusion of tribal lands, not intending to do so.
Our Response: We believe we have fulfilled our responsibilities to
the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians under Secretarial Order 3206. As
mandated by Section 5, and Principle 3(C) of Secretarial Order 3206, as
well as Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 (see
response to Comment 39 above), we initiated tribal coordination
regarding possible proposed revised critical habitat on Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians' lands through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Regional
Endangered Species Coordinator in August of 2007. We initiated direct
contact with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians in a letter dated
September 11, 2007, requesting the opportunity to discuss our findings
prior to publication of proposed revisions to critical habitat. At a
meeting on November 7, 2007, we explained why we believed some tribal
lands met the definition of critical habitat and requested they submit
any data we had not considered. At this meeting we mentioned that no
agency decision had yet been made and explained that any final
recommendation on the proposal we submitted for signature and
publication in the Federal Register would address any data submitted by
the tribe. We continued to meet and correspond with the Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians regularly during the decision-making process.
Therefore, we believe we fulfilled the mandate of Secretarial Order
3206 with regard to the proposal of revised critical habitat and this
final designation of revised critical habitat.
Comment 42: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe
the Service did not fulfill its duty to assist them in pursuing its own
efforts to protect the subspecies, including assisting in crafting a
tribal management plan.
Our Response: Principle 3(A) of Secretarial Order 3206 states,
``The Departments shall offer and provide such scientific and technical
assistance and information as may be available for the development of
tribal conservation and management plans to promote the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement and health of the ecosystems upon which
[listed] species * * * depend, including the cooperative identification
of appropriate management measures to address concerns for such species
and their habitats.'' Furthermore, Principle 3(D) of Secretarial Order
3206 states, ``In their roles as trustees, the Services shall offer and
provide technical assistance and information for the development of
tribal conservation and management plans to promote the maintenance,
restoration, and enhancement of the ecosystems on which [listed]
species * * * depend.'' We provided the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
with a draft Quino checkerspot butterfly management plan specific to
its lands, as well as example management plans for other species on
other tribal lands, prior to our meeting November 7, 2007 (see response
to Comment 41 above). At that meeting, we discussed these documents and
management options for the Quino checkerspot butterfly on tribal lands
and offered to assist with further management planning. We continued to
correspond and meet with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and provide
training and technical assistance to tribal staff during development of
the proposed revised critical habitat proposal, the DEA, and this final
revised rule. Therefore, we believe we fulfilled our responsibility as
trustees by assisting the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians to the full
extent possible.
Comment 43: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested exclusion
of its lands from any final revised critical habitat designation
because the educational benefits associated with a Quino checkerspot
butterfly critical habitat designation are less than those already
provided by its conservation program, and the tribe believes it already
provides adequate conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly
through a long-established environmental protection program (the Campo
Environmental Protection Agency). The tribe believes the program
demonstrates the Campo Environmental Protection Agency's ability to
manage its own land base by providing knowledgeable, trained personnel
and engaging in conservation activities. The tribe cited the successful
completion of riparian habitat restoration projects in degraded
watersheds on the Campo Reservation as an example of tribal habitat
management.
Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we considered how the
educational benefits associated with a Quino checkerspot butterfly
revised critical habitat designation may already have been provided by
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' conservation program. Educational
benefits are a benefit of inclusion, and a determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, along with a
determination that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the
subspecies, must be made before we can exclude lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat from a final revised critical habitat
designation. In our analysis, we did find that the educational benefits
of revised critical habitat designation may have already been realized
by the revised critical habitat proposal process and Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians' conservation program.
In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the conservation measures
provided by Campo Environmental Protection Agency activities. Existing
conservation measures minimize the benefits of inclusion, but, as
stated above, the benefits of exclusion must outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, and a determination that exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the subspecies must be made before we can exclude lands
from a final revised critical habitat designation. Per Secretarial
Order 3206 and other published policies on Native American natural
resource management, we are aware of our mandate to minimize intrusion
on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in accordance
with its own policies, customs and laws. We agree that the Campo
Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated an ability to manage
its own land base by providing knowledgeable, trained personnel and
engaging in conservation activities. Per the FEA, we also acknowledge
that critical habitat designation may result in use of tribal resources
for administrative (consultation) purposes that might otherwise be used
for conservation. Therefore, we found the benefits of inclusion due to
conservation achieved through section 7 consultation associated with
designated critical habitat were minimized by existing tribal
conservation activities. However, we did not exclude Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians' land from revised critical habitat designation based
solely
[[Page 28797]]
on the Campo Environmental Protection Agency conservation activities.
We appreciate information on the education and conservation program
provided by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Per Secretarial Order
3206 and other published policies on Native American natural resource
management, we considered all benefits of exclusion including: (1) The
need to minimize economic impacts projected in the DEA; (2) the need to
minimizing intrusion on the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' sovereign
abilities to manage natural resources in accordance with its own
policies, customs and laws; and (3) the need to maintain our good
working relationships with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. We
further determined the benefits of excluding Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians' lands outweigh the benefits of designating these lands, and
these exclusions will not result in the extinction of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts
to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics''
section below for more information). Therefore, we excluded all Campo
Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands from this final revised critical
habitat designation. We value our good working relationship with the
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will continue to work cooperatively
with the tribe to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
Comment 44: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians commented that the
draft economic analysis does not reflect the potential exclusion of its
lands from critical habitat designation, which is highlighted in the
Federal Register notice re-opening the public comment period published
on December 19, 2008.
Our Response: The economic analysis has been revised to reflect
this potential exclusion. Throughout the analysis, costs associated
with areas explicitly identified by the Service as under consideration
for exclusion are presented and discussed separately from areas that
were not explicitly identified as being considered for exclusion.
Comment 45: Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' suggested several
editorial changes for the FEA based on its review of the DEA: (1) There
should be a discussion of the role of Secretarial Order No. 3206 in
regards to tribal lands proposed for critical habitat designation; (2)
an exhibit presenting cost information for a proposed landfill project
on its lands should be included in Chapter 6; (3) the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) should be included under the discussion of government
agencies overseeing habitat management activities in Chapter 7, titled
``Potential Impacts to Habitat Management;'' and (4) several exhibits
mislabeling Unit 9, La Posta--Campo as ``Campo-La Posta'' should be
corrected.
Our Response: The following corrections were made to the FEA: (1)
Explanatory text regarding Secretarial Order No. 3206 and its role in
the decision-making process of the Service has been integrated into
Chapter 3; (2) Exhibit 6-5 presenting the potential costs to the tribe
for the proposed landfill project has been added; and (3) we corrected
the labeling of Unit 9 throughout. We are unaware of habitat management
activities for the subspecies undertaken or planned by BIA. The FEA
authors contacted a representative of BIA, and he was also unaware of
any such activity by BIA. Furthermore, our efforts to contact parties
who submitted public comments on behalf of the BIA were unsuccessful.
Consequently, the FEA was not modified to include BIA in the discussion
of government agencies overseeing habitat management activities in
Chapter 7.
Comments From Other Federal Agencies
Comment 46: BIA believes that there is insufficient evidence that
tribal lands included in the proposed revisions to critical habitat are
essential to conservation of the subspecies. BIA also stated that, per
Secretarial Order 3206, the designation of portions of the Campo Band
of Kumeyaay Indians' and Cahuilla Band of Indians' reservations would
constitute a significant burden to those tribes. The BIA also requested
that the Service: (1) Withdraw all tribal lands from those identified
for the proposed revised designation of critical habitat; (2) consult
with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and other tribal nations to
address the economic and social impacts the proposed designation of
critical habitat would have on tribal lands, tribal infrastructure,
tribal health and safety, and proposed projects that would further the
tribe's health, welfare, and self-reliance; (3) consult with
potentially affected tribal nations per Secretarial Order 3206; and (4)
issue a revised proposal based on mandated government-to-government
consultation with affected tribes and tribal nations.
Our Response: We used the best available scientific data to
determine whether certain tribal lands are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies (see also responses to comments 35 and
36 above), and we are not aware of any data that contradict our
determination. Therefore, we included some tribal lands in the proposed
revision to critical habitat. See the ``Criteria Used to Designate
Critical Habitat'' section below for further discussion.
We believe we fulfilled our responsibilities to the tribes under
Secretarial Order 3206 throughout the designation process. Please see
our responses to comments 39-42 above regarding our consultations with
the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians. Additionally, we met informally with the Cahuilla Band of
Mission Indians' Environmental Officer to discuss our proposed
designation and answer any questions the tribe had regarding our
proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
We evaluated tribal lands for exclusion and determined the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians', Cahuilla Band of Indians', and Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians' lands. Therefore, we excluded these lands from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. See responses to
tribal comments above and the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) -
Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and
Economics'' section below for further discussion of these exclusions.
Comment 47: The BIA stated that land proposed as revised critical
habitat is adjacent to the only road that allows access to and from the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' Reservation. The road is critical to
the health and safety of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and
designating critical habitat adjacent to the tribe's only access to and
from the Ramona Indian Reservation could potentially affect a proposed
project to pave the existing dirt road, thus making it more usable for
tribal members and health and safety service responders (such as
Riverside County Sheriff and local and regional fire departments). They
stated a delay in the project or denial of permits to build the project
as a result of designating lands adjacent to the road as revised
critical habitat could cost the tribe more than $1 million already
allocated to build the project. Over the life of the road, the tribe
believes they would have to spend hundreds of thousands more dollars to
maintain the road if it is not paved.
Our Response: We do not anticipate any additional burden to the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians due to the designation of Forest
Service lands adjacent to tribal lands (see response to comment 39
above).
Comment 48: With regard to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the
BIA specifically stated that designating lands adjacent to or near
Ramona and
[[Page 28798]]
Cahuilla tribal lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan
area would violate the MSHCP because the HCP has already delineated
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and adequately
provides for the survival and recovery of the subspecies. The BIA
believes that language in section 6.9 of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 2003) and section 14.10 of the IA means no
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly should be
designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area.
Our Response: The delineation of critical habitat is outside the
scope of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting process under the Act, and
the Western Riverside County MSHCP did not delineate critical habitat
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In addition, contrary to BIA's
assertion, the IA does not preclude the designation of critical habitat
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area. In our section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis for lands within the Western Riverside
County MSHCP plan area, we fully considered the conservation benefits
provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP to the Quino checkerspot
butterfly, and we excluded all the lands in Units 1 through 6 owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP from this critical habitat designation (see response to
comment 26 above for further discussion).
Comment 49: The Department of the Navy (Navy) believes that
designation of critical habitat at the La Posta Mountain Warfare
Training Facility (La Posta Facility) would result in unacceptable
delays in construction of facilities needed to support mission critical
training and other missions related to national security. The Navy
requested exclusion of 2,573 ac (1,041 ha) of land associated with the
La Posta Facility under the Act based on the impact to national
security should these lands be designated (``FY04 NDAA Section 318,
National Security Exclusion from Critical Habitat Designation'').
Our Response: We evaluated the impacts of revised critical habitat
designation to national security. As explained in our response to
comment 25 above, 50 CFR 424.19 states the Secretary may exclude any
portion of such an area from the critical habitat if the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as part of
the critical habitat. The Secretary shall not exclude any such area if,
based on the best scientific and commercial data available, he
determines that the failure to designate that area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We determined
the benefits of excluding the La Posta Facility lands outweigh the
benefits of including these lands in this final revised critical
habitat designation. Further, we determined this exclusion will not
result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. See the
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security''
section below for a more detailed discussion.
Comment 50: The Navy stated it was opposed to critical habitat
designation at the La Posta Facility because the Navy is actively
conserving the Quino checkerspot butterfly to fulfill its obligations
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536. Resource conservation
efforts include the recently revised and updated Naval Base Coronado
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), developing a
comprehensive Habitat Enhancement Plan, and purchasing land that
conserves contiguous Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat (including
approximately 138 ac (55.8 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat).
Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the
conservation measures provided by the Navy. Existing conservation
measures minimize the benefits of inclusion, but the benefits of
exclusion must outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and a determination
that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the subspecies
must be made before we can exclude lands from a final revised critical
habitat designation. Although the Navy is implementing conservation
measures for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and the updated INRMP is
finalized (Navy 2008, pp. 1-2), the Service has not yet approved the
updated INRMP. However, as stated above in response to comment 49, we
excluded all lands associated with the La Posta Facility from this
final revised critical habitat designation based on impacts to national
security (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National
Security'' section below). We appreciate all of the Navy's efforts to
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on Navy lands
and will continue to work cooperatively with the Navy for resource
conservation.
Comment 51: The Department of the Air Force (Air Force) requested
the San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station (Surveillance
Station) be excluded from critical habitat for three reasons. First,
the Air Force believes that conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly will be assured because an INRMP is currently being prepared
in coordination with the Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG). The Air Force stated that it must implement the INRMP
in accordance with the Sikes Act 16 USC 670(a), and must comply with
the Act to minimize modification of potentially suitable habitat.
Second, the Air Force requested the Surveillance Station be excluded
from critical habitat because the station is within currently
designated critical habitat, and the Service has already consulted with
the Air Force regarding all current and foreseen activities, including
issuance of a biological opinion concluding that the Air Force is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Finally, the
Air Force believes critical habitat designation would limit the amount
of natural infrastructure available for ongoing and future mission
execution and training needed for national security. The Air Force
stated that short-notice mission-critical activities not previously
analyzed may be delayed in order to conduct consultations under section
7(a)(2) of the Act.
Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the
conservation measures provided by the Air Force. Existing conservation
measures can minimize the benefits of inclusion, but the benefits of
exclusion must outweigh the benefits of inclusion and a determination
that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the subspecies
must be made before we can exclude lands from a final critical habitat
designation.
Although conservation measures are being implemented for Quino
checkerspot butterfly, the Surveillance Station INRMP is not yet
finalized, and implementation of the identified conservation measures
does not significantly minimize the conservation benefits of including
these lands in the critical habitat designation. However, we excluded
all lands associated with the Surveillance Station from this final
revised critical habitat designation based on impacts to national
security (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National
Security'' section below). We appreciate all of the Air Force's efforts
to conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on its
lands and will continue to work cooperatively with them in the future
for resource conservation.
Summary of Changes From Previously Designated and Proposed Revised
Critical Habitat
We designated approximately 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) of critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in 4 units on April 15,
2002 (67 FR 18356). We
[[Page 28799]]
proposed to revise this designation to approximately 98,487 ac (39,857
ha) in 10 units on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). This final revised
critical habitat designation includes approximately 62,125 ac (25,141
ha) in 10 units, after excluding Unit 1 and portions of Units 2 through
9 (approximately 36,270 ac (14,678 ha)) based on consideration of
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. All land
designated as critical habitat in this final revised rule was proposed
in the 2008 proposed revised rule. Changes between this designation and
the 2002 designation, as well as from the 2008 proposed revisions, are
described below.
The areas identified in this final revised rule constitute
revisions of areas designated as critical habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356; Figure 1). This
final revised critical habitat designation includes approximately
62,125 ac (25,141 ha) of land in Riverside and San Diego Counties,
California. Table 1 and Figures 1a and 1b below outline differences
between the 2002 final critical habitat rule, the 2008 proposed
revisions to the critical habitat designation, and this final revised
critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Summary of Changes From the 2002 Designation
Of the 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) of land included in the 2002 final
critical habitat rule, approximately 62,125 ac (25,141 ha) are included
in this final revised critical habitat designation (Figures 1a and 1b).
For a detailed discussion of the changes between the 2002 final
critical habitat rule and the 2008 proposed revision, please refer to
the ``Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat''
section in the proposed rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The most
significant changes from the 2002 final rule to the 2008 proposed
revision are illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b and Table 1 below and
include:
(1) In the 2002 critical habitat designation (67 FR 18356; April
15, 2002), we based our criteria on the reasoning in the recovery plan
(Service 2003a, p. v) that habitat areas supporting all occurrence
complexes and habitat areas that facilitate landscape connectivity or
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining population resilience
are essential to the long-term conservation of the subspecies. In this
revision to the critical habitat designation, our underlying reasoning
has not changed; however, our revised Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat are based on new scientific data not available when
critical habitat was designated on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356) or when
the recovery plan was published (Service 2003a). Application of new
data and updated occurrence information described in the ``Background''
section above resulted in the identification of different, and in most
cases more specific, habitat areas meeting the definition of critical
habitat than were identified in the 2002 final critical habitat rule.
This resulted in a reduced total acreage of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for this subspecies. The large amount of
new habitat and distribution information resulted in refined population
distribution knowledge and identification of three new core occurrence
complexes (one new occurrence complex, two status changes; see
``Background'' section above). These revisions capture habitat areas
adequate to ensure the long-term conservation of this subspecies based
on our current knowledge of its life history and ecological needs as
described in the ``Background'' section above, and ``Primary
Constituent Elements'' section below. The new criteria capture areas on
the periphery of the subspecies' range and in atypical environments
considered important to this subspecies for adaptation to changing
climatic and environmental conditions different than those identified
in the 2002 critical habitat designation. For example, the Bautista
Unit (including 3 non-core occurrence complexes and habitat not known
to be occupied) adequately incorporates habitat in the San Jacinto
foothills at the northern edge of the subspecies' range. Consistent
with the recovery strategy outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service
2003a, pp. 71-86), the new criteria focused on core occurrence complex
habitat-based population distributions designed to capture all habitats
likely to support resilient metapopulations, including those likely to
support local source or mainland populations (also called
subpopulations) and movement areas between habitat patches required for
metapopulation resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term
definitions). We believe the proposed revised critical habitat units,
based on the best scientific data currently available regarding core
occurrence complexes and associated habitat distributions, are adequate
to ensure the long-term conservation of the subspecies and accurately
capture the areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Please see the ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat'' section below for a detailed discussion.
(2) Data collected since 2002 indicates that Unit 7 (Bautista)
provide the function that the more isolated Brown Canyon subunit of
formerly designated Unit 2 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR
17.95(i)) previously was thought to provide. In 2002, the Brown Canyon
non-core occurrence complex was believed to represent the primary venue
for range expansion of the species resulting from environmental changes
due to changing climate patterns. Further, the resiliency of this
population was believed to have been preserved by the insulation
provided by surrounding hilly terrain and publicly owned lands.
Information obtained since 2002 indicates the population serving these
functions is represented by the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex,
and the Brown Canyon occurrence complex does not have the
characteristics of a resilient core population. Therefore, the Brown
Canyon subunit is no longer considered essential.
(3) The 2002 critical habitat designation (FR 18356; April 15,
2002) in Riverside County consisted of two units that included almost
all known non-core occurrence complexes, areas connecting those
occurrence complexes, and habitat within the Lake Mathews/Estelle
Mountain Reserve associated with the ``Lake Mathews Population Site''
described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 77). We considered,
but did not include any of the 5,765 ha (14,250 ac) of habitat in
northwest Riverside County corresponding with current Unit 1 (67 FR
18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) associated with the Harford
Springs (non-core) Occurrence Complex and the Lake Mathews/Estelle
Mountain Reserve. Data collected since we designated critical habitat
on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356), indicate this area is no longer likely
to support the features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies, and that it is not essential for conservation of the
subspecies. Most of the habitat associated with the Harford Springs
(non-core) Occurrence Complex (designated as Unit 1 in 2002) is
functionally isolated from occupied areas or has subsequently been
developed, and this non-core occurrence complex has been extirpated. We
considered but did not include portions of habitat within currently
designated Unit 2 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i))
associated with the Domenigoni Valley (Service 2003a, p. 39), Brown
Canyon, Rocky Ridge, Billygoat Mountain, Dameron Valley, Oak Grove
(Service
[[Page 28800]]
2003a, p. 41), and Spring Canyon non-core occurrence complexes in
Riverside County identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 44;
current Unit 2). Consistent with the recovery strategy outlined in the
Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 71-86), we believe habitat captured
by the expanded core occurrence complexes and the criteria that
included additional habitat within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the mapped core
occurrence complex areas (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat Section'' below) provides adequate landscape connectivity for
conservation of the subspecies, and adequately captures areas that
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining metapopulation
viability.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.001
[[Page 28801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
TABLE 1. Changes between the April 15, 2002, Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat designation; the January 17, 2008, proposed designation; and
this revised final designation. Acreage values are approximate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Proposed
Recovery Plan 2002 Designation of Revisions to the 2009 Final Revised
Critical Habitat Unit in this Final County occurrence complexes Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Critical Habitat
Rule \1\ (place names) ac (ha) \2\ Designation and ac Designation and ac
(ha) \3\ (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Warm Springs Riverside Warm Springs Creek and Majority designated Included as Unit 1; Entire unit excluded
Warm Springs Creek in Unit 2; 0 (0) 2,684 (1,086)
North
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Skinner/ Johnson Riverside (Lake) Skinner/ Partially designated Included as Unit 2; Partially designated
Johnson (Ranch) in Unit 2; 4,705 12,030 (4,869) in Unit 2; 5,443
(1,904) (2,203), partially
excluded, 6,560
(2,655)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sage Riverside (Community of) Sage Majority designated Included as Unit 3; Partially designated
and San Ignacio in Unit 2; 123 (50) 2,692 (1,090) in Unit 3; 123 ac
(Ridge) (50 ha), partially
excluded, 2,569 ac
(1,040 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilson Valley Wilson Valley Designated in Unit 2 Included as Unit 4; Partially designated
463 (187) 4,813 (1,948) in Unit 4; 463
(187), partially
excluded, 4,350
(1,760 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Riverside Vail Lake, Pauba Majority designated Included as Unit 5; Partially designated
Valley, and in Unit 2; 819 (332) 8,187 (3,313) in Unit 5; 1,788
(Communities of) (724), partially
Butterfield/ Radec excluded, 6,398
(2,589)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28802]]
6. Tule Peak Riverside Tule Peak (Road), Majority designated Included as Unit 6; Partially designated
Southwest Cahuilla in Unit 2; 15 (6) 6,433 (2,603) in Unit 6; 326
(Reservation), and (132), partially
Silverado (Ranch) excluded, 6,106
(2,471)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Bautista Riverside Bautista Road, Pine Not essential Included as Unit 7; Partially designated
Meadow, Lookout 14,014 (5,671) in Unit 7; 13,880
Mountain, and 3Horse (5,617), partially
Creek excluded, 79 (32)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otay San Diego Otay Valley, West Otay Majority designated Included as Unit 8; Partially designated
Mountain, Otay Lakes/ in Unit 3; 25,325 36,726 (14,863) in Unit 8; 34,941
Rancho Jamul, Proctor (10,249) (14,140), partially
Valley, Marron excluded, 1,782
Valley, (Community (721)
of) Dulzura, and
Honey Springs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. La Posta/Campo San Diego \3\(Communities of) La Not essential Included as Unit 9; Partially designated
Posta/ Campo 8,393 (3,397) in Unit 9; 2,647
(1,071), partially
excluded, 5,740
(2,323)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jacumba San Diego Jacumba Designated as part of Included as Unit 10; Designated as Unit
Unit 4; 2,514 2,514 (1,017) 10; 2,514 (1,017)
(1,017)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Brown Canyon Subunit Riverside Brown Canyon Designated subunit of Not essential; not Determined not to be
Unit 2; 0 (0) proposed essential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Lake Matthews Riverside Harford Springs Unit 1; 0(0) Not essential; not Determined not to be
(Park), \6\Lake proposed essential
Matthews Population
Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Otay San Diego (National Wildlife Designated in Unit 3; Not essential; not Determined not to be
Refuge) NWR Rancho 0 (0) proposed essential
Jamul, NWR Los
Montanas, Hidden
Valley, (Community
of) Jamul, West Otay
Mesa, Barret
Junction, (City of)
Tecate (border area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 33,964 (13,745) 98,487 (39,857) 62,125 (25,141)
designated 36,270
(14,678) excluded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 All occurrence complexes in proposed revisions to critical habitat are now part of a core occurrence complex, except Pine Meadow, Lookout Mountain,
and Horse Creek. The geographic analysis of occurrence complexes in this table is based on habitat-based population distributions described in this
final revised critical habitat rule.
2 Area designated in this rule that was also included in 2002 designated critical habitat units (67 FR 18356).
3 New occurrence complexes described in the 2008 proposed revised designation (73 FR 3328) that were not described in the Recovery Plan.
4The Brown Canyon subunit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat.
5 The Lake Matthews Unit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat.
6 A ``historically occupied population site'' described in the Recovery Plan (not an occurrence complex).
7 The Otay Unit was Unit 3 in the 2002 final critical habitat rule (67 FR 18356). This row describes Recovery Plan occurrence complexes not included in
Unit 8 of the proposed revisions to critical habitat.
Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical
Habitat
The most significant changes from the 2008 proposed revision to
this final revised rule are illustrated in Table 1 above and include:
(1) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP covered by the HCP for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. In this final revised rule, we determined the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of lands owned by or under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP in Units 1 through 6, and determined exclusion of these lands
will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we excluded
approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of these lands under section
[[Page 28803]]
4(b)(2) of the Act. We determined that the benefits of inclusion
outweigh the benefits of exclusion for Unit 7. Therefore, we included
all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 in this final designation. For
a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion see
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below.
(2) In the proposed revised rule, we considered all lands covered
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. We determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits
of inclusion of these lands and exclusion will not result in extinction
of the species. Therefore, we excluded approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha)
of land covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant
Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
(3) In the notice of availability for the DEA published in the
Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), we announced we
were considering exclusion of the San Diego Air Force Space
Surveillance Station (SD Surveillance Station; approximately 109 ac (44
ha) within Unit 8) and the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility
(La Posta Facility; 2,463 ac (997 ha) within Unit 9) from critical
habitat designation for reasons of national security. We determined the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for these
lands and exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the
species. Therefore, we excluded approximately 2,572 ac (1041 ha) of
Department of Defense lands in Units 8 and 9 for reasons of national
security under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).
(4) In the notice of availability for the DEA published in the
Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), we announced we
were considering exclusion of approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of the
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land within Unit 6, approximately 79 ac (32
ha) of Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land within Unit 7, and
approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians'
land within Unit 9 for economic reasons. We determined the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these tribal lands and
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we
excluded approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of tribal lands in Unit 6,
approximately 79 ac (32 ha) in Unit 7, and approximately 3,167 ac
(1,282 ha) in Unit 9 for economic reasons under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-
Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics `` section below).
(5) In 2008, one expert documented Quino checkerspot butterfly
oviposition (egg laying) and larval feeding on a new species of host
plant at several locations in Unit 6 (Pratt 2008a, p. 1). Please see
``Background'' section above for a complete discussion of this new
information. As a result of these documented observations, we added
Collinsia concolor to the list of host plants considered as a PCE (see
``Background'' section for additional details).
(6) When final critical habitat maps are being prepared with
exclusions based on ownership data, this exercise often leaves small
linear polygons of designated critical habitat that in-and-of
themselves serve no logical regulatory or biological purpose. Initial
maps are based on habitat features only; however, exclusions are based
on artificial boundaries created by humans, therefore resulting in
narrow ``sliver'' artifacts or very small polygons of non-excluded area
once excluded areas are removed. Therefore, the sum of the total areas
designated and excluded is slightly reduced in this final revised
critical habitat designation compared to the size of the total proposed
revised designation area estimate due to removal of small linear
ownership artifacts.
(7) A number of comments we received suggested editorial changes
and technical corrections to sections of the rule pertaining to the
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of
our proposed revised rule. These changes were recommended to improve
clarity, include additional information, and correct minor errors. They
were incorporated into this final revised rule where appropriate.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the
landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the PCEs laid out
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
[[Page 28804]]
conservation of the species). Under the Act, we can designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it is listed only when we determine that those areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the Recovery Plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For
these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote
the recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions we and other Federal agencies implement under section 7(a)(1)
of the Act. They are also subject to the regulatory protections
afforded by section 9 of the Act and the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or
other species conservation planning efforts if information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
may require special management considerations or protection. We
consider the physical and biological features to be the PCEs laid out
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species. The PCEs include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the PCEs for the Quino checkerspot butterfly from its
biological needs as described below and in proposed revisions to
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3328).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is characterized by
patchy shrub or small tree landscapes with openings of several meters
between large plants, or a landscape of open swales alternating with
dense patches of shrubs (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 112); such habitats
are often collectively termed ``scrublands.'' Quino checkerspot
butterflies will frequently perch on vegetation or other substrates to
mate or bask, and require open areas to facilitate movement (Service
2003a, pp. 10-11).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Quino checkerspot butterflies are exothermic (cold-blooded) and
therefore require an external heat source to increase their metabolic
rate to levels needed for normal growth and behavior. Within open,
woody-canopy communities, larvae seek microclimates with high solar
exposure for basking to speed their growth rate (Weiss et al. 1987, p.
161; Weiss et al. 1988, p. 1487; Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113;
Service 2003a, p. 20). Like most butterflies, adult Quino checkerspot
butterflies frequently bask and remain in open-canopy areas, using air
temperature and sunshine to increase their body temperature to the
level required for normal active behavior (Service 2003a, p. 18).
Adult butterflies will only lay eggs on species they recognize as
host plants. Quino checkerspot butterfly oviposition (egg deposition)
has been most often documented on Plantago erecta, Plantago patagonica,
and Anterrhinum coulterianum (Service 2003a, pp. 14-18). In 2008,
oviposition and larval development were recorded for the first time on
Collinsia concolor; on numerous individual plants and at multiple
locations in Riverside County (Pratt 2008a p. 1; 2008b p. 1; 2008c p.
1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. concolor commonly occurs in habitats with
P. erecta, P. patagonica, and A. coulterianum, (Pratt 2001, pp. 42-43;
Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this plant species is typically found in
cooler and moister micro-habitats on north-facing slopes and in the
shade compared to where the other host plant species grow (Pratt 2001,
p. 40; Pratt 2008b, p. 1). Please see ``Background'' section above for
a complete discussion of this new information.
Newly hatched pre-diapause larvae cannot move more than a few
centimeters during the first two instars (development stages),
restricting their development during this stage to the individual host
plant on which their mother deposited eggs (the primary host plant
species). Older pre-diapause larvae usually wander independently in
search of food and may switch to feeding on a secondary host plant
(Service 2003a, p. 7). All known species of host plant (see species
listed above) may serve as primary or secondary host plants, depending
on location and environmental conditions (Service 2003a, p. 17). Quino
checkerspot butterfly egg clusters or pre-diapause larval clusters are
also documented in the field on Cordylanthus rigidus
[[Page 28805]]
(thread-leaved bird's beak) and Castilleja exserta (purple owl's-
clover) (Service 2003a, pp. 14-18). However, use of C. rigidus and C.
exserta is rare, and these species alone are not believed to be
sufficient to support Quino checkerspot butterfly breeding; therefore,
other species of host plant must co-exist with these species for
habitat to support breeding (Service 2003a, pp. 16-17).
It is not possible to determine habitat suitability based on
standing host plant densities. Estimates exist for densities of
Plantago erecta required for larval development (Service 2003a, pp. 22-
23); however, it is not always possible in a given year to determine
typical host plant densities because germinating host plants may be
entirely consumed by larvae; or because seeds may not germinate and
larvae may return to diapause when precipitation levels are below-
average (Service 2003a, p. 23). These principles apply to all host
plant species to some extent; therefore, any host plants detected in
habitat appearing otherwise suitable should be considered an indication
of habitat suitability.
The physical structure of flowers is the primary factor that
determines nectar source use. Adult checkerspot butterflies of the
genus Euphydryas have a short tongue, approximately 0.43 inch (in) (11
millimeters (mm)) in length (Pratt 2007a, p. 1), and typically cannot
feed on flowers that have deep corolla tubes or flowers evolved to open
by bees (Service 2003a, p. 19). Adults may nectar on flowers with a
corolla length nearly a centimeter longer than their proboscis (0.59 to
1.10 in (15 to 28 mm)), like Linanthus androsaceus (Murphy 1984, p.
114; Hickman 1993, p. 842), but they are not likely to prefer such
species (Murphy 1984, p. 114). Edith's checkerspot butterflies prefer
flowers with a platform-like surface on which they can remain upright
while feeding (Service 2003a, p. 19). Examples of flowers Quino
checkerspot butterflies frequently take nectar from include Lomatium
spp. (lomatium), Muilla spp. (goldenstar), Amsinckia spp. (fiddleneck),
Lasthenia spp. (goldfields), Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), Chaenactis
glabriuscula (yellow pincushion), Ericameria linearifolia (interior
goldenbush), and Plagiobothrys and Cryptantha spp. (popcorn flowers)
(Service 2003a, p. 19; see Comment 7 and our response in the ``Peer
Reviewer Comments'' section above). Therefore, flowers with a corolla
tube greater than 0.43 in (11 mm) are not likely to be used as nectar
sources by the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
White and Levin (1981, pp. 350, 351) found that the average
distance adult Quino checkerspot butterflies moved within habitat
patches ranged from 173 ft (53 m) to 305 ft (93 m) in 1973 and 1972,
respectively. Although butterflies were observed moving from larval
host plants at distances greater than 656 ft (200 m) (1981, p. 349), it
is unlikely that nectar sources greater than this distance would
regularly be used by the subspecies because 656 ft (200 m) is more than
double the average recapture distance in 1972, and almost 4 times the
average distance in 1973 recorded by White and Levin (1981, p. 349).
Cover or Shelter
Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae require sheltered sites for
diapause (Service 2003a, p. 8), and adults typically roost in or below
shrubs overnight and during adverse weather conditions (Service 2003a,
p. 10). A pilot laboratory study (Pratt 2006, p. 9) and larval
distribution observations (Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113) indicate the
Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae prefer to diapause in or near the
base of native shrubs, such as Eriogonum fasciculatum. Larvae can
repeat diapause for multiple years (Service 2003a, p. 8); therefore,
surveys for adults during drought years may not detect occupancy where
it exists in areas containing diapause sites. Captive rearing and
observation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae indicate that
repeated diapause is relatively common (over 50 percent likelihood for
the first year) (Pratt 2006, p. 10), and larvae can re-enter diapause
(Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Therefore, suitable habitat requires low-
lying shrubs, such as E. fasciculatum, that provide shelter for adults
and larvae.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Development of Offspring
In Edith's checkerspot butterflies, the tendencies of females to
move uphill and males to defend hilltops (``hilltopping behavior'')
increase the likelihood of male and female butterflies finding each
other to mate during years of low adult density (Baughman and Murphy
1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988, pp. 460-461). Males defend
hilltops because they are likely to encounter virgin females at these
locations (Baughman and Murphy 1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988,
pp. 460-461; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 109). As a result, higher ground
serves as a ``visual beacon'' to enhance mating success.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
For the geographical areas occupied by the Quino checkerspot
butterfly at the time of listing, we must identify the essential
physical or biological features that may require special management
considerations or protection. Based on the above needs and our current
knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the subspecies,
we determined the Quino checkerspot butterfly's PCEs are:
(1) Open areas within scrublands at least 21.5 square feet (ft\2\)
(2 square meters (m\2\)) in size that:
(A) Contain no woody canopy cover; and
(B) Contain one or more of the host plants Plantago erecta,
Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, or Collinsia concolor
used for Quino checkerspot butterfly growth, reproduction, and feeding;
or
(C) Contain one or more of the host plants Cordylanthus rigidus or
Castilleja exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of the host plants
listed in (B) above; or
(D) Contain flowering plants with a corolla tube less than or equal
to 0.43 in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot butterfly feeding;
(2) Open scrubland areas and vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of
the open canopy areas (PCE 1) used for movement and basking; and
(3) Hilltops or ridges within scrublands that contain an open,
woody-canopy area at least 21.5 ft\2\ (2 m\2\) in size used for Quino
checkerspot butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) and are contiguous
with (but not otherwise included in) open areas and natural vegetation
described in PCEs 1 and 2 above.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing contain
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies that may
require special management considerations or protection.
When the Quino checkerspot butterfly was listed on January 16, 1997
(62 FR 2313), the primary threats to the subspecies were:
(1) Reduction and fragmentation of habitat by urban and
agricultural development and recreational activities,
(2) over-collection,
(3) vandalism,
(4) fire, and
(5) drought.
Additional threats to this subspecies identified in the April 15,
2002, final
[[Page 28806]]
designation of critical habitat (67 FR 18356) include:
(1) Trash dumping,
(2) nitrogen deposition,
(3) elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and
(4) climate change.
Current threats to the subspecies and management needs were
described in detail in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 55-65);
including:
(1) Loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape connectivity
due to development,
(2) invasion by nonnative plants,
(3) off-road vehicle activity,
(4) grazing,
(5) fire,
(6) enhanced soil nitrogen,
(7) increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and
(8) climate change.
Scientific research indicates all threats individually and
interactively cause loss or reduced availability of Quino checkerspot
butterfly host plants, nectar sources, and suitable areas for necessary
behaviors (e.g., mating, basking, hilltopping) (Service 2003a, pp. 55-
65). For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
resulted in approximately 30 percent loss in seed production of
Plantago lanceolata (Jablonski et al. 2002, p. 14), and increased
temperatures caused approximately 5 percent shorter reproductive
duration (Sherry et al. 2007, p. 200). These results indicate density
and phenological availability of Plantago spp. to herbivores under
current and predicted climate and atmospheric conditions are, or will
be, reduced relative to historical conditions (Service 2003a, pp. 62-
65). Host plant densities and availability are also reduced by
nonnative plant invasion, which is further exacerbated by loss and
fragmentation of habitat, off-road vehicle activity, enhanced soil
nitrogen, and other sources of habitat-disturbance.
Management needs and actions recommended in the Recovery Plan that
may be required to protect and maintain the PCEs for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly include:
(1) Reestablishment and maintenance of habitat and landscape
connectivity within and between populations (Service 2003a, pp. 57, 96-
101);
(2) habitat restoration and control of invasive nonnative species
(Service 2003, pp. 58, 96-101, 146-159);
(3) monitoring of ongoing habitat loss and nonnative plant invasion
(Service 2003a, p. 106);
(4) phased replacement of grazing with nonnative invasive plant
control (Service 2003, pp. 60, 101-102);
(5) carefully controlled burn experiments to assess effectiveness
for control of nonnative plant invasion and protection of PCEs from
wildfire destruction (Service 2003, p. 61);
(6) reduction of local nitrogen emissions from sources such as
high-traffic roads (Service 2003a, p. 62);
(7) management of off-road vehicle activity (Service 2003a, pp. 59,
146-159), including outreach and partnerships with local off-road
vehicle clubs and organizations (Service 2003a, p. 105);
(8) reduction of trash dumping in habitat (Service 2003a, p. 109);
and
(9) prudent design of managed habitats to include landscape
connectivity (suitable habitat connectivity) and ecological
connectivity (connectivity of wildlands that may not currently include
habitat) (Service 2003a, pp. 65, 96).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As discussed in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 71-86), the
recovery strategy for Quino checkerspot butterfly focuses on
conserving, managing, and monitoring resilient populations. Therefore,
criteria for determining habitat required to support a population
should consider long-term occupancy needs as well as movement distances
to include all habitat necessary to support a population. We based our
critical habitat criteria on the intent of recovery criteria 1, 3, 4,
and 5 (Service 2003a, p. v) that habitat areas supporting all
occurrence complexes and that facilitate landscape connectivity or
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining population resilience
are essential to the long-term conservation of the subspecies. Our
revised ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' are based on new
scientific information not available when the recovery plan was
published (Service 2003a). The large amount of new habitat and
distribution information resulted in refined population distribution
knowledge and identification of three new core occurrence complexes
(one new occurrence complex, two status changes; see ``Background''
section above). The new criteria capture areas on the periphery of the
subspecies' range and in atypical environments considered important to
this subspecies for adaptation to changing climatic and environmental
conditions different than those identified in the 2002 critical habitat
designation. The new criteria focused on core occurrence complex
habitat-based population distributions designed to capture all habitats
likely to support resilient metapopulations, including those likely to
support local source or mainland populations (also called
subpopulations) and movement areas between habitat patches required for
metapopulation resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term
definitions).
In order to include all habitat necessary to support populations
and accommodate population distributions that may shift annually or
over a greater period of time, our criteria started with Quino
occurrence locations considered to be extant, and expanded habitat to
include all habitat we estimated was necessary to support the core
occurrence complexes (populations) associated with the observed
individuals. The process we used is described below.
(1) We determined occupancy within the extant range of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. Current occupancy was determined using
occurrence data from the Service GIS database and associated survey
reports. Areas of extant habitat containing occurrence records from
1999 or later were considered currently occupied. Since 1997, the
number of known occupied sites has increased in most areas, indicating
resilient populations in areas where development pressure is relatively
low. Ten years is the minimum time between historical subspecies'
population density highs and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29); therefore,
naturally fluctuating populations documented since 1999 are not likely
to have experienced a density minimum, during which they are most
vulnerable to extirpation.
(2) We determined which areas were occupied at the time of listing
by comparing survey and collection information to descriptions of
occupied areas in the final listing rule published on January 16, 1997
(62 FR 2313). Core occurrence complexes considered to be occupied at
the time of listing were: (1) Recorded within 4 years of listing; (2)
contained repeated observations of a large number of individuals
(relative to all known occupied locations); and (3) if occupancy was
documented post-listing, occurred not more than 4 mi (6.4 km) from
other occurrence complexes known to be occupied at the time of listing.
Four years is less than half the minimum time between historical
subspecies' population density highs and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29)
and, as stated above, where development pressure is relatively low,
populations appear to be resilient. Additionally, 4 mi (6.4 km) is the
maximum recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly dispersal distance
(Service 2003a, p. 12). Therefore, these parameters captured:
[[Page 28807]]
(1) The time required for natural population fluctuations to increase
subspecies' density and occupancy detectability; (2) repeated
observations indicating habitat has been occupied for several years;
and (3) populations in close proximity to areas known to be occupied at
the time of listing, as well as those areas likely to have been
occupied (already colonized) at the time of listing.
(3) Once we determined the occupancy status of all occurrence
complexes, we used the following rule set to identify areas that met
the definition of critical habitat. As described in the ``Background''
section above, we defined core occurrence complexes as population
density centers, specifically occurrence complexes where at least two
of the following criteria apply: (a) 50 or more adults have been
observed during a single survey; (b) immature life stages have been
recorded; and (c) the area within 0.6 mi (1 km) of butterfly
observation locations (occurrence complex area) was greater than 1,290
ac (522 ha). The best available scientific data indicate that focusing
on protection and management of populations associated with occurrence
complexes meeting these criteria can provide for the conservation of
the subspecies because they are more likely to persist into the future
and provide emigrants to other populations than populations associated
with occurrence complexes that do not meet these criteria. We
identified seven core occurrence complexes that meet the definition of
critical habitat that were identified in the Recovery Plan (Warm
Springs Creek, Skinner/ Johnson, Vail Lake, Sage, Wilson Valley, Tule
Peak/Silverado, Otay Mountain), as well as three new core occurrence
complexes (Bautista Road, La Posta/Campo, and Jacumba) (see
``Background'' section above).
(4) We determined lands necessary to support each of the
populations associated with the 10 identified core occurrence
complexes. We first delineated areas within 0.6 mi (1 km; movement
radius) of occurrence records to capture habitat within reasonable
flight range of each recorded adult sighting. This first criterion is
the geographic area-based component of the definition of an occurrence
complex described further in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 35)
and the ``Background'' section above. We subsequently included any
contiguous habitat containing the PCEs within an occurrence complex
(described in first criterion above) and within an additional 0.6 mi (1
km) of an occurrence complex. This second criterion used biological and
geographic information (primarily Service GIS host plant occurrence
data, vegetation layers, and satellite imagery) to capture the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies
in this area. We removed any areas within the occurrence complex that
we determined did not contain the PCEs, based on the best available
scientific data. In mapping all habitat within reasonable flight range
of each recorded observation, combined with any additional habitat
belonging to the observed individuals' population, we believe we
captured habitat necessary to support each population associated with
identified core occurrence complexes (the PCEs laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the subspecies). This process resulted in the
identification of habitat-based population distributions for each core
occurrence complex that are occupied at a population distribution
scale, but where detectability may vary annually.
(5) Finally, we closely examined the new Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex and determined habitat associated with this complex
is likely undersurveyed and supports a larger population distribution
than is currently delineated by the habitat-based population
distribution. Furthermore, we determined this core occurrence complex
is at the leading edge of an ongoing upward shift in the Quino
checkerspot butterfly's elevation range (see ``Background'' section
above). Recognizing the predictions by Parmesan (1996, p. 765; 2006,
pp. 647-648), Preston et al. (2008, pp. 2501-2505), and Seager et al.
(2007, pp. 1181, 1183, 1184), we expect loss of lower elevation and
lower latitude populations will continue in this subspecies' range as
the incidence of above-average temperatures, drought conditions, and
extreme weather events continue to increase (see ``Background'' section
above; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007).
Qualitative natural history and abundance observations and documented
adult and larval observations for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
indicate this species has begun to colonize higher elevation habitats
(see ``Background'' section above). Therefore, consistent with
recommendations in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 65), we
delineated habitat containing the PCEs that is contiguous with the
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex habitat-based population
distribution to connect it to the habitat-based population
distributions of three non-core occurrence complexes that are higher in
elevation (Pine Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek).
These three non-core occurrence complexes were all identified over
the past 5 years, and we expect they will become increasingly important
to Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation in the future. Therefore,
inclusion of all areas into Unit 7 within the habitat-based population
distributions of the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, the Pine
Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek non-core occurrence complexes,
and contiguous suitable habitat between these complexes, captured
habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies. This will
ensure persistence of populations associated with core occurrence
complexes that we believe is critical to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly. In identifying areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat, we recognize the importance of including all lands
necessary to support resilient core populations. As described above, we
delineated habitat where occupancy is expected, but has not been
documented, that connects the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex
with three higher elevation non-core occurrence complexes. Therefore,
consistent with 50 CFR 424.12(e), we included areas contiguous with the
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex that are outside the geographical
area presently occupied by the subspecies (outside of habitat-based
population distributions as described above) in Unit 7 (Bautista).
When determining revisions to critical habitat boundaries for this
final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas,
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures,
because such lands lack PCEs for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The
scale of maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such structures and land under them inadvertently
left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this
revised critical habitat rule are excluded by text in this final rule.
Therefore, Federal action involving such lands would not trigger
section 7 consultations with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action may
affect adjacent critical habitat.
[[Page 28808]]
Final Revised Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 62,125 ac (25,141 ha) as critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly within 9 units, identified
as Units 2 through 10 (proposed critical habitat Unit 1 is excluded in
its entirety as described in the ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' section of this rule). Table 2 outlines the areas included
and excluded from this final revised critical habitat by land
ownership. Units designated as critical habitat are discussed in detail
below. The areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
TABLE 2. Critical habitat units for the Quino checkerspot butterfly depicting the areas designated and excluded
from the critical habitat designation by land ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total area Total area Total area
Critical Habitat Unit Land Ownership\2\ proposed ac (ha) excluded ac (ha) designated ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Warm Springs Local 369 (149) 369 (149) ..................
Private 2,315 (937) 2,315 (937) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Skinner/Johnson Federal 131 (53) 0 131 (53)
Local 8,674 (3,510) 3,361 (1,360) 5,313 (2,150)
State 734 (297) 734 (297) 0
Private 2465 (990) 2,465 (990) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sage Federal 123 (50) 0 123 (50)
Local 89 (36) 89 (36) 0
Private 2,480 (1,004) 2,480 (1,004) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilson Valley Federal 463 (187) 0 463 (187)
Local 1,072 (434) 1,072 (434) 0
Private 3,278 (1,327) 3,278 (1,327) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Federal 1,788 (724) 0 1,788 (724)
State 22 (9) 22 (9) 0
Local 97 (39) 97 (39) 0
Private 6,279 (2,541) 6,279 (2,541) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tule Peak Federal 326 (132) 0 326 (132)
Cahuilla Tribe 1,203 (487) 1,203 (487) 0
Local 953 (386) 953 (386) 0
Private 3,950 (1,599) 3,950 (1,599) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Bautista Federal 9,720 (3,934) 0 9,720 (3,934)
Ramona Tribe 79 (32) 79 (32) 0
State 102 (41) 0 102 (41)
Local 46 (19) 0 46 (19)
Private 4,012 (1,624) 0 4,012 (1,624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otay Federal 8,763 (3,546) 109 (44) 8,654 (3,502)
State 9,674 (3,915) 35 (14) 9,639 (3,901)
Local 5,238 (2,120) 834 (338) 4,404 (1,782)
Private 13,048 (5,280) 804 (325) 12,244 (4,955)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. La Posta/Campo Federal 2,927 (1,184) 2,572 (1,040) 355 (144)
Campo Tribe 3,167 (1,282) 3,167 (1,282) 0
[[Page 28809]]
State 0 0 6 (2)
Private 2,286 (925) 0 2,286 (925)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jacumba State 351 (142) 0 351 (142)
Private 2,163 (875) 0 2,163 (875)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 98,395 (39,819) 36,270 (14,678) 62,125 (25,141)
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Unit totals are reduced in this final revised critical habitat designation due to removal of small linear
ownership artifacts originally included in proposed revised critical habitat designation area estimates. The
total area value in the proposed revised critical habitat designation was 98,487 ac (39,857 ha).
2Private = private ownership, including conserved lands managed for subspecies' recovery; Local = City- or
County-owned land; Federal = Federally owned land; Cahuilla Tribe = Cahuilla Band of Indians; Ramona Tribe =
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; Campo Tribe = Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Numbers may not sum due to
rounding, and ownership totals may have changed from those reported in the proposed rule due to updated
ownership data.
We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly below. For more information about the areas excluded from
critical habitat, please see the ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' section of this final rule.
Unit 1: Warm Springs
We excluded all lands in Unit 1 (approximately 2,684 ac (1,086 ha))
that we proposed as revised critical habitat that are owned by or are
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that
exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a detailed discussion).
Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson
Unit 2 consists of approximately 5,444 ac (2,203 ha) of habitat
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to
the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago erecta, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Cordylanthus
rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open
woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41;
Service GIS database). Unit 2 is located in Riverside County, north of
the City of Temecula, in the vicinity of Lake Skinner. This unit
includes land associated with the Skinner/Johnson Core Occurrence
Complex as described in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). The
physical and biological features found in Unit 2 may require special
management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from
maintenance and recreational activities, invasion by nonnative plants,
fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 6,560 ac (2,655 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and that exclusion of
these areas will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a detailed discussion).
Unit 3: Sage
Unit 3 consists of approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of habitat that was
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja
exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and
hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Service GIS database). Unit 3 is
located in Riverside County, northeast of Temecula, in the vicinity of
the community of Sage. This unit includes land associated with the Sage
Core and San Ignacio Non-core Occurrence Complexes described in the
Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information
indicates the San Ignacio Non-core Occurrence Complex should be
considered part of the Sage Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Background''
and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' sections above). The
physical and biological features found in Unit 3 may require special
management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from
recreational activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants,
fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 2,569 ac (1,040 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. This exclusion was based on our determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and that exclusion of
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
Unit 4: Wilson Valley
Unit 4 consists of approximately 463 ac (187 ha) of habitat that
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago erecta, P. patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum,
Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host
plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops
(Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Pratt 2008b pp. 1-2; 2008e, p. 1; Service
GIS database). Unit 4 is located in Riverside County, north of SR 79,
east of Oak Mountain and the City of Temecula in the vicinity of Wilson
[[Page 28810]]
Valley. This unit includes land associated with the Wilson Valley Core
Occurrence Complex described in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p.
79). The physical and biological features found in Unit 4 may require
special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts
from recreational activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative
plants, fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 4,350 ac (1,760 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. This exclusion was based on our determination the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain
Unit 5 consists of approximately 1,788 ac (724 ha) of habitat that
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja
exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and
hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Service GIS database). Unit 5 is
located in Riverside County, north and south of SR 79, and east of
Temecula within the vicinity of Oak Mountain and Vail Lake. This unit
includes land associated with the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex and
Butterfield/Radec Non-core Occurrence Complex described in the Recovery
Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information indicates the
Butterfield/Radec Non-core Occurrence Complex should be considered part
of the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex (see the proposed revised
critical habitat rule, 73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The physical and
biological features found in Unit 5 may require special management
considerations or protection to minimize impacts from recreational
activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, enhanced
soil nitrogen, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 6,398 ac (2589 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of
these areas will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts -
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
Unit 6: Tule Peak
Unit 6 consists of approximately 326 ac (132 ha) of habitat that
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia
concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants;
nectar sources; open, woody canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service
2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS satellite imagery; Pratt 2008a, p. 1;
2008b, p. 1; 2008c, p. 1; 2008d, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Unit 6 is located
in Riverside County, south of SR 371 and the community of Anza, in the
vicinity of Tule Peak Road and the southern boundary of the Cahuilla
Band of Indians' lands. This unit includes land associated with the
Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Background'' section
above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 6 may
require special management considerations or protection to minimize
impacts from recreational activities, primarily unauthorized off-road
vehicle activity (Service 2003b, p. 79), trash dumping, invasion by
nonnative plants, fire, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 4,903 ac (1,984 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation
Partnerships'' section below). We also excluded approximately 1,203 ac
(487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from this final revised
critical habitat designation based our determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-Government
Relationships With Tribes and Economics `` section below).
Unit 7: Bautista
Unit 7 consists of approximately 13,880 ac (5,617 ha) of habitat
that was not within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at
the time of listing (although this area falls within the historical
range of the species). Currently this unit contains habitat that may be
unoccupied by individuals in a given year, but lands within this unit
are considered occupied at the population level. This unit contains the
Bautista Road Core, Pine Meadow Non-core, Lookout Mountain Non-core and
Horse Creek Non-core Occurrence Complexes (see ``Background'' and
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' sections above). As
further discussed in the ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
section, we determined habitat connectivity to higher elevation
occurrence complexes is essential for the conservation of the
subspecies, and, therefore, that the area in Unit 7 is essential for
the conservation of the subspecies. Additionally, this unit contains
all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the following: Plantago patagonica,
Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and
Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy
scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS
database; Anderson 2008, pp. 1-5). Unit 7 is located in Riverside
County north of SR 371 and the community of Anza.
We did not exclude the lands in this unit proposed as revised
critical habitat that are owned by or are under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP because we determined
that the benefits of including those lands outweighed the benefits of
excluding them from the designation (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section
below). We did exclude approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians' land in this unit that we proposed as revised
critical habitat. This exclusion is based our determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that
exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-
Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics'' section below).
Unit 8: Otay
Unit 8 consists of approximately 34,941 ac (14,140 ha) of habitat
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time
[[Page 28811]]
of listing and is currently occupied. This unit contains all of the
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3), including the following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus,
and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy
scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 50, 51; Service GIS
database). Unit 8 is located in San Diego County, from the Mexican
border to north of SR 94 in the vicinity of Otay Mountain and Otay
Lakes. This unit includes land associated with the Otay Mountain Core
Occurrence Complex (see ``Background'' and ``Summary of Changes From
Previously Designated and Proposed Revised Critical Habitat'' sections
above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 8 may
require special management considerations or protection to minimize
impacts from loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape
connectivity due to development, maintenance and recreational
activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, enhanced
soil nitrogen, and climate change.
We excluded approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) that we proposed as
revised critical habitat in this unit covered by the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas
will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of
Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships''
section below). We also excluded approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air
Force land we proposed as revised critical habitat in this unit based
on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).
Unit 9: La Posta-Campo
Unit 9 consists of approximately 2,647 ac (1,071 ha) of habitat
that was not within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at
the time of listing. However, this unit is currently occupied and
contains the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Status and
Distribution of Populations in San Diego County'' section of the
proposed rule published January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), and ``Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section above). We determined that
the area supporting the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex is
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it is likely
to contain a resilient core population including one or more
subpopulations that are a source of immigrants to other habitat (see
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
sections above). Additionally, this unit contains all the features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3),
including the following: Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia concolor,
Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar
sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Bureau of Indian
Affairs 1992, p. C-5; Allen and Kurnow 2005, pp. 10, 13-16; Dicus
2005a, p.1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 2006, pp. 1-4,
Science Applications International Corporation 2006 pp. 33, 34, 37;
Alfaro and Alfaro 2007, pp. 6-8; Service GIS database).
We excluded approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians' land that we proposed as revised critical habitat in
this unit based on our determination the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2)--Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes
and Economics'' section below). We also excluded approximately 2,572 ac
(1,040 ha) of Navy-owned or controlled land associated with the La
Posta Facility that we proposed as revised critical habitat in this
unit based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).
Unit 10: Jacumba
Unit 10 consists of approximately 2,514 ac (1,017 ha) of habitat
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. This unit contains all the features essential to
the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the
following: Plantago erecta and P. patagonica host plants; nectar
sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp.
52, 54; Service GIS database). Unit 10 is located in San Diego County
south of Interstate 8 and north of the community of Jacumba. This unit
includes land associated with the Jacumba Core Occurrence Complex (see
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
sections above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 10
may require special management considerations or protection to minimize
impacts from loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape
connectivity due to development, recreational activities, trash
dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, and climate change.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by
the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain
functional to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, we document
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our
issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action,
[[Page 28812]]
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
Are economically and technologically feasible, and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly
or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation
under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local, or private lands
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.) or a permit from us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or
involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section
7(a)(2) consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the
affected species. Generally, the conservation role of Quino checkerspot
butterfly critical habitat units is to support viable core populations
of the subspecies.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or those activities that may be affected
by such designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result
in consultation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly include, but are
not limited to, actions that remove host plants and nectar sources,
introduce or increase invasion rates of invasive, nonnative exotic
plant species, or fragment habitat. Such activities could include, but
are not limited to:
Off-road vehicle use;
Mechanical soil disturbance;
Clearing or grading;
Development; and
Pesticide use.
These activities could result in reduction or degradation of
habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of these butterflies
and their host plants, including reduction or preclusion of necessary
movement of adults between host plant patches within a greater habitat
patch, and directly or cumulatively causing adverse affects to Quino
checkerspot butterflies and their life cycles.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor. In the following sections, we address a number
of general issues that are relevant to our analysis under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Economic Analysis
Following the publication of the proposed revised critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The DEA (dated December
19, 2008) was made available for public review and comment from
December 19, 2008, to January 20, 2009 (73 FR 77568). Substantive
comments and information received on the DEA are summarized above in
the ``Public Comment'' section and are incorporated into the final
analysis, as appropriate. Taking any relevant new information into
consideration, the Service completed a final economic analysis (FEA)
(dated March 24, 2009) of the designation that updates the DEA.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential incremental economic impacts associated with the revised
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
The information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions
about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the
designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the
designation. The economic analysis considers the economic efficiency
effects that may result from the designation. In the case of habitat
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with
habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities
associated with restrictions on land use). It also addresses how
potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an
assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and
the potential effects of conservation activities on government
agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The economic analysis
measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and
commercial development and public projects and activities, such as
economic impacts on water management and transportation projects,
Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. This
information can be used by the Secretary to assess whether the effects
of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic
sector. Finally, the economic analysis looks retrospectively at costs
that have been incurred since the date we listed the Quino checkerspot
butterfly as
[[Page 28813]]
endangered (62 FR 2313; August 16, 1997), and considers those costs
that may occur in the years following the revised designation of
critical habitat, with the timeframes for this analysis varying by
activity.
The economic analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of
the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in
the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
The economic analysis examines activities taking place both within
and adjacent to the designation. It estimates impacts based on
activities that are ``reasonably foreseeable'' including, but not
limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or
funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the
public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that
are likely to occur within a 23-year timeframe, from when the proposed
rule became available to the public (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The
23-year timeframe was chosen for the analysis because, as the time
horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which
the projected number of projects and cost impacts associated with those
projects are based become increasingly speculative.
The vast majority of potential incremental economic impacts
attributed to the revised critical habitat designation, if it was
finalized as proposed, would be expected to be related to residential
development (62 to 86 percent) and tribal activities (38 to 14
percent). The FEA estimates total potential incremental economic
impacts in areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the next 23
years to be $13.1 million to $50.4 million ($1.1 million to 4.2 million
annualized) in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate
(including areas considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act).
The FEA estimates the largest impacts of the proposed revised
critical habitat rule would result from section 7 consultations with
the Service on residential development projects likely to occur in
areas where surveys are unable to detect the butterfly (including
tribal lands). The best estimates give a range of costs based on low
and high impact assumptions of development projections (projection
uncertainty). In the high estimate scenario, if the critical habitat
designation was finalized as proposed, five projects in Unit 9 and nine
projects in Unit 10 would likely require consultation with the Service
as a result of the critical habitat designation. Conservatively
assuming that each project is undertaken by a separate entity, as many
as 14 developers would likely be affected over the 23-year timeframe of
the analysis. At the high end, the one-time costs resulting from the
consultation process, including administrative time spent by the
businesses, compensation costs, and the value of time delays, total
approximately $16.1 million for the projects in Unit 9 and $26.8
million for the projects in Unit 10. Additionally, over the 23-year
timeframe, a high-end estimate of 131 projects (approximately six
projects per year) would experience additional administrative costs as
a result of the consultation. These costs result from the need to
address adverse modification in a consultation that would occur even in
the absence of critical habitat. These additional administrative costs
are estimated to be $1,000 per project.
The final economic analysis is available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act
requires that the Service identify those lands within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing on which are found
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special management considerations or
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing that are essential for the
conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service
must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that, on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
of designation, the features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies and habitat that is identified, if managed or protected,
could provide for the survival and recovery of the subspecies.
The identification of areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the subspecies, or are otherwise essential for the
conservation of the subspecies if outside the geographical area
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing, is a benefit
resulting from the designation. The critical habitat designation
process includes peer review and public comment on the identified
physical and biological features and areas, and provides a mechanism to
educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation value of an area. This helps focus
and promote conservation efforts by other parties by clearly
delineating areas of high conservation value for the subspecies, and is
valuable to land owners and managers in developing conservation
management plans for identified areas, as well as for any other
identified occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not be
included in the areas the Service identifies as meeting the definition
of critical habitat.
In general, critical habitat designation always has educational
benefits; however, in some cases, they may be redundant with other
educational effects. For example, habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
have significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational
benefits of a critical habitat designation. Including lands in critical
habitat also would inform State agencies and local governments about
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some
species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be
similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in effects
to the species. However, the regulatory standard is different, as the
jeopardy analysis investigates the action's impact to survival and
recovery of the species, while the adverse modification analysis
investigates the action's effects to the designated habitat's
contribution to conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to
different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical
habitat designations may
[[Page 28814]]
provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would
listing alone.
For Quino checkerspot butterfly, when consulting under section
7(a)(2) of the Act in designated critical habitat, independent analyses
are made for jeopardy and adverse modification. In consultations on
projects where surveys detect high densities of butterflies or low
densities of butterflies combined with high densities of butterfly
resources (host plants, nectaring plants), there is not likely to be a
quantifiable difference between the jeopardy analysis and the adverse
modification analysis as we estimate take for this subspecies in terms
of acres of occupied habitat, and the Act requires Federal agencies to
minimize the impact of the taking on the subspecies that may result
from implementation of a proposed action. Furthermore, any upfront
modifications made to the project description to minimize the project's
impact on the critical habitat designation will also minimize the
impacts of the taking of individuals on the subspecies. The habitat-
based population distributions predict the habitat distribution needed
to conserve each core occurrence complex in the long-term (see
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section above). All
lands within the critical habitat units are occupied at the population
level; however, they contain habitat that may be unoccupied by
individuals in a given year. Observable butterfly activity will vary in
any given year at any one location due to multiple variables affecting
the butterfly presence (for example, metapopulation dynamics, drought,
weather conditions, and available plant resources). For example, annual
nectar and host plant densities will vary by location within and
between years based on local microclimate conditions, and adult
butterfly presence will vary with resource availability. Furthermore,
because Quino checkerspot butterflies are capable of multiyear
diapause, fewer adult butterflies may emerge in years when nectar and
host plant resources are limited. Therefore, even within habitat-based
population distributions (occupied critical habitat as defined in this
rule), surveys may not detect butterflies at a given location within a
unit during a given flight season, and subspecies' protection under the
Act may be limited to conservation measures resulting from critical
habitat adverse modification analysis.
There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical
habitat. First, a consultation is only required where there is a
Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out by any
Federal agency) - if there is no Federal nexus, the critical habitat
designation of private lands, by itself, does not restrict actions that
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Second, the designation
only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its nature, the
prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure that the
conservation role and function of those areas that contain the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species or
of unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the
species are not appreciably reduced. Critical habitat designation
alone, however, does not require private property owners to undertake
specific steps toward recovery of the species.
Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when the
Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not
likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat. However, if
we determine through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation is initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may recommend
additional conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to the
primary constituent elements, but such measures would be discretionary
on the part of the Federal agency. A biological opinion that concludes
in a determination of no destruction or adverse modification would not
suggest the implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative,
as we suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed
Federal action only when our biological opinion results in an adverse
modification conclusion.
As stated above, the designation of critical habitat does not
require that any management or recovery actions take place on the lands
included in the designation. Even in cases where consultation is
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of
consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse
modification of its critical habitat, but not necessarily to manage
critical habitat or institute recovery actions on critical habitat.
Conversely, voluntary conservation efforts implemented through
management plans institute proactive actions over the lands they
encompass and are put in place to remove or reduce known threats to a
species or its habitat; therefore, implementing recovery actions. We
believe that in many instances the regulatory benefit of critical
habitat is minimal when compared to the conservation benefit that can
be achieved through implementing HCPs under section 10 of the Act or
other habitat management plans. In particular, the conservation
achieved through large or regional plans is typically greater than what
we achieve through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section
7(a)(2) consultations involving consideration of critical habitat.
Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other
listed or sensitive species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations only commit
Federal agencies to preventing adverse modification of critical habitat
caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed action. Thus, implementation of an HCP or management plan that
incorporates enhancement or recovery as the management standard may
often provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical
habitat designation.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of
the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute
1995, p.2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species
occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002,
p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 percent
of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to
100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and
that 50 percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on
Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and
[[Page 28815]]
promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners are essential to
understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands, and are
necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed
species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing
to endangered species recovery. We promote these private-sector efforts
through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation
philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (HCPs,
safe harbor agreements, other conservation agreements, easements, and
State and local regulations) enhance species conservation by extending
species protections beyond those available through section 7
consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged non-Federal
landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a view that
we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal land through
such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods (61 FR 63854;
December 2, 1996).
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property, and
there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6;
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp.
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp.
1644-1648).
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p.
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management,
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe that the judicious exclusion of
specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat
designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior
level of conservation than critical habitat alone.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or
voluntary conservation efforts can often be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management
Plans
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved long-
term management plans from critical habitat designation include
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical
habitat designation. Most HCPs and other conservation plans take many
years to develop, and upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species that are covered within the plan area.
Many also provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species.
Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation
of critical habitat may undermine our efforts and partnerships as well.
Our experience in implementing the Act has found that designation of
critical habitat within the boundaries of management plans that provide
conservation measures for a species is a disincentive to many entities
that are either currently developing such plans, or contemplating doing
so in the future, because one of the incentives for undertaking
conservation is greater ease of permitting where listed species are
affected. Addition of a new regulatory requirement would remove a
significant incentive for undertaking the time and expense of
management planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs and
management plans that cover listed species from critical habitat
designation is the unhindered, continued ability it gives us to seek
new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. Designating lands within
approved management plan areas as critical habitat would likely have a
negative effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop
these plans, particularly plans that address landscape-level
conservation of species and habitats. By excluding these lands, we
preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional conservation
actions in the future.
Both HCPs and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)-HCP
applications require consultation, which would review the effects of
all HCP-covered activities that might adversely affect the species
under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat
modification, even without the critical habitat designation.
Additionally, all other Federal actions that may affect the listed
species still require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
and we review these actions for possibly significant habitat
modification in accordance with the jeopardy standard under section
7(a)(2).
The information provided in the previous sections applies to all
the following discussions of benefits of inclusion or exclusion of
critical habitat.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts To Government-To-Government
Relationship With Tribes And Economics
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat based on economic or other relevant impacts if
the Secretary determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the
benefits of designating the area as critical habitat. However, these
exclusions cannot occur if it will result in the extinction of the
species concerned.
In making the following exclusions, we acknowledge that the costs
and other impacts predicted in the economic analysis might not be
completely avoided by this exclusion because some of the costs may
still be incurred through implementation of other protections for the
subspecies that exist elsewhere in the Act.
Tribal Lands - Cahuilla Band of Indians
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government
Relations
[[Page 28816]]
with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of
the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish,
wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are better
managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this
philosophy, we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as
critical habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened
and endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore, critical habitat designation compromises the
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5,
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating
that designation of critical habitat on lands of the Cahuilla Band of
Indians constitutes a significant burden to the tribe. It is our
understanding that all proposed revised critical habitat on the
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land is on individual allotments, and any
economic impacts resulting from the designation would directly effect
individual tribal members or families.
We determined that lands of the Cahuilla Band of Indians contain
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Quino checkerspot butterfly and therefore meet the definition of
critical habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with
regard to these tribal lands, we considered several factors including
our relationship with the affected tribe, our recognition that tribal
governments protect and manage their resources in the manner most
beneficial to them, and the estimated economic impacts to the affected
tribe associated with the designation of critical habitat. We recognize
that the Cahuilla Band of Indians exercises legislative,
administrative, and judicial control over activities within the
boundaries of its lands and has a natural resource management program
and staff. The tribe's natural resource management efforts will
continue to be implemented regardless of whether tribal lands are
designated as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
are excluding all Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands (in Unit 6) that
contain features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly from this final revised critical habitat designation. As
described in our analysis below, we reached this determination because
of our effective working relationship with the tribe, our
responsibilities under Secretarial Order 3206, and in consideration of
the disproportionate relative economic impact on the tribe associated
with the designation of critical habitat on tribal lands.
Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA describe the
vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of Indians to economic impacts. The
tribe governs its lands and is solely responsible for providing
necessary public services that are typically provided by county and
city governments on nontribal lands. However, the tribe has a much
smaller population base and a limited amount of land available for
development or conservation. Therefore, far fewer resources are
available to the Cahuilla Band of Indians to draw upon in comparison to
local and county governments, in addition to the tribe serving a
disadvantaged population.
According to data collected in preparation of the DEA, the Cahuilla
Band of Indians has a relatively small population (168 members) from
which to raise revenue. This resource base is significantly smaller
than the surrounding county (Riverside) that supports a population base
of 1,545,387 people. The DEA stated the median household income level
of the Cahuilla Band of Indians is lower than the surrounding county.
Likewise, the proportion of people below the poverty level is
substantially higher for the Cahuilla Band of Indians relative to the
nontribal populations of Riverside County. There is an even larger
disparity among the most impoverished people (percentage of people
below 50 percent of the poverty level); the percentage of people on the
Cahuilla Band of Indians' reservation whose income is below half the
poverty level (approximately 15 percent) is approximately three times
that of the nontribal population of Riverside County (approximately 6
percent). This disparity is also reflected in the property values on
the reservation, where the median value of owner-occupied houses is
less than half that of owner-occupied houses in the county.
Chapter 6 of the FEA states that, while no specific economic
impacts can be quantified, it should be emphasized that the Cahuilla
Band of Indians do not have independent taxing authority and therefore
must rely on development fees within limited tribal lands to generate
government revenue. While there are no development plans for the
Cahuilla Band of Indians that can be specified at this time, potential
restrictions on development resulting from critical habitat designation
could result in additional constraints to limited tribal resources. In
consideration of economic vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of Indians
discussed above, their limited resource base, and the disadvantaged
population they serve, we determined any economic impacts associated
with a critical habitat designation will have a disproportionately
negative impact on this tribe and our working relationship with them.
Benefits of Inclusion - Cahuilla Band of Indians
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which
consultation is completed.
The Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands are within the habitat-based
population distribution of the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence
Complex (Unit 6). If surveys detect occupancy within a project
footprint, then consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat
designation, and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied
critical habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the
``Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied
habitat, surveys may not detect butterflies during any given flight
season. Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat
designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are reduced but not
negated by population occupancy in Unit 6.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that a designation can serve to educate the landowner
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an
[[Page 28817]]
area, which could help focus conservation efforts to designated areas
of high conservation value for certain species. Any information about
the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation
activities. As discussed above in the ``Tribal Comments'' section, the
Cahuilla Band of Indians is aware of the value of its lands to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently
implements management measures that contribute to the conservation of
natural resources and native species. The tribe is already working with
the Service to understand the habitat needs of this subspecies, and has
an active natural resource management program. Further, the tribal
lands were included in the proposed designation, and the proposed
designation reached a wide audience. Therefore, the educational
benefits that might follow critical habitat designation (such as
providing information to the BIA or tribes on areas important to the
long-term conservation of this subspecies) may have already been
realized.
In light of continued commitment by the Cahuilla Band of Indians to
manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation of native
species, we believe designation of critical habitat on these tribal
lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation benefits
to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion - Cahuilla Band of Indians
The benefits of excluding approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from designated critical habitat are
significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by forgoing
the designation of critical habitat on these lands include: (1)
Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our deference
to tribal conservation and natural resource management of its lands and
resources, including Federal trust species; (2) continuance and
strengthening of our effective working relationships with the tribe to
promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its
habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs that might not
otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental economic impacts to
the tribe that may result from critical habitat designation on tribal
lands.
We communicated with the Cahuilla Band of Indians throughout the
designation process. Meetings and communications were conducted in
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the governmental
entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly on their lands. We recognize the tribes' fundamental right to
provide for tribal resource management activities, including those
relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Cahuilla Band of
Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as an
intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore,
several comment letters received from tribes and the BIA indicated
designation of critical habitat would adversely affect our working
relationships with tribes.
Several tribes and the BIA commented that designation of critical
habitat on these tribal lands would constitute a significant burden to
the Cahuilla Band of Indians. Potential economic impacts only become
realized through consultation when there is a Federal nexus. However,
in the case of tribal lands, there is a high likelihood all projected
costs would be realized, as the BIA (a Federal Agency) provides
technical assistance to tribes on management planning and oversees a
variety of programs on tribal lands. As described above, the Cahuilla
Band of Indians is economically depressed and therefore vulnerable to
an economic impact. Eliminating potential incremental economic impacts
of critical habitat designation would prevent additional economic
impact on the tribal economy where section 7 consultation costs are
already likely due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Cahuilla Band of
Indians
The benefits of excluding the Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands from
critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of inclusion.
The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural resources to
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat without the
perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is consistent
with our published policies on Native American natural resource
management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage and help
maintain our cooperative working relationships with this tribe and
facilitate further conservation activities by local tribal
environmental organizations, which will likely provide benefits to this
subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as discussed above,
eliminating the disproportionately high incremental economic impacts
associated with a critical habitat designation on the Cahuilla Band of
Indians' lands will prevent unnecessary and counter-productive impacts
to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore, we determined the benefits
identified above of excluding approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from the critical habitat designation
outweigh the benefits of including these tribal lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Cahuilla Band
of Indians
We determined that exclusion of the Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands
from the final revised designation of critical habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction of the
subspecies. The majority of lands within proposed Unit 6 that are
outside of the tribe's jurisdiction are protected and managed either
explicitly for the subspecies, or indirectly through more general
objectives to protect natural values, thereby providing conservation
value to the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly that are found within
the area supporting the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex.
Additionally, the tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the high
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately
1,202 ac (488 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' land proposed in Unit 6
from this critical habitat designation.
Tribal Lands - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the
President's
[[Page 28818]]
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order
13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife,
and other natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under
tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal
regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy,
we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as critical
habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened and
endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore, critical habitat designation compromises the
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5,
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating
that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands constitutes a
significant burden to tribes. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is
the only tribe affected by the proposed revision to critical habitat
that does not own a casino. It is our understanding the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians' primary economic development plan is the low-impact
ecotourism ``resort'' (solar-powered electricity and only structures
are small cabin-like ``yurts'' and a electrical facility) currently
under construction on their reservation.
We determined that tribal fee lands of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and meet the definition
of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with
regard to these tribal lands, we considered several factors including
our relationship with the affected tribe, our recognition that tribal
governments protect and manage their resources in the manner most
beneficial to them, and the estimated economic impacts to the affected
tribe associated with the designation of critical habitat. We recognize
that the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians exercises legislative,
administrative, and judicial control over activities within the
boundaries of its lands and that the tribe has a natural resource
management program and staff. The tribe's natural resource management
efforts will continue to be implemented regardless of whether tribal
lands are designated as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we are excluding all Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands (in
Unit 7) from this final revised critical habitat designation. As
described in our analysis below, we reached this determination because
of our effective working relationship with the tribe and in
consideration of the disproportionate economic impact associated with
the designation of critical habitat on tribal lands.
Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate
the economic vulnerability of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. The
tribe self-governs its lands and is solely responsible for public
services in the same manner as county and city governments. The Ramona
Band of Cahuilla Indians does not have independent taxing authority
and, therefore, must rely on development fees within limited tribal
lands to generate government revenue. However, as discussed in detail
in chapter 6 of the FEA, local tribal governments have far fewer
resources to draw from than county governments and the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians serves an especially disadvantaged population.
Furthermore, the tribe has a limited amount of reservation lands
available for development and conservation.
The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians has an extremely small
population (8 members), including children, from which to raise
revenue. The FEA did not analyze impacts to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians because data were not available, but it is our understanding
that their resource base is reduced compared to the Cahuilla Band of
Indians. This resource base is significantly smaller than the
surrounding county (Riverside) that supports a population base of
1,545,387 people. Additionally, although the DEA did not provide
specific statistics for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, it is
reasonable to assume, based on our general knowledge of the tribe's
circumstances (see above discussion) that, similar to the Cahuilla Band
of Indians, the proportion of tribal members below the poverty level,
particularly the most impoverished people, is substantially higher
relative to the nontribal populations of Riverside County, and the
median value of owner-occupied houses is less than half that of owner-
occupied houses in the county.
The DEA did not analyze costs to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians as we were initially unaware that the proposed revisions to
critical habitat included tribally owned fee lands for this tribe. Land
ownership data used in our analysis of proposed revisions to critical
habitat did not accurately reflect recent tribal purchases. However, in
consideration of land ownership information submitted to the Service
after publication of proposed revisions to critical habitat (indicating
79 ac (32 ha) of lands owned by the tribe were included in Unit 7), the
general economic vulnerability of tribes discussed in the DEA, the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' limited resource base, and the
disadvantaged population they serve, we determined any economic impacts
associated with a critical habitat designation will have a
disproportionately negative impact on this tribe.
Benefits of Inclusion - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which
consultation is completed.
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands are within the habitat-based
population distribution of the Bautista Road core occurrence complexes
(Unit 7). If surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then
consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat designation,
and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical
habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of
Designating Critical Habitat'' section, surveys may not detect
butterflies during any given flight season even in occupied habitat.
Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat designation
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are reduced but not negated by
population occupancy in Unit 7.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is
[[Page 28819]]
that the designation can serve to educate the landowner and the public
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may
help focus conservation efforts to designated areas of high
conservation value for certain species. Any information about the Quino
checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience is
valuable, including parties engaged in conservation activities. As
discussed above in the ``Tribal Comments'' section, the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians is aware of the value of its lands to the conservation
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently implements management
measures that contribute to the conservation of natural resources and
native species, for example, surveys and mapping of sensitive native
species and habitat restoration associated with ecotourism resort
development. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is already working
with the Service to understand the habitat needs of this subspecies,
and has an active natural resource management program including
nontribal staff members. Further, the tribal lands were included in the
proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience and served
to educate the public. Therefore, the educational benefits that might
follow critical habitat designation (such as providing information to
the BIA or tribes on areas important to the long-term conservation of
this subspecies) may have already been realized.
In light of continued commitment by the Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Indians to manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation
of native species, we believe designation of critical habitat on tribal
fee lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation
benefits to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued
jeopardy consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
The benefits of excluding approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona
Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from designated critical habitat are
significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by forgoing
the designation of critical habitat on these lands include: (1)
Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our deference
to tribal conservation and natural resource management of their lands
and resources, including Federal trust species; (2) continuance and
strengthening of our effective working relationships with the tribe to
promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its
habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs that might not
otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental economic impacts to
the tribe that may result from critical habitat designation on tribal
lands.
We communicated with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians during the
designation process, as soon as we were aware that the proposed
revision included tribal fee lands. Meetings and communications were
conducted in accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order
13175; and the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the
governmental entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly on their lands. We recognize tribes' fundamental
right to provide for tribal resource management activities, including
those relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as
an intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore,
several comment letters received from tribes and the BIA indicated
designation of critical habitat would adversely affect our working
relationships with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Several tribes, including the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and
the BIA commented that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands
would constitute a significant burden to affected tribes. Potential
economic impacts only become realized through consultation when there
is a Federal nexus. However, in the case of tribal lands, there is a
high likelihood all projected costs will be realized, as the BIA (a
Federal Agency) provides technical assistance to tribes on management
planning and oversees a variety of programs on tribal lands. As
described above, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is economically
depressed and therefore vulnerable to an economic impact. Eliminating
potential incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation
will prevent additional economic impact on the tribal economy where
section 7 consultation costs are already likely due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion - Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians
The benefits of excluding the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians'
lands from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of
inclusion. The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural
resources to benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat
without the perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is
consistent with our published policies on Native American natural
resource management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage
and help maintain our cooperative working relationships with this tribe
and facilitate further conservation activities by the tribal
environmental organization, which will likely provide benefits to this
subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as discussed above,
eliminating the disproportionately high incremental economic impacts
associated with a critical habitat designation on the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians' lands will prevent unnecessary and counter-productive
impacts to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore, we determined the
benefits identified above of excluding approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from the revised critical habitat
designation outweigh the benefits of including these tribal lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Indians
We determined that the exclusion of 79 ac (32 ha) of the Ramona
Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from the final revised designation of
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in
the extinction of the subspecies. The vast majority of lands proposed
in Unit 7 are being designated as critical habitat and will receive the
full protection afforded to critical habitat under the Act.
Additionally, the tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately
79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona
[[Page 28820]]
Band of Cahuilla Indians' land proposed in Unit 7 from this critical
habitat designation.
Tribal Lands--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951);
Executive Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental
Manual of the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that
fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are better
managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this
philosophy, we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as
critical habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened
and endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore critical habitat designation compromises the
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5,
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating
that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands constitutes a
significant burden to tribes.
We determined that 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians' lands (in Unit 9) contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and
meet the definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our
final decision with regard to these tribal lands, we considered several
factors including our relationship with the affected tribe, our
recognition that tribal governments protect and manage their resources
in the manner most beneficial to them, and the estimated economic
impacts to the affected tribe associated with the designation of
critical habitat. We recognize that the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
exercises legislative, administrative, and judicial control over
activities within the boundaries of its lands and has a natural
resource management program and staff. Natural resource management
efforts will continue to be implemented by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians regardless of whether tribal lands are designated as critical
habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding all 3,167
ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands (in Unit 9) from
this final revised critical habitat designation that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly. As described in our analysis below, we
reached this determination because of our effective working
relationship with the tribe and in consideration of the
disproportionate economic impact associated with the designation of
critical habitat on tribal lands.
Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate
the economic vulnerability of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. The
tribe self-governs its lands and is solely responsible for public
services in the same manner as county and city governments. However, as
discussed in detail in chapter 6 of the FEA, this tribal government has
far fewer resources to draw from than county governments and serves an
especially disadvantaged population. Tribal governments do not have
independent taxing authority and therefore must rely on development
fees within limited tribal lands to generate government revenue.
Furthermore, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians has a very limited
amount of reservation lands available for development and conservation.
According to data collected in preparation of the DEA, the Campo
Band of Kumeyaay Indians has a small population (372 members) from
which to raise revenue. This resource base is significantly smaller
than the surrounding county (San Diego) that supports a population base
of 2,813,833 people. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' unemployment
rate is almost twice that of San Diego County, and the median household
income level is lower. Likewise, the proportion of people below the
poverty level is substantially higher for the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians relative to the nontribal population of San Diego County. There
is an even larger disparity among the most impoverished people
(percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level); the
percentage of people below half of the poverty level on the Campo Band
of Kumeyaay Indians' reservation (approximately 29 percent) is more
than five times that of the nontribal population of San Diego County
(approximately 5 percent). This disparity is also reflected in property
values on the reservation, where the median value of owner-occupied
houses is less than half that of owner-occupied houses in San Diego
County.
As described in Chapter 6 of the FEA, the projected incremental
economic impacts that would be incurred by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation totals
$4.9 million to $6.8 million over the 23 year analysis period ($406,000
to $563,000 annualized) at a seven percent discount rate (up to 62
percent of all incremental economic impacts of designating critical
habitat in Unit 9). Tribal lands available for development are limited
on the reservation, and up to 62 percent of all projected incremental
economic impacts of designating critical habitat in Unit 9 (primarily
residential development) were anticipated to be incurred by the Campo
Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Therefore, in consideration of economic
vulnerability of the tribal government discussed above, its limited
resource base, and the disadvantaged population it serves, we
determined any economic impacts associated with a critical habitat
designation will have a disproportionately negative impact on this
tribe.
Benefits of Inclusion--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which
consultation is completed.
The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land are within the habitat-
based population distribution of the La Posta-Campo Core Occurrence
Complex (Unit 9). If surveys detect occupancy within a project
footprint, then consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat
designation, and the
[[Page 28821]]
likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical habitat unit
is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat, surveys may not
detect butterflies during any given flight season. Therefore, the
conservation benefits of critical habitat designation are reduced but
not negated by population occupancy in Unit 9.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area,
and this may help focus conservation efforts to designated areas of
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation
activities. As discussed in the ``Tribal Comments'' section above, the
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is aware of the value of its lands to
the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently
implements management measures that contribute to the conservation of
natural resources and native species. For example, in their first
comment letter (March 20, 2008) the tribe cited a completed riparian
habitat restoration project. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is
already working with the Service to understand the habitat needs of
this subspecies, and has an active natural resource management program.
Further, the tribal lands were included in the proposed designation,
which itself reached a wide audience and served to educate the public.
Therefore, the educational benefits that might follow critical habitat
designation (such as providing information to the BIA or tribes on
areas important to the long-term conservation of this subspecies) may
have already been realized.
In light of continued commitment by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians to manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation
of native species, we believe designation of critical habitat on tribal
lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation benefits
to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
The benefits of excluding approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians land from designated critical habitat
are significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by
forgoing the designation of critical habitat on these lands include:
(1) Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our
deference to tribal conservation and natural resource management of
their lands and resources, including Federal trust species; (2)
continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationship
with the tribe to promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs
that might not otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental
economic impacts to the tribe that may result from critical habitat
designation on tribal lands.
We communicated with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians throughout
the designation process. Meetings and communications were conducted in
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the governmental
entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly on their lands. We recognize tribes' fundamental right to
provide for tribal resource management activities, including those
relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as an
intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore,
several comment letters received from the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians, other tribes, and the BIA indicated designation of critical
habitat adversely affects our working relationships with all tribes.
The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and the BIA commented that
designation of critical habitat on Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians'
lands would constitute a significant burden to the tribe. Projected
economic impacts only become realized through consultation when there
is a Federal nexus. However, in the case of tribal lands, there is a
high likelihood all projected costs will be realized, as the BIA (a
Federal Agency) provides technical assistance to tribes on management
planning and oversees a variety of programs on tribal lands. As
described above, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is economically
depressed and therefore vulnerable to the economic impact. Eliminating
projected incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation
as described in the FEA will prevent additional economic impact on the
tribal economy where section 7 consultation costs are already likely
due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians
The benefits of excluding the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands
from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of
inclusion. The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural
resources to benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat
without the perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is
consistent with our published policies on Native American natural
resource management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage
and help maintain our cooperative working relationship with the Campo
Band of Kumeyaay Indians and facilitate further conservation activities
by local tribal environmental organizations, which will likely provide
benefits to this subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as
discussed above, eliminating the disproportionately high incremental
economic impacts associated with a critical habitat designation on the
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land will prevent unnecessary and
counter-productive impacts to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore,
we determined the benefits identified above of excluding approximately
3,087 ac (1,249 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land from the
critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including these
tribal lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians
We determined that the exclusion of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians' lands from the final revised designation of critical habitat
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction
of the subspecies. The tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands
in a manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the
high likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately
3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of
[[Page 28822]]
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land proposed in Unit 9 from this
critical habitat designation.
Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National Security
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat for reasons of national security if the Secretary
determines the benefits of such an exclusion exceed the benefits of
designating the area as critical habitat. However, this exclusion
cannot occur if it will result in the extinction of the species
concerned.
Department of Defense--San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station
We determined that approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force lands
at the San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station (Surveillance
Station), located in Unit 8, contain the features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and therefore meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final
decision with regard to these Air Force lands, we considered several
factors including impacts to national security associated with a
critical habitat designation as described by the Air Force, existing
consultations, and conservation measures in place at this facility that
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we are excluding all Air Force Surveillance Station lands in Unit
8 containing features essential to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly from this final revised critical habitat
designation. As described in our analysis below, we reached this
determination in consideration of the impact to national security
associated with the designation of critical habitat on these Air Force
lands.
An endangered species management plan is in place at the
Surveillance Station to conserve Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat.
Activities at the station that reduce the risk of fire damage consist
of occasional equipment inspection, equipment maintenance, and mowing,
therefore conservation actions are relatively simple. Conservation
measures included in the plan that benefit the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat include (1) Monitoring Quino checkerspot
butterfly occupancy and habitat status through protocol surveys that
also document habitat quality, suitability, and the presence and
abundance of host plants and nectar sources; (2) use of monitoring
results to adopt management strategies that maintain and protect the
Quino checkerspot butterfly; and (3) maintaining existing habitat
onsite, including actions such as flagging and avoiding host plants
prior to fire abatement activities, or utilizing the existing mowing
program to maintain areas of low, open grassland most suitable for host
plants. The Air Force is currently working on an INRMP for this
facility that will incorporate the existing endangered species
management plan. Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will
continue to be implemented by the Air Force regardless of whether the
Surveillance Station is designated as critical habitat.
In a letter received by the Service on March 20, 2008, the Air
Force determined that critical habitat designation on Surveillance
Station lands would impact national security. The mission of the
Surveillance Station is to detect, track, and identify manmade objects
in near-earth and deep-space orbits using a series of receiving
stations equipped with linear antenna arrays. The Air Force expressed
concern that designation of these lands could cause short-notice,
national security, mission-critical activities to be delayed if they
were required to conduct consultation due to a critical habitat
designation. Short-notice, mission-critical activities not previously
analyzed that would likely be delayed by section 7 consultation and
directly affect national security include equipment upgrades, some
maintenance activities, and replacement of antennae. These activities
require immediate ground disturbance in designated areas for new
antennae construction or heavy equipment operation, and are not covered
by the INRMP.
Benefits of Inclusion--Air Force Surveillance Station
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to insure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which consultation is
completed.
These Air Force lands are within the habitat-based population
distribution of the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 8). If
surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then consultation
would occur regardless of critical habitat designation, and the
likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical habitat unit
is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat, surveys may not
detect butterflies during any given flight season. Therefore, the
conservation benefits of critical habitat designation are reduced but
not negated by population occupancy in Unit 8.
The primary benefit of including these Air Force lands within a
critical habitat designation is the requirement for consultation on
actions that may adversely modify or destroy designated critical
habitat; however, consultation on these lands, which are within the
habitat-based population distribution of the Otay Mountain Core
Occurrence Complex and are within the boundaries of previously
designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat, has already
been completed. The Service completed consultation with the Navy (prior
landowner) regarding all current and foreseen mowing activity and
issued a biological opinion concluding that all current and foreseen
mowing activity is not likely to jeopardize the Quino checkerspot
butterfly nor destroy or adversely modify its currently designated
critical habitat (Service 2003, FWS-SDG-2511.3).
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area,
and this may help focus conservation efforts to identified areas of
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation
activities. As discussed above, the Air Force is aware of the value of
Surveillance Station lands to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and currently implements management measures to conserve
Quino checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Air Force is
actively working with the Service and the CDFG to develop an INRMP that
will ensure conservation of this subspecies on Surveillance Station
lands. Further, all Surveillance Station lands were included in the
proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience. Therefore,
the educational benefits that might follow critical habitat designation
(such as providing information to the Air Force on areas important to
the long-term conservation of this subspecies) have largely already
been realized by consultation, development of the management plan,
development of the INRMP, and proposing these areas as critical
habitat.
[[Page 28823]]
We believe designation of critical habitat would provide few, if
any, additional regulatory and conservation benefits to the subspecies
beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy consultation due
to the continued commitment by the Air Force to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly
and the coordination and management efforts demonstrated by the Air
Force resulting from consultation and development of an INRMP.
Benefits of Exclusion--Air Force Surveillance Station
The benefits of excluding approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force
lands are significant. The Air Force maintains and defends our national
security at the Surveillance Station by detecting, tracking, and
identifying man-made objects in near-earth and deep space orbits. As
described above, the Air Force determined designation of Surveillance
Station lands could delay short-notice national security mission-
critical activities such as inspections/maintenance of antenna arrays
and their components. Excluding these Air Force lands from critical
habitat designation will remove the potentially significant impact that
a designation of critical habitat could have on the Air Force's ability
to maintain and defend our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Air Force
Surveillance Station
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for Air Force Surveillance Station lands in Unit 8. We
believe the benefits of designating these lands as Quino checkerspot
butterfly critical habitat are small, whereas the benefits of excluding
these lands from critical habitat will result in the removal of impacts
to national security as determined by the Air Force. Therefore, we have
determined the benefits identified above of excluding approximately 109
ac (44 ha) of Air Force Surveillance Station lands from the critical
habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including these lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Air Force
Surveillance Station
We determined that the exclusion of the Air Force Surveillance
Station lands from the final revised designation of critical habitat
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction
of the subspecies. While some loss of habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly is anticipated with the continued Air Force activities on
Surveillance Station lands, we concluded in our biological opinion
(Service 2003, FWS-SDG-2511.3) that mowing activity would not
jeopardize the continued existence of this subspecies. Additionally,
the current management and proposed management under the draft INRMP in
development provides some protection and management of lands within
Unit 8, including the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Finally, the
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on these Air Force lands resulting
in consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act that will ensure activities on these lands are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances
that the subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately
109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force Surveillance Station lands proposed in Unit
8 from this critical habitat designation.
Department of Defense--La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility
We determined that approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land owned or
controlled by the United States Navy (Navy), or designated for its use,
at the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility (La Posta Facility),
located in Unit 9, contain the features essential to the conservation
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and meet the definition of critical
habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with regard to
these Navy lands, we considered several factors including impacts to
national security associated with a critical habitat designation as
described by the Navy, existing consultations, and conservation
measures in place at this facility that benefit the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding all Navy
La Posta Facility lands, and lands owned by the BLM designated for use
as part of the La Posta Facility from this final revised critical
habitat designation. As described in our section 4(b)(2) analysis
below, we reached this determination in consideration of the impact to
national security associated with the designation of critical habitat
on these Navy lands.
The Navy Special Operations Forces train at the La Posta Facility
before deploying to the United States Pacific and Central Commands in
support of missions in the global war on terrorism. This warfare
training facility supports mission-essential training for Navy troops
prior to deployment into these hostile areas of the world. The La Posta
Facility is currently the only semi-remote, Navy-controlled complex
supporting Assault and Tactical Weapons Training, and the only San
Diego region cold weather--mountain warfare site that provides training
in unconventional warfare and special tactical intelligence. The Navy
Special Operations Forces training schedule is extremely concentrated
and does not allow for any shifting of training blocks. By Navy
training policy, this site contains a remote range built specifically
for the skill set required, is close to home, and is without
distractions. Therefore, these lands have high national security value.
The Navy actively conserves the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its
habitat at the La Posta Facility. Conservation measures pursuant to a
biological opinion (FWS-SDG-4452) include a comprehensive Quino Habitat
Enhancement Plan for the La Posta Facility. The Navy funds
implementation of the Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan and consistent
with the plan, the Navy: (1) Identifies areas containing important
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat features (e.g., host plants for
breeding and hilltops for mating); (2) delineates Quino Management Area
boundaries (based on mapping in 1); (3) implements specific
management strategies, such as weed control, to conserve the
subspecies; (4) avoids trampling of Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae,
host plants, or cryptobiotic soil crusts in important habitat; (5)
monitors Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat to detect any significant
changes; (6) describes and implements larval salvage and release
techniques; and (7) conducts surveys every 4 years to detect changes in
the Quino checkerspot butterfly distribution.
In addition to the conservation measures described above, the Navy
provided funding for The Nature Conservancy to purchase and manage
approximately 138 ac (56 ha) of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
adjacent to the La Posta Facility. Furthermore, the Navy has updated
its Naval Base Coronado INRMP to address the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat at the La Posta Facility and is awaiting
approval by the Service. The INRMP will incorporate all conservation
measures included in the current Quino checkerspot butterfly Habitat
Enhancement Plan and address expansion plans for the La Posta Facility.
Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will continue to be
implemented by the Navy regardless of
[[Page 28824]]
whether the La Posta Facility is designated as critical habitat.
In a letter received by the Service on March 20, 2008, (see
``Comments From Other Federal Agencies'' section above) the Navy
determined that critical habitat designation on La Posta Facility lands
would affect national security. With the closure of several contract
sites previously conducting Navy Sea, Air, and Land Forces unit level
training, the La Posta facility is now the sole Navy training site in
the San Diego region for developing small, well-trained and highly
mobile independent operational units for deployment into combat.
Designation of these lands as critical habitat could delay construction
of facilities needed to support mission critical training vital to the
current global war on terrorism and other missions related to national
security. To support training requirements, there are a series of
development projects being planned at the La Posta Facility including
construction of a close-quarter combat training facility. Any delay in
construction of facilities that support operational readiness would
seriously affect personnel readiness by disrupting mission critical
training and the ability to acquire and perform special warfare skills.
Benefits of Inclusion--Navy La Posta Facility
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to insure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which consultation is
completed.
These Navy lands are within the habitat-based population
distribution of the recently identified La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence
Complex. If surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then
consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat designation,
and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical
habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of
Designating Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat,
surveys may not detect butterflies during any given flight season.
Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat designation
are reduced but not negated by population occupancy in Unit 9.
Additionally, the Service has already consulted with the Navy
regarding all current construction activities at the La Posta Facility,
including construction of the aforementioned close-quarters combat
training facility, and issued a biological opinion (Service 2007; FWS-
SDG-4452) concluding the proposed activities are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Conservation measures resulting from that consultation include the
development of a comprehensive Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan discussed
above. Critical habitat is not currently designated on these lands;
therefore, the consultation did not include an adverse modification
analysis. However, the Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan, if implemented
long-term as described above, will conserve and enhance the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area,
and this may help focus conservation efforts to identified areas of
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation
activities. As discussed above, the Navy is aware of the value of La
Posta Facility lands to Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation and
currently implements management measures to conserve the subspecies and
its habitat. The Navy is actively working with the Service and the CDFG
to update the Naval Base Coronado INRMP to address Quino checkerspot
butterflies and their habitat at the La Posta Facility. Further, all La
Posta Facility lands were included in the proposed designation, which
itself reached a wide audience. Therefore, the educational benefits
that might follow critical habitat designation (such as providing
information to the Navy on areas important to the long-term
conservation of this subspecies) have largely already been realized by
consultation, development of the Habitat Enhancement Plan, development
of the INRMP, and proposing these areas as critical habitat.
In light of continued Navy commitments to manage its lands in a
manner that promotes conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly,
we believe designation of critical habitat on these Navy lands would
provide minimal additional regulatory and conservation benefits to the
subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Navy La Posta Facility
The benefits of excluding the approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of
Navy lands are significant. The Navy maintains and defends our national
security at the La Posta Facility by training highly specialized troops
for deployment. As described above, it is possible that designation of
La Posta Facility lands as critical habitat could delay construction
schedules and thereby disrupt mission critical training and the Navy's
ability to acquire and perform special warfare skills. Additional
consultation under section 7 of the Act due to critical habitat
designation could limit or otherwise delay or restrict the amount and
timing of mission-critical training exercises. Excluding these Navy
lands from the critical habitat designation will effectively remove the
impact that a designation of critical habitat could have on the Navy's
ability to maintain and defend our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Navy La Posta
Facility
The benefits of including these Navy La Posta Facility lands in
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are
small compared to the benefits of excluding these lands from critical
habitat for the purposes of national security training efforts.
Therefore, we determined the benefits identified above of excluding
approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of Navy La Posta Facility lands from
the critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including
these lands in the designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Navy La Posta
Facility
In keeping with our analysis and conclusion detailed in our
biological opinion for the Navy La Posta Facility (Service 2007; FWS-
SDG-4452) and potential national security impacts identified by the
Navy, we determined exclusion of 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land within the
La Posta Facility from the final designation of critical habitat for
the Quino checkerspot butterfly in Unit 9 will not result in the
extinction of the subspecies. Additionally, the likelihood of future
federal nexuses on these Federal lands resulting in consultations under
the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act that will ensure
activities on these lands are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the subspecies will
not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. Therefore, based on the
above discussion we are
[[Page 28825]]
excluding approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land within the La Posta
Facility proposed in Unit 9 from this critical habitat designation.
Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Other Relevant Impacts--Conservation
Partnerships
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat for other relevant impacts if he determines that
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
As discussed above in the ``Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal
Lands'' section, we believe that designation can negatively impact the
working relationships and conservation partnerships we have formed with
private landowners. The Service recognizes that 80 percent of
endangered or threatened species occur either partially or solely on
private lands (Crouse et al. 2002) and we will only achieve recovery of
federally listed species with the cooperation of private landowners.
In making the following exclusions, we evaluated the benefits of
designating these non-Federal lands while considering the conservation
benefits to the Quino checkerspot butterfly and the physical or
biological features essential to its conservation that result from our
existing partnerships. As discussed in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section above, conservation partnerships that result
in implementation of an HCP or other management plan that considers
enhancement or recovery as the management standard often provide as
much or more benefit than consultation for critical habitat designation
(the primary benefit of a designation).
In considering the benefits of including lands in a designation
that are covered by a current HCP or other management plan, we evaluate
a number of factors to help us determine if the plan provides
additional conservation benefits than would likely result from
consultation on a designation:
(1)Whether the plan is complete and provides protection from
destruction or adverse modification;
(2)Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3)Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We balance the benefits of inclusion against the benefits of
exclusion by considering the benefits of preserving partnerships and
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans
in the future.
San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program - Chula Vista
Subarea Plan
We determined approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land in Unit 8
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the City of
Chula Vista (City) Subarea Plan of the San Diego County Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (Chula Vista Subarea Plan) contain
the features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly, and therefore meet the definition of critical habitat under
the Act. In making our final decision with regard to these Chula Vista
Subarea Plan lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees
of the HCP, we considered several factors, including our relationship
with the participating MSCP jurisdiction, our relationship with other
MSCP stakeholders, existing consultations, conservation measures in
place on these lands that benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and
impacts to current and future partnerships. We recognize the Quino
checkerspot butterfly conservation efforts outlined in the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan will continue to be implemented by the jurisdictions and
HCP permit holders regardless of whether covered areas are designated
as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding
all lands covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan that are owned by or
are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from this final
revised designation of critical habitat. As described in our section
4(b)(2) analysis below, we have reached this determination in
consideration of the impacts associated with designation of critical
habitat on non-Federal lands covered by a management plan and on our
effective working relationships with HCP permit holders.
The MSCP is a framework HCP that has been in place for more than a
decade. The plan area encompasses approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha)
(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1-1; MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, 4-2 to 4-4) and
provides for conservation of 85 federally listed and sensitive species
(``covered species'') through the establishment and management of
approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within the
Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) (City of San Diego) and Pre-Approved
Mitigation Areas (PAMA) (County of San Diego). The MSCP was developed
in support of applications for incidental take permits for several
federally listed species by 12 participating jurisdictions and many
other stakeholders in southwestern San Diego County. Under the umbrella
of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is required to
prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the MSCP within
that particular jurisdiction. Although not covered under the umbrella
of the MSCP, the Quino checkerspot butterfly is a covered species under
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, which provides for the long-term
conservation of this subspecies.
We approved the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, covering approximately
58,000 ac (23,472 ha) under the City's jurisdiction, through an
incidental take permit issued on January 12, 2005. Within the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan, approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) meet the definition
of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Chula
Vista Subarea Plan includes the following goals: (1) To conserve
covered species (including the Quino checkerspot butterfly) and their
habitats through the assemblage and conservation of significant
interconnected habitat cores and linkages (Preserve); (2) to provide
funding for and management of the Preserve, including biological
monitoring and adaptive management; and (3) to reduce or eliminate
redundant Federal, State, and local natural resource regulatory and
environmental review of individual projects by obtaining Federal and
State take authorizations for 85 species (City of Chula Vista 2003,
Section 1, p. 2).
The Chula Vista Subarea Plan contains requirements to monitor and
adaptively manage Quino checkerspot butterfly habitats and therefore
provides for conservation of this subspecies' essential physical and
biological features. This area-specific management plan is
comprehensive and addresses a broad range of management needs at the
preserve and species levels intended to reduce threats to the Quino
checkerspot butterfly and thereby contribute to its recovery. The Quino
checkerspot butterfly is threatened primarily by loss and fragmentation
of habitat and landscape connectivity due to urban and agricultural
development, invasion of nonnative plant species, off-road vehicle use,
grazing, fire, enhanced soil nitrogen levels, and range shift resulting
from environmental changes associated with changing climate patterns
(Service
[[Page 28826]]
2003a, pp. 55-65). All lands preserved under the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan are adaptively managed and maintained to: (1) Ensure the long-term
viability and sustainability of native ecosystem function and natural
processes throughout the Preserve; (2) protect existing and restored
biological resources from the impacts of human activities within the
Preserve while accommodating compatible uses; (3) enhance and restore,
where feasible, appropriate native plant associations and wildlife
connections to adjoining habitat to provide viable wildlife and
sensitive species habitat; (4) facilitate monitoring of selected target
species, habitats, and linkages to ensure long-term persistence of
viable populations of priority plant and animal species (including the
Quino checkerspot butterfly); and (5) ensure functional habitats and
linkages for those species (Service 2003b, pp.18, 70, FWS-SDG-882.1).
Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will continue to be
implemented by the City regardless of whether these areas are
designated as critical habitat.
We determined that approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land within
the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly, and therefore meet the definition of critical
habitat. The City has assured the conservation of approximately 1,520
ac (615 ha) (91 percent) of those lands in the ``hard line areas
designated for 100 percent conservation'' where no additional
development will be approved unless a Boundary Adjustment or HCP
Amendment is approved by the Service (City of Chula Vista 2003, pp. 5-2
to 5-3, Figure 5-1). In implementing the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the
City has already conserved approximately 894 ac (362 ha), or 59
percent, of those 1,520 ac (615 ha), and the remaining approximate 626
ac (253 ha) are assured conservation under the Plan. The extent of
habitat preservation and management to date through implementation of
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan is significant and demonstrates the City's
commitment to fully implement the HCP.
The other 164 ac (66 ha) that meet the definition of critical
habitat within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan were not
originally assured conservation. However, through the adaptive
management flexibility of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the City has
already placed approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of those 164 ac (66 ha) into
the habitat preserve system conserved and managed under the HCP. These
approximately 28 ac (11 ha) are already receiving management consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. The
remaining approximately 136 ac (55 ha) of land that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan (less
than one percent of Unit 8) are not currently assured conservation;
however, any impacts to those 136 ac (55 ha) will still be subject to
the requirements of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Furthermore, under
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, development projects must avoid impacts
to the Quino checkerspot butterfly to the maximum extent practicable in
areas not identified for conservation (McNeeley 2008, p. 1). Current
development plans indicate that these remaining lands are planned for
recreational use, and there will continue to be opportunities to
preserve some native habitat in these areas. Although some losses may
occur to this subspecies within the approximate 136 ac (55 ha) of land
that are not currently preserved or otherwise assured conservation
under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the preservation, conservation, and
management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly provided under the
subarea plan provides a more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach to
protecting and managing Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat and ensures
the long-term conservation of this subspecies and its habitat within
all areas addressed by this HCP than would be achieved through
consultation for critical habitat designation (the primary benefit of a
designation).
The MSCP and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan incorporate many
processes that allow for Service oversight and participation in program
implementation. These processes include: annual reporting requirements,
review and approval of proposed subarea plan amendments or preserve
boundary adjustments, review and comment on projects through CEQA, and
chairing the Habitat Management Technical Committee and the Monitoring
Subcommittee (MSCP 1998, p. 5-11 to 5-23). For example, Habitat
Management Plans are developed for each preserve area within the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan, and annual monitoring and management objectives are
reported for each preserve. There are also monthly coordination
meetings between the Service and the City to discuss any conservation
issues that need to be addressed. The MSCP and the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan annually account for progress that occurs. Annual reports from
each HCP are provided to the Service, which include by individual
project and cumulatively, habitat acreage destroyed and conserved
within the MSCP and its respective subareas. This accounting process
ensures habitat conservation proceeds in rough proportion with losses
and is in compliance with the MSCP subarea plans and associated
implementing agreements.
In summary, although not all lands meeting the definition of
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly owned by or under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan of
the MSCP are assured conservation within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan
preserve system (136 ac (55 ha) not protected, see above), the majority
(91 percent) of these approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) are assured
conservation.
We received letters during the comment periods indicating
designation of lands covered by an HCP as critical habitat would affect
our relationships with large private landowners and stakeholders.
Furthermore, designation would discourage development of additional
HCPs and other conservation plans in the future.
Benefits of Inclusion--Chula Vista Subarea Plan
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of
the Act under which consultation is completed.
The MSCP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project
approach (as would occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act) and will
achieve more Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation within the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan boundaries than would be achieved through section 7
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. The MSCP and
Chula Vista Subarea Plan provide for proactive monitoring and
management of preserved lands (as previously described), which will
remove or reduce known threats to the Quino checkerspot butterfly and
its PCEs. The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly will benefit from the
preservation of high quality habitat;
[[Page 28827]]
restoration, enhancement, and management of all preserve lands;
minimization of project impacts; education of the public and state and
local governments; and continued promotion of partnerships on lands
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP.
Conservation and management of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan boundaries is needed for survival
and recovery of this subspecies. Meeting such conservation needs on a
regional scale, as can be provided through a regional HCP approach that
includes areas not likely to have a Federal nexus, typically is not
achieved through the application of the statutory prohibition on
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
Furthermore, 91 percent of all lands within the boundaries of the
Chula Vista Subarea Plan proposed for designation that are owned by or
are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP is within the
boundaries of formerly designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical
habitat. The Service completed consultation on the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan and continues to work closely with the City to ensure the Plan is
implemented properly and in a manner that contributes to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
We believe some habitat loss may occur within the approximate 136
ac (55 ha) of land that contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species that are not currently
preserved or otherwise assured conservation under the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan. Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within
designated critical habitat are greater than for the lands not
conserved or assured conservation under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
However, the area permitted for development is less than one percent of
proposed critical habitat in Unit 8, and the overall conservation
benefits of designating this small percentage of the unit as critical
habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process) to the Quino checkerspot butterfly are minimal.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowners
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area
and may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience is valuable,
including parties engaged in conservation activities. As discussed
above, the permit holders of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan are aware of
the value of these lands to conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and management measures are in place to conserve Quino
checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Service was a partner in
the development of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and consultation was
completed on the issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The process of
developing the MSCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan involved numerous
partners including (but not limited to) the 12 participating
jurisdictions, the CDFG, and several Federal agencies. Furthermore, all
lands were included in the proposed revised designation published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). This publication
was announced by way of a press release and information was posted on
the Service's website, which ensured the proposal reached a wide
audience. Therefore, the educational benefits of critical habitat
designation (such as providing information to the City and other
stakeholders on areas important to the long-term conservation of this
subspecies) have largely already been realized through the HCP
development process, by proposing these areas as critical habitat, and
through the Service's public notification processes.
Specific conservation actions, avoidance and minimization measures,
and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs
provided by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan should make conservation
measures required as a result of regulatory protections afforded
through a critical habitat designation unlikely. Based on the above
discussion we believe section 7 consultations for critical habitat
designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit
in the Gifford Pinchot decision provide little conservation benefits
above and beyond those provided by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
Therefore, we determine the regulatory and educational benefits of
designating those acres as Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat
(e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process) are minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion--Chula Vista Subarea Plan
The benefits of excluding the approximate 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land
within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan of the MSCP owned
by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from
designated critical habitat are significant. We believe significant
benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of critical habitat
on these lands including: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our
effective working relationships with all MSCP jurisdictions and
stakeholders to promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly
and its habitat; (2) allowance for continued meaningful collaboration
and cooperation in working toward recovering this subspecies, including
conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur; (3) encouragement
of other jurisdictions with completed subarea plans under the MSCP to
amend its plans to cover and benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly
and its habitat; (4) the encouragement for other jurisdictions to
complete subarea plans under the MSCP (e.g., including the cities of
Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, and Santee); and (5) encouragement of
additional HCP and other conservation plan development in the future on
other private lands for this and other federally listed and sensitive
species.
We developed close partnerships with the City and several other
stakeholders through the development of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan,
which incorporates appropriate protections and management for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly, its habitat, and the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of this subspecies. Those
protections are consistent with statutory mandates under section 7 of
the Act to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat and go beyond that requirement by including active management
and protection of connected habitat areas. By excluding these
approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land from designation, we are
eliminating an essentially redundant layer of regulatory review for
projects covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan in this area, helping
to preserve our ongoing partnership with the City, and encouraging new
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions. This partnership
with the City, the larger regional MSCP participants, and the landscape
level, multiple-species conservation planning efforts they promote are
needed to achieve long-term conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly.
Large scale HCPs, such as the regional MSCP and subarea plans
issued under its framework, take many years to develop and foster an
ecosystem-based approach to habitat conservation planning by addressing
conservation issues through a coordinated approach. However,
participation in these large and often costly regional plans are
voluntary for permit holders (such as
[[Page 28828]]
local jurisdictions), in the sense they could require landowners (e.g.,
homeowners, developers) to consult with the Service individually for
required permits under section 10 of the Act. If, in the case of the
MSCP, local jurisdictions required landowners to obtain section 10
permits individually prior to issuance of a building permit, they would
incur no costs associated with the landowner's need for a section 10
permit. However, this approach results in uncoordinated, ``patchy''
conservation that would not be likely to further federally listed
species' recovery. Rather, by voluntarily developing these large scale
plans, coordinated landscape-scale conservation results in preservation
of interconnected linkage areas and populations that support recovery
of listed species. Once an HCP is permitted, implementation of
conservation measures will occur regardless of whether critical habitat
is designated within its plan boundaries.
We received letters commenting on the designation of critical
habitat from other HCP permit holders, private landowners, and
stakeholders in HCPs indicating designation of lands covered by an HCP
as critical habitat would affect our relationships with large private
landowners, jurisdictions, and tribal governments. Furthermore,
designation would discourage development of additional HCPs and other
conservation plans in the future. Excluding lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of an HCP within the boundary of an HCP
demonstrates our good faith effort and working relationships, and
eliminates impacts to existing and future partnerships while
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other species or habitat
conservation plans.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Chula
Vista Subarea Plan
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 1,673 ac
(677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan owned by or under
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from revised designation
of critical habitat and determined the benefits of excluding these
lands outweigh the benefits of including them.
The benefits of including these lands in the designation are small.
Critical habitat is currently designated in 91 percent of lands covered
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, and the Service conducted a
consultation with the City and continues to work with them through the
implementation phase to ensure the HCP is implemented properly and
providing conservation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The eight
percent of lands (136 ac; 55 ha) on which critical habitat was not
previously designated are not assured conservation under the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan. However, current development plans indicate that
these remaining lands are planned for recreational use, and
opportunities will exist to continue to preserve some native habitat in
these areas while developing and allowing recreational use. In areas
not conserved by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, development projects
must still avoid impacts to the Quino checkerspot butterfly to the
maximum extent practicable (McNeeley 2008, p. 1). The City has already
placed approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of land under conservation outside
of the requirements of its subarea plan. The educational benefits of
critical habitat designation have largely already been realized as a
result of material provided on our website, through the public notice-
and-comment procedures required to establish the MSCP and City and
County subarea plans, and by proposal of these lands for designation as
revised critical habitat. Therefore, although we acknowledge that there
are approximately 136 ac (55 ha) addressed by the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan that meet the definition of critical habitat and are not assured
conservation (at risk for development), we believe that the benefits of
including these areas in the critical habitat designation would be
minor.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
lands covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan from critical habitat are
significant. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships we developed with local jurisdictions and
project proponents in the development of the MSCP and Chula Vista
Subarea Plan and aid in fostering additional partnerships for the
benefit of all species of concern on lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP. Designation of lands covered
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan may discourage other partners from
seeking, amending, or completing subarea plans under the MSCP framework
plan or from pursing other HCPs. Designation of critical habitat does
not require management or recovery actions take place on the lands
included in the designation. The Chula Vista Subarea Plan, however,
will provide for significant preservation and management of Quino
checkerspot butterfly habitat and help reach the recovery goals for
this subspecies through habitat enhancement and restoration; functional
connections to adjoining habitat; and subspecies monitoring efforts.
Additional HCPs or other species-habitat plans potentially fostered by
this exclusion would also help to recover this and other federally
listed species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, as summarized in the ``Conservation
Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section above, we determined
significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of
critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Chula Vista
Subarea Plan
In keeping with our analysis and conclusion detailed in our
biological opinion for the Chula Vista Subarea Plan (Service 2003b,
FWS-SDG-882.1), we determined that the exclusion of approximately 1,673
ac (677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan area owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from the final
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
will not result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The
Chula Vista Subarea Plan provides protection and management, in
perpetuity, of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the subspecies in Unit 9. Additionally, the jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation
measures through the section 7 process provide assurances that the
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of exclusion. Therefore,
based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 1,673 ac
(677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan area owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from this critical
habitat designation.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
We determined that approximately 31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP contain the features essential to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. Our exclusion analysis
did not include lands within the boundaries of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP that are not owned by or otherwise under the jurisdiction
of permittees and therefore not subject to the permit
[[Page 28829]]
conditions of this HCP (e.g. Federal lands, Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California lands, tribal lands). In making our final
decision with regard to these lands owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we considered
several factors including our relationships with the participating
jurisdictions, our relationships with other stakeholders, existing
consultations, conservation measures in place on these lands that
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and impacts to current and
future partnerships. We recognize Quino checkerspot butterfly
conservation efforts outlined in the Western Riverside County MSHCP
will continue to be implemented regardless of whether covered areas are
designated as revised critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we are excluding all 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land meeting the
definition of critical habitat covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP within Units 1 through 6 that are owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees from this revised final designation of
critical habitat. Conversely, within Unit 7, we are designating all
lands meeting the definition of critical habitat covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP that are owned by or are under the jurisdiction
of the permittees (4,141 ac (1,676 ha)). As described in our section
4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached these determinations in
consideration of the impacts associated with the designation of revised
critical habitat on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the HCP covered by the HCP balanced against the benefits
of including an area in the final designation.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a large-scale, multi-
jurisdictional HCP encompassing approximately 1.26 million ac (510,000
ha) of land in western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County
MSHCP addresses 146 listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' including
the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Participants in the MSHCP include 14
cities; the County of Riverside (including the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation Agency, Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and
Riverside County Waste Department); California Department of Parks and
Recreation; and the California Department of Transportation. The
Western Riverside County MSHCP is a multi-species conservation program
minimizing and mitigating expected loss of habitat and associated
incidental take of covered species. On June 22, 2004, the Service
issued an incidental take permit (Service 2004a, TE-088609-0) under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 permittees under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP for a period of 75 years.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP requires conservation of
approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of new lands (Additional Reserve
Lands) to complement the approximate 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre-
existing natural and open space areas (Public-Quasi-Public (PQP)
lands). PQP lands include those under Federal ownership, primarily
managed by the Forest Service and BLM, and also permittee-owned or
privately-owned open-space areas under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, primarily managed by
the State and Riverside County. Collectively. The Additional Reserve
Lands and PQP lands form the overall Western Riverside County MSHCP
Conservation Area. The configuration of the approximately 153,000 ac
(61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve Lands is not mapped or precisely
identified (``hard-lined'') in the Western Riverside County MSHCP, but
rather is based on textual descriptions of habitat conservation
necessary to meet the conservation goals for all covered species within
the bounds of an approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area
interpreted as implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
takes place.
Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation goals under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP include protection (Additional Reserve Lands and
PQP, including Federal lands) of at least 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of
subspecies' habitat mosaic. The conservation acreage goal will be
achieved through acquisition or other dedications of land assembled
from within the Criteria Area (the Additional Reserve Lands) and
through coordinated management of existing PQP lands. We internally
mapped a ``Conceptual Reserve Design'' that illustrates existing PQP
lands and predicts an ideal geographic distribution of the Additional
Reserve Lands based on our interpretation of the textual descriptions
of habitat conservation necessary to meet conservation goals. Our
Conceptual Reserve Design was intended to predict one possible future
configuration of the eventual approximately 153,000 ac (61, 916 ha) of
Additional Reserve Lands in conjunction with the existing PQP lands,
including approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of ``suitable'' Quino
checkerspot butterfly habitat throughout the plan area, that will be
conserved to meet the goals and objectives of the plan (Service 2004a,
p. 73; FWS-WRIV-870.19).
Preservation and management of approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha)
of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP will contribute to conservation and ultimate recovery of
this subspecies. The Quino checkerspot butterfly is threatened
primarily by loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape
connectivity due to urban and agricultural development, invasion of
nonnative plant species, off-road vehicle use, grazing, and fire,
enhanced soil nitrogen levels, and range shift resulting from
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (Service 2003a,
pp. 55-65). The Western Riverside County MSHCP removes or reduces
threats to this subspecies and the features essential to its
conservation by placing large blocks of occupied and unoccupied habitat
into preservation throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area. Areas
identified for preservation and conservation include linkages of
suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat between the 7 ``Core
Areas'' to maintain landscape connectivity and support the population
dynamics of this subspecies. The approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha)
that will be conserved under this plan for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly capture a variety of habitat characteristics supporting Quino
checkerspot butterflies throughout western Riverside County.
Distribution of the subspecies within the existing Western Riverside
County MSHCP Conservation Area is documented through annual surveys.
Surveys will continue annually as lands are added to the Conservation
Area. The surveys are intended to verify continued occupancy at a
minimum of 75 percent of the occupied locations identified in the plan.
An adaptive management program is being implemented to maintain or
enhance all conserved habitat to increase its value for, and the
viability of, Quino checkerspot butterfly populations (Dudek 2003,
Volume I, Section 9, Table 9-2, pp. 9-28, 9-29). Quino checkerspot
butterfly conservation and management efforts will continue to be
implemented under this plan regardless of whether these areas are
designated as revised critical habitat.
We determined that approximately 31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP meet the definition of critical habitat for the
Quino
[[Page 28830]]
checkerspot butterfly. These lands are divided into 7 units, each
associated with a core occurrence complex habitat-based population
distribution as identified in this final rule. Our analysis of
additional survey data and distribution information not available at
the time the Western Riverside County MSHCP was developed identified a
new core occurrence complex, the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex
(Unit 7). Therefore permittees can meet the goals and objectives of the
plan as written for this subspecies without conserving significant
portions of the permittee-owned or open-space areas that are essential
for the conservation of the species in Unit 7. Due to the
identification of a new core occurrence complex (Unit 7) mostly outside
the HCP conservation design, we evaluated the benefits of including (if
the Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation design provides
equivalent or greater conservation benefit to Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat than would likely result from consultation on
a designation) the lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 separately
from our evaluation of the benefits of designating Units 1 through 6.
Conservation Status of Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
Units 1 through 6 contain approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of
land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Our analysis identified four basic
conservation status categories of land under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP: (1) Conserved as
Public/Quasi-Public or as Additional Reserve Lands (already in
Conservation Area); (2) likely to be conserved as indicated by our
Conceptual Reserve Design (targeted as Additional Reserve Lands); (3)
possible, but not likely, conservation within the defined Criteria Area
(not captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design), and (4) no possibility
of conservation under the HCP (outside the defined Criteria Area).
In the 4 years of implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP
approximately 1,956 ac (792 ha) of land within Units 1 through 6 have
already been placed into the Conservation Area and are permanently
preserved as Additional Reserve Lands, and 2036 ac (ha) were already
conserved prior to HCP implementation. Although some areas placed in
conservation are not yet fully managed, such management will occur as
the plan continues to be implemented. Our Conceptual Reserve Design
indicates that another approximately 17,302 ac (7,002 ha) of land owned
by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 (approximately 63 percent) will
likely be conserved as Additional Reserve Lands. The extent of habitat
preservation that has taken place to date through implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP is significant and demonstrates the
permittees' commitment to fully implement the plan.
In Units 1 through 6, approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 ha) that meet
the definition of critical habitat owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP are within the
Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design. A
substantial portion of these lands occur in Unit 6 (approximately 2,819
ac (951 ha)). Condition 12 of the Special Terms and Conditions for
Incidental Take Permit TE-088609-0 specifically identifies Unit 6 for
additional conservation by requiring the permittees to ``work to
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly within the Tule Creek--Anza
Valley Subunit of the REMAP Area (Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence
Complex) and, if necessary, to use the Criteria Refinement Process to
achieve this conservation'' (Service 2004b, p. 2, TE-088609-0). The
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (permittee
under the Western Riverside County MSHCP) has demonstrated its
willingness and commitment to conserve lands needed for subspecies'
recovery that are not otherwise targeted for conservation by plan
criteria. In 2008, approximately 396 ac (160 ha) of occupied habitat
all or partly outside of our Conceptual Reserve Design, but within the
Criteria Area, were acquired as Additional Reserve Lands within the
Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 6). These lands were
acquired specifically for the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly.
Approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land within Unit 2 owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP that meet the definition of critical habitat occur outside
of the Criteria Area and are not already conserved. These areas all
occur on the outer edges of Unit 2 and represent only 3 percent of the
unit. Although some losses may occur to this subspecies within these
lands, we believe the losses are minimal and the preservation,
conservation, and management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly
provided for by this plan ensures sufficient long-term conservation of
this subspecies and its habitat in Units 1 through 6.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP incorporates many processes that
allow for Service oversight and participation in program
implementation. These processes include: (1) Consultation with the
Service on a long-term management and monitoring plan; (2) submission
of annual monitoring reports; (3) annual status meetings with the
Service; and (4) submission of annual implementation reports to the
Service (Service 2004b, p. 9-10, TE-088609-0).
In summary, although not all lands proposed as revised critical
habitat within Units 1 through 6 are targeted for preservation as
Additional Reserve Lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP or
have already been officially dedicated to the preserve system,
continued implementation of the MSHCP will result in the majority of
these lands being conserved.
Benefits of Inclusion--Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of
the Act under which consultation is completed.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses conservation issues
from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal,
project-by-project approach (as would occur under sections 7 and 9 of
the Act) and will achieve more Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation
than would be achieved through section 7 consultations involving
consideration of critical habitat. The Western Riverside County MSHCP
provides for proactive monitoring and management of preserved lands (as
previously described), which remove or reduce known threats to the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs and therefore preclude or
reduce the need for additional conservation provided by section 7
consultations due to critical habitat designation. The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly will benefit from the preservation of high
quality habitat and management of all preserve lands; minimization of
project impacts; education of the public and state and
[[Page 28831]]
local governments; and continued promotion of partnerships on lands
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP. Conservation and management of Quino
checkerspot butterfly habitat within the Western Riverside County MSHCP
boundaries is needed for survival and recovery of this subspecies.
Meeting such conservation needs on a regional scale, as can be provided
through a regional HCP approach that includes areas that likely do not
have a Federal nexus typically is not achieved through the application
of the statutory prohibition on adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat alone, and are otherwise largely redundant.
Furthermore, the HCP preserve lands are within the habitat-based
population distributions of six core occurrence complexes and
approximately 90 percent of all land owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP proposed for
designation in Units 1 through 6 is within the boundaries of formerly
designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. The Service
completed consultation on the Western Riverside County MSHCP and
continues to work with plan participants to ensure the Plan is
implemented properly and in a manner that contributes to the
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
We believe some losses may occur to the Quino checkerspot butterfly
habitat within the approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 ha) that are within
the Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve
Design and the approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land that will not be
conserved under the Western Riverside County MSHCP (outside the
Criteria Area). Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within
designated critical habitat is higher than for the lands that are
conserved or targeted for conservation under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. However, the area that will not be conserved under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP is less than one percent of proposed
revised critical habitat in Units 1 through 6, and the area not
captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design is less than 12 percent of
proposed revised critical habitat in Units 1 through 6 (including land
not owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP). Therefore the benefits for the conservation of
the Quino checkerspot butterfly that would occur as a result of
designating this small percentage as critical habitat (e.g., protection
afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process) are minimal.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is the designation can serve to educate the landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and
this may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. As discussed
above the permit holders of the Western Riverside County MSHCP are
aware of the value of these lands to the conservation of the Quino
checkerspot butterfly and management measures are in place to conserve
Quino checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Service was a
partner in the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and
consultation was completed on the issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) permit.
The process of developing the Western Riverside County MSHCP has
involved numerous partners including (but not limited to): 14 cities in
western Riverside County; the County of Riverside; the California
Department of Parks and Recreation; and the California Department of
Transportation; and several Federal agencies. Furthermore, the majority
of lands in Units 1-6 were previously designated as critical habitat
(67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002; Table 1) and all lands were included in
the proposed revised designation, which was published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). These publications were
announced in a press release and information was posted on the
Service's website, which ensured the proposal reached a wide audience.
No substantial new information regarding additional habitat areas
essential to the conservation of Quino checkerspot butterfly in Units
1-6 was provided in the proposed revisions to critical habitat (see
``Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical
Habitat'' section above). Therefore, the educational benefits that
might follow critical habitat designation (such as providing
information to the permittees and other stakeholders on areas important
to the long-term conservation of this subspecies) have largely already
been realized for these units on multiple occasions by: (1) HCP
development; (2) designating these areas as critical habitat; (3)
proposing these areas as revised critical habitat; and (4) through the
Service's other public notification processes.
Specific conservation actions, avoidance and minimization measures,
and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs
provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP should make most
conservation measures required as a result of regulatory protections
afforded through a critical habitat designation unlikely. Based on the
above discussion we believe section 7 consultations for critical
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth
Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision provide little conservation
benefits above and beyond those provided by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. Therefore, we determine the regulatory and educational
benefits of designating those acres as Quino checkerspot butterfly
critical habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process) are minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion--Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
The benefits of excluding the approximate 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of
land within Units 1 through 6 owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP from designated
critical habitat are significant. We believe significant benefits would
be realized by forgoing the designation of critical habitat on these
lands including: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective
working relationships with all Western Riverside County MSHCP
permittees and stakeholders to promote further conservation of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2) allowance for
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward
recovering this subspecies, including conservation benefits that might
not otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of development of additional
HCPs and other conservation plans in the future on other private lands
for this and other federally listed and sensitive species.
We developed close partnerships with the all permittees under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP (represented by the Riverside
Conservation Authority) and several other stakeholders through the
development of this large scale HCP, which incorporates appropriate
protections and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, its
habitat, and the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of this subspecies. Those protections are consistent with
statutory mandates under section 7 of the Act to avoid adverse
modification or destruction of
[[Page 28832]]
critical habitat and go beyond that prohibition by including active
management and protection of connected habitat areas. By excluding
approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land in Units 1 through 6 from
designation, we are eliminating an essentially redundant layer of
regulatory review for projects covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP in this area, helping to preserve our ongoing partnership with
the represented city and county governments, and encouraging new
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions. This partnership
with regional participants and the landscape level, multiple-species
conservation planning efforts it promotes, are integral to achieving
long-term conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Large scale regional HCPs, such as the Western Riverside County
MSHCP take many years to develop and foster an ecosystem-based approach
to habitat conservation planning by coordinating conservation issues
with regional planning efforts. However, participation in these large
and often costly regional plans is voluntary for permit holders (such
as local jurisdictions), in the sense these permit holders could
require landowners (e.g., homeowners, developers) to consult with the
Service individually for required section 10 permits. If, in the case
of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the local jurisdictions required
landowners to obtain section 10 permits individually prior to issuance
of a building permit, these jurisdictions would incur no costs
associated with the landowner's need for a section 10 permit. However,
this approach would result in uncoordinated, ``patchy'' conservation
that would not be likely to further the recovery of federally listed
species. Rather, by voluntarily developing these large scale plans, the
coordinated landscape-scale conservation results in preservation of
interconnected linkage areas and populations that support recovery of
listed species. We recognize that once an HCP is permitted,
implementation of conservation measures will occur regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated within plan boundaries in order
for permittees to receive incidental take coverage.
We received multiple letters commenting on the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat from Western Riverside County MSHCP
permit holders, private landowners and other stakeholders in this HCP
indicating designation of lands covered by an HCP as critical habitat
would affect our relationships with them. Furthermore, designation
would discourage development of additional HCPs and other conservation
plans in the future. Excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP demonstrates
our good faith effort and working relationships and will eliminate
impacts to existing and future partnerships while encouraging
development of additional HCPs and other species or habitat
conservation plans.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Units 1
through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 27,465 ac
(11,115 ha) of land within Units 1 through 6 owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
from designation of revised critical habitat and determined the
benefits of excluding these lands within the boundaries of the HCP
outweigh the benefits of including them.
The benefits of including these lands in final revised critical
habitat are small. Critical habitat is currently designated on
approximately 90 percent of the proposed lands in Units 1 through 6
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Service conducted a
consultation with the Western Riverside County MSHCP participants and
continues to work with them through the implementation phase to ensure
the HCP is implemented properly and providing conservation for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly. The educational benefits of critical
habitat designation are already in place as a result of material
provided on our website, the public notice-and-comment procedures
required to establish the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and our
inclusion of these lands in the proposed rule to revise critical
habitat. We acknowledge that there are approximately 5,851 ac (2,368
ha) of land meeting the definition of critical habitat that are within
the Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve
Design (and therefore not likely to be conserved), and approximately
319 ac (129 ha) of land outside the Criteria Area addressed by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP that meet the definition of critical
habitat but are not within criteria cells or already conserved (no
possible conservation under the HCP) in Units 1 through 6; however, the
benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat are minor.
The benefits of excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1
through 6 from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits
of including them. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will
help preserve our partnerships with the local jurisdictions and project
proponents achieved through development of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP and aid in fostering additional partnerships for the benefit of
all species of concern on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of
the permittees of the HCP. Designation of lands covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP may also discourage other partners from pursuing
HCPs or conservation plans. Designation of critical habitat does not
require management or recovery actions take place on the lands included
in the designation. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, however, will
provide for significant preservation and management of habitat for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly and will help reach the recovery goals for
this subspecies through habitat enhancement and restoration, functional
connections to adjoining habitat, and monitoring efforts. Future HCPs
or other species or habitat plans fostered by this exclusion would also
help to recover this and other federally listed species. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impacts to current and future
partnerships, as summarized above and in the ``Conservation
Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section, we determined the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of designating lands owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Units 1 through
6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
We determined that exclusion of approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha)
in Units 1 through 6 from the final revised designation of critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in
extinction of the subspecies because the Western Riverside County MSHCP
provides for conservation of this subspecies and its PCEs (Warm Springs
Creek, Skinner/Johnson, Sage, Wilson Valley, Vail Lake/Oak Mountain,
and Tule Peak/Silverado core occurrence complexes). While some loss of
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is anticipated with the
continued implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP,
critical habitat was already designated in the majority of Units 1
through 6 prior to approval of the HCP.
[[Page 28833]]
Additionally, the Service conducted a consultation with the Western
Riverside County MSHCP participants and continues to work with them
through the implementation phase to ensure the HCP is implemented
properly and providing conservation for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. Furthermore, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act
and routine implementation of habitat conservation through the section
7 process also provide assurances the subspecies will not go extinct.
The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from those that would
exist if excluded areas were designated as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly in other areas that will be accorded protection from adverse
modification by Federal actions using the conservation standard in the
Act consistent with the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford
Pinchot. Additionally, the subspecies occurs on lands protected and
managed either explicitly for the subspecies, or indirectly through
more general objectives to protect natural values. Existing protections
acting in concert with the other protections provided under the Act for
these lands, absent designation of critical habitat on them, and with
protections afforded by the remaining critical habitat designation,
lead us to find exclusion of lands in Units 1 through 6 covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP will not result in extinction of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, based on the above discussion,
we are excluding approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 from this critical habitat
designation.
Conservation Status of Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
Unit 7 contains approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. As described above, conservation to meet the goals and
objectives of the Western Riverside County MSHCP will occur within the
defined Criteria Area; approximately 686 ac (278 ha) (17 percent) of
land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 that meet the definition of
critical habitat are within the Criteria Area.
In the 4 years of implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP,
no land within the Criteria Area in Unit 7 has been acquired for
conservation as Additional Reserve Lands. Our interpretation of the
written conservation criteria indicates that 15 percent (595 ac; 240
ha) of land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 are targeted for conservation
as Additional Reserve Lands (within our Conceptual Reserve Design).
Approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) (about 84 percent) of land within
Unit 7 that meets the definition of critical habitat and are owned by
or are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP fall outside the Criteria Area and, therefore,
have no possibility of conservation under the HCP (by comparison, only
3 percent of Unit 2 in all of Units 1 through 6 falls into this
category). The Service will work with our partners to fund and
facilitate conservation of these approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) of
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat that would not otherwise be
conserved under the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7. However,
we expect habitat losses will occur within these approximately 3,701 ac
(1,498 ha) of land outside the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria
Area. Although we believe preservation, conservation, and management of
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat provided for by this plan ensures
the long-term conservation of this subspecies and its habitat within
Units 1 through 6, subspecies conservation needs within the majority of
lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 (approximately 84 percent of
these lands) are not addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP
because they lie outside of the Criteria Area.
Benefits of Inclusion--Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of designating an
area as critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of
the Act under which consultation is completed.
As described above in the ``Benefits of Inclusion - Units 1 through
6 Western Riverside County MSHCP'' section, the Western Riverside
County MSHCP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective and will achieve more Quino checkerspot
butterfly conservation than would be achieved through section 7
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. However,
Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation measures under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP does not address new information regarding Quino
checkerspot butterfly distribution in Unit 7 (Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex and associated habitats) because the importance of
habitat in this area to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly was not understood when the Western Riverside County MSHCP
permit was issued. Thus, the Western Riverside County MSHCP does not
provide habitat conservation and other measures necessary to maintain
the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex and support ongoing elevation
range shift in the area. Furthermore, lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in
Unit 7 are outside of the boundaries of currently designated Quino
checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. Therefore, our HCP permit
analysis did not address Unit 7 of this revised designation (Service
2004a, p. 287; FWS-WRIV-870.19).
Unit 7, along with the closest other core occurrence complex (Tule
Peak/Silverado), supports the highest recorded post-listing Quino
checkerspot butterfly abundance observations and the highest diversity
of host plant species in the subspecies' extant range. Unit 7 is also
the northernmost unit and contains the greatest elevational gradient
within the extant range of the butterfly. The high diversity of host
plants and the elevational gradient underscore the importance of this
habitat to the butterfly in light of documented drought conditions and
future drought predictions (see ``Background'' section above).
Furthermore, we believe that non-core occurrence complexes north of the
community of Anza (Unit 7) are the result of recent colonization events
and an ongoing range shift in this subspecies upward in elevation. We
expect Unit 7 to provide immigrants to higher elevation suitable
habitat that is not yet occupied and to proximal higher elevation
populations that may be temporarily extirpated during the course of
range-edge expansion and therefore require immigrants for re-
establishment (e.g., the Quinn Flat Non-core Occurrence Complex).
We believe losses may occur to Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
within the majority of the approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of lands
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP in
[[Page 28834]]
Unit 7. Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within
designated critical habitat are greater than for lands conserved or
targeted for conservation under the Western Riverside County MSHCP in
Units 1 through 6. The area permitted for development under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP is 25 percent of proposed critical habitat in
Unit 7. Because lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 are largely
outside the Criteria Area, conservation design under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP does not capture the Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex. Therefore, there is a significant regulatory
benefit of designating the approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP as
critical habitat in this unit.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is the designation can serve to educate the landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area and
may help focus conservation efforts to areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. As discussed
above, additional distributional information demonstrating the
significance of Unit 7 became available following completion of
consultation on the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the
importance of populations in Unit 7 in supporting range shift resulting
from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (see
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
sections above). The majority of lands in Unit 7 owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
are not currently preserved or targeted for conservation under the HCP
and the new information was not addressed by the HCP, therefore the
permit holders of the HCP are not necessarily aware of the value of
these lands to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Furthermore, no lands in Unit 7 were previously designated as critical
habitat (Table 1) (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002). With regard to
occupied areas in Unit 7, the April 15, 2002, critical habitat
designation stated ``[the Bautista Road Occurrence Complex] ...was
first documented in 2001 following the publication of the [critical
habitat] proposal and we do not currently have sufficient information
concerning habitat within the complex and landscape connectivity to
other complexes to determine that it is essential to the conservation
of the [sub]species.'' Although all lands in Unit 7 were included in
the proposed revised designation, this final revised critical habitat
designation will continue to provide useful educational information to
the public.
Benefits of Exclusion--Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
There are benefits of excluding the approximate 4,387 ac (1,775 ha)
of land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 from revised critical habitat.
We believe benefits would be realized by forgoing the designation of
critical habitat on these lands including: (1) Continuance and
strengthening of our effective working relationships with all Western
Riverside County MSHCP permittees and stakeholders to promote further
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2)
allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this subspecies, including conservation
benefits that might not otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of
development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans in the
future on other private lands for this and other federally listed and
sensitive species. Please see the ``Benefits of Exclusion - Units 1
through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP'' section for additional
discussion related to partnerships and landscape-scale conservation
benefits.
The Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Exclusion--Unit 7
Western Riverside County MSHCP
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 4,387 ac
(1,775 ha) ha) of land within Unit 7 owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP from
designation of revised critical habitat and determined the benefits of
designating these lands as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
excluding them.
We recognize there are significant benefits of excluding lands
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP from critical habitat. The
exclusion of these lands from critical habitat would help preserve the
partnerships we developed with the local jurisdictions and project
proponents in the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and
foster additional partnerships for the benefit of all species of
concern on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees
of the HCP. Although the Western Riverside County MSHCP will provide
significant preservation and management of habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly and help reach recovery goals for this subspecies
in Units 1 through 6, the plan does not conserve the Bautista Road Core
Occurrence Complex (Unit 7) because this area was identified as a core
occurrence complex following completion of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP.
We believe the benefits of designating lands within Unit 7 owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP as critical habitat are more significant than the benefits
of excluding them. Critical habitat was not previously designated in
Unit 7; therefore, the effects of permit issuance on critical habitat
in this area were not analyzed in a biological opinion, and the
educational benefits of HCP analysis and critical habitat designation
were not realized. Unit 7 supports the Bautista Road Core Occurrence
Complex and associated habitat and non-core occurrence complexes which
we believe are needed to support a resilient core population, as well
as ongoing range shift of this subspecies upward in elevation. This
unit contains the greatest elevational gradient and highest diversity
of host plant species within the extant range of the butterfly.
Furthermore, substantial losses to Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat
within Unit 7 may occur on 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) outside the Criteria
Area. We do not anticipate that monitoring and management of lands
within the Criteria Area of Unit 7 will ensure continued occupancy of
this core occurrence complex. Finally, we find that there will be
significant educational benefits of designation in this unit, not
already met by the HCP approval process, previous critical habitat
designation, or publication of proposed revised critical habitat.
Therefore, we conclude the regulatory protections that may be afforded
through critical habitat designation in Unit 7 are greater than the
conservation benefits provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP in
this unit.
In summary, we determined the benefits of including Unit 7 in
designated critical habitat outweigh the benefits of exclusion;
therefore, we are designating all 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land within
Unit 7 owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP as revised critical habitat.
[[Page 28835]]
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB bases its determination
upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In this final rule, we are
certifying that the critical habitat designation for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains
our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and community governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the revised designation of critical habitat for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities, such as residential and
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate
for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we
considered each industry or category individually. To estimate the
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; designation of critical habitat affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.
Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of
activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species
is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Federal
agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could
result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the
requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
In the DEA of the proposed revisions to critical habitat, we
evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the
proposed revisions to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly. The DEA is based on the estimated incremental impacts
associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in sections 2
through 7. The DEA evaluates the potential for economic impacts related
to activity categories including residential development, tribal
activities, habitat management, and non-residential development. The
DEA concludes that the incremental impacts resulting from this
rulemaking that may be borne by small businesses will be associated
only with residential development. Incremental impacts are either not
expected for the other types of activities considered or, if expected,
will not be borne by small entities.
As discussed in Appendix A of the DEA, the largest impacts of the
proposed rule result from section 7 consultations with the Service on
development projects likely to occur in areas where surveys are unable
to detect the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The exclusions made in this
final revised rule do not affect this analysis in the DEA. In the high
estimate scenario, five projects in Unit 9 and nine projects in Unit 10
were identified as likely to require consultation with the Service as a
result of the proposed rule. Conservatively assuming that each project
is undertaken by a separate entity, as many as 14 developers were
identified as likely to be affected over the 23-year time frame of the
analysis. Furthermore, approximately six developers per year were
identified as potentially experiencing impacts that likely represent
less than one percent of the value of a new home. At the high-end, the
one-time costs resulting from the consultation process, including
administrative time spent by the businesses, compensation costs, and
the value of time delays, totaled approximately $16.1 million for the
projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 million for the projects in Unit 10. No
information regarding the probability that these businesses are small
entities is available. However, assuming they are small businesses, we
are certifying that the number of small entities (14) that could be
significantly affected is not substantial, and that the critical
habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not have a
significant economic impact on these small entities.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This revision to critical habitat for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly is not considered a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866. OMB has provided guidance for
[[Page 28836]]
implementing this Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory
action under consideration. The FEA identified Calpine Corporation, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison as entities
involved in the production of energy. As discussed in Appendix A, the
FEA finds that none of these outcomes are likely to occur. As such, the
final designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, and a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly.
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under section 7 of the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal
agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
affected by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly affected because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to
project modifications that may need to be made for development;
however, these are not expected to affect small governments.
Consequently, we do not believe that the revised critical habitat
designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in a
takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this final revised designation
of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly does not pose
significant takings implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this final revised critical habitat
designation with appropriate State resource agencies in California;
however, we did not receive any comments from State agencies. The
majority of land (68 percent) being designated is not State or locally-
owned and, therefore, the designation has little incremental impact on
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may
have some benefit to these governments in that the areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent
elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the subspecies
are specifically identified. While making this definition and
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act.
We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in
the
[[Page 28837]]
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997, ``American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act,'' we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to
make information available to tribes.
In the proposed revisions to critical habitat published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), we proposed
approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' and
approximately 79 ac (ha) of Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands in
Riverside County, and approximately 3,156 ac (1277 ha) of land within
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands in San Diego County as critical
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We worked directly with
the tribes to determine economic and other burdens expected to result
from critical habitat designation on tribal lands, and as a result of
information exchanged, are excluding all tribal lands meeting the
definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly from
this final revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) -Impacts to Government-To-Government
Relationships With Tribes And Economics'' section above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.
Author(s)
The primary author of this notice is the staff from the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.95(i), revise the entry for ``Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside and San Diego
Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Quino checkerspot butterfly are:
(i) Open areas within scrublands at least 21.5 square feet (ft2) (2
square meters (m)) in size that:
(A) Contain no woody canopy cover; and
(B) Contain one or more of the host plants Plantago erecta,
Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, or Collinsia concolor
used for Quino checkerspot butterfly growth, reproduction, and feeding;
or
(C) Contain one or more of the host plants Cordylanthus rigidus or
Castilleja exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of the host plants
listed in paragraph (2)(i)(B) above; or
(D) Contain flowering plants with a corolla tube less than or equal
to 0.43 in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot butterfly feeding;
(ii) Open scrubland areas and vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of
the open canopy areas (described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry)
used for movement and basking; and
(iii) Hilltops or ridges within scrublands, containing an open,
woody-canopy area at least 21.5 ft\2\ (2 m\2\) in size used for Quino
checkerspot butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) and are contiguous
with (but not otherwise included in) open areas and natural vegetation
described in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) above.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 1:24,000 maps, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 28838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28839]]
(6) Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson, Riverside County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Murrieta, Bachelor Mountain,
Winchester, Sage, and Hemet. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 499480, 3720871; 498641, 3720857; 498511, 3720856;
498353, 3720855; 498593, 3720996; 498642, 3721009; 499082, 3721122;
499479, 3721141; 499529, 3721143; 499731, 3721103; 499738, 3721101;
499829, 3720955; 499918, 3720879; thence returning to 499480, 3720871.
Continue to 497696, 3720235; 497728, 3720291; 497832, 3720397; 498082,
3720651; 498640, 3720657; 498640, 3720445; 498639, 3720257; 498639,
3720257; 498059, 3720244; 497833, 3720239; 497778, 3720238; thence
returning to 497696, 3720235. Continue to 494486, 3720445; 494486,
3720445; 494496, 3720550; 494671, 3720558; 494796, 3720564; 495236,
3720522; 495415, 3720453; 495475, 3720430; 495475, 3720430; 495474,
3720194; 495474, 3720033; 495470, 3719192; 496227, 3719210; 496269,
3719211; 496291, 3719212; 496669, 3719221; 497068, 3719231; 497401,
3719235; 497436, 3719236; 497456, 3719236; 497636, 3719238; 497727,
3719239; 497838, 3719241; 498238, 3719245; 498463, 3719247; 498638,
3719249; 498647, 3719249; 498648, 3719249; 498654, 3719249; 498722,
3719250; 499106, 3719253; 499141, 3719254; 499290, 3719254; 499723,
3719253; 499723, 3719253; 499641, 3719206; 499612, 3719190; 499612,
3719190; 499544, 3719046; 499543, 3719044; 499543, 3719044; 499540,
3719034; 499529, 3719035; 499526, 3719035; 499524, 3719035; 499523,
3719035; 499523, 3719036; 499080, 3719076; 499079, 3719074; 499065,
3719034; 499065, 3719034; 499063, 3719029; 499059, 3719017; 498910,
3719042; 498899, 3719044; 498888, 3719047; 498877, 3719051; 498866,
3719054; 498856, 3719059; 498845, 3719064; 498743, 3719119; 498736,
3719121; 498733, 3719122; 498725, 3719123; 498722, 3719123; 498718,
3719123; 498715, 3719122; 498708, 3719120; 498704, 3719118; 498701,
3719116; 498698, 3719114; 498695, 3719112; 498679, 3719100; 498672,
3719094; 498672, 3719094; 498641, 3719071; 498638, 3719069; 498638,
3718868; 498638, 3718796; 498638, 3718794; 498683, 3718804; 498683,
3718805; 498692, 3718806; 498692, 3718806; 498694, 3718801; 498695,
3718797; 498697, 3718793; 498700, 3718789; 498702, 3718786; 498705,
3718783; 498708, 3718780; 498711, 3718777; 498715, 3718775; 498718,
3718773; 498730, 3718768; 498737, 3718764; 498744, 3718759; 498750,
3718753; 498756, 3718747; 498761, 3718741; 498766, 3718734; 498770,
3718726; 498773, 3718719; 498776, 3718711; 498778, 3718703; 498780,
3718690; 498781, 3718687; 498782, 3718683; 498784, 3718679; 498786,
3718676; 498788, 3718673; 498793, 3718667; 498796, 3718664; 498802,
3718660; 498806, 3718658; 498809, 3718656; 498817, 3718654; 498821,
3718654; 498831, 3718653; 498838, 3718652; 498844, 3718651; 498850,
3718648; 498856, 3718646; 498862, 3718642; 498868, 3718639; 498873,
3718634; 498877, 3718630; 498882, 3718625; 498885, 3718619; 498889,
3718614; 498891, 3718608; 498894, 3718602; 498895, 3718595; 498896,
3718589; 498897, 3718582; 498897, 3718571; 498896, 3718569; 498893,
3718491; 498893, 3718487; 498892, 3718483; 498891, 3718479; 498890,
3718476; 498888, 3718472; 498887, 3718469; 498884, 3718466; 498882,
3718463; 498876, 3718457; 498873, 3718454; 498871, 3718451; 498869,
3718448; 498866, 3718440; 498865, 3718436; 498864, 3718433; 498864,
3718432; 498863, 3718429; 498863, 3718425; 498864, 3718421; 498864,
3718417; 498866, 3718409; 498868, 3718405; 498871, 3718401; 498873,
3718397; 498897, 3718360; 498899, 3718357; 498902, 3718354; 498905,
3718351; 498908, 3718348; 498911, 3718346; 498915, 3718344; 498919,
3718342; 498923, 3718341; 498931, 3718338; 498935, 3718337; 498939,
3718335; 498942, 3718333; 498949, 3718327; 498952, 3718324; 498954,
3718321; 498954, 3718321; 498962, 3718311; 498969, 3718301; 498978,
3718292; 498986, 3718283; 498996, 3718275; 499005, 3718267; 499014,
3718261; 499009, 3718254; 498845, 3718012; 498846, 3718004; 498847,
3717997; 498849, 3717990; 498852, 3717983; 498856, 3717977; 498860,
3717970; 498864, 3717965; 498864, 3717964; 498869, 3717959; 498874,
3717954; 498879, 3717949; 498882, 3717945; 498882, 3717945; 498886,
3717940; 498888, 3717935; 498891, 3717929; 498893, 3717923; 498894,
3717917; 498895, 3717912; 498895, 3717906; 498895, 3717900; 498894,
3717894; 498893, 3717888; 498891, 3717882; 498889, 3717877; 498886,
3717871; 498881, 3717863; 498875, 3717854; 498839, 3717794; 498842,
3717633; 498659, 3717635; 498659, 3717635; 498656, 3717528; 498651,
3717303; 498651, 3717303; 498669, 3717308; 499021, 3717392; 499247,
3717391; 499345, 3717390; 499345, 3717390; 499349, 3717434; 499349,
3717434; 499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717435; 499349,
3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349,
3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349,
3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349,
3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349,
3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717438; 499349,
3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349,
3717438; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349,
3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349,
3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349,
3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349,
3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349,
3717441; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349,
3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349,
3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349,
3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717444; 499349, 3717444; 499349,
3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350,
3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350,
3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350,
3717445; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350,
3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350,
3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350,
3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717448; 499350,
3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350,
3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350,
3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350,
3717449; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350,
3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717451; 499350,
3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350,
3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350,
3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350,
3717452; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350,
3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499349,
3717454;
[[Page 28840]]
499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454;
499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455;
499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455;
499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456;
499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456;
499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457;
499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717458;
499349, 3717458; 499349, 3717458; 499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514;
499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515;
499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515;
499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516;
499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516;
499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517;
499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518;
499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518;
499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717519; 499346, 3717519; 499346, 3717519;
499346, 3717519; 499345, 3717519; 499345, 3717519; 499345, 3717520;
499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520;
499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521;
499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521;
499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522;
499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717523;
499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523;
499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524;
499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524;
499344, 3717524; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525;
499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525;
499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526;
499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717527;
499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527;
499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528;
499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 499343, 3717528;
499343, 3717528; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529;
499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529;
499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530;
499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530;
499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531;
499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531;
499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532;
499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717533;
499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533;
499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717534; 499341, 3717534;
499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534;
499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535;
499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535;
499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536;
499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536;
499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537;
499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537;
499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717538; 499340, 3717538; 499340, 3717538;
499340, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 499339, 3717538;
499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539;
499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539;
499339, 3717540; 499339, 3717540; 499339, 3717540; 499338, 3717540;
499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717541;
499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541;
499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717542;
499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542;
499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543;
499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543;
499336, 3717543; 499336, 3717543; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544;
499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544;
499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717545; 499336, 3717545;
499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545;
499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546;
499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546;
499334, 3717546; 499334, 3717546; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547;
499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547;
499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548;
499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548;
499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717549;
499333, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549;
499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499331, 3717550;
499265, 3717629; 499269, 3717629; 499269, 3717629; 499277, 3717716;
499284, 3717792; 499284, 3717792; 499282, 3717803; 499282, 3717803;
499285, 3717803; 499290, 3717804; 499296, 3717806; 499302, 3717809;
499308, 3717812; 499313, 3717815; 499318, 3717819; 499323, 3717824;
499375, 3717877; 499551, 3718054; 499553, 3718057; 499557, 3718060;
499560, 3718062; 499563, 3718063; 499567, 3718065; 499571, 3718066;
499575, 3718067; 499579, 3718067; 499582, 3718068; 499586, 3718067;
499590, 3718067; 499594, 3718066; 499598, 3718065; 499602, 3718063;
499605, 3718061; 499612, 3718056; 499613, 3718056; 499605, 3718049;
499605, 3718049; 499589, 3718033; 499588, 3718026; 499588, 3718019;
499588, 3718013; 499588, 3718006; 499589, 3718000; 499591, 3717994;
499593, 3717984; 499596, 3717974; 499600, 3717964; 499604, 3717955;
499610, 3717946; 499612, 3717943; 499614, 3717940; 499614, 3717940;
499623, 3717926; 499622, 3717911; 499621, 3717907; 499622, 3717899;
499623, 3717895; 499624, 3717894; 499621, 3717877; 499606, 3717770;
499585, 3717626; 499585, 3717626; 499615, 3717626; 499683, 3717626;
499901, 3717624; 499903, 3717590; 499912, 3717430; 499919, 3717323;
499919, 3717322; 499972, 3717322; 500032, 3717321; 500350, 3717271;
500421, 3717259; 500421, 3717152; 500445, 3717103; 500445, 3717103;
500363, 3717091; 500216, 3717069; 500178, 3717063; 500188, 3716806;
500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805;
500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804;
500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 500187, 3716804; 500187, 3716804;
500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803;
500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716802;
500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802;
500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500186, 3716801;
500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801;
500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800;
[[Page 28841]]
500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800;
500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716799; 500186, 3716799; 500186, 3716799;
500186, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716799;
500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798;
500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798;
500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797;
500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716796;
500185, 3716796; 500185, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796;
500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795;
500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795;
500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794;
500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794;
500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793;
500184, 3716793; 500183, 3716793; 500183, 3716793; 500183, 3716792;
500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792;
500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791;
500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791;
500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790;
500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716789;
500183, 3716789; 500183, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789;
500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788;
500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788;
500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787;
500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787;
500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786;
500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786;
500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785;
500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500181, 3716785; 500181, 3716784;
500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784;
500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783;
500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783;
500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782;
500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716781;
500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781;
500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716780;
500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780;
500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779;
500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 500180, 3716779; 500180, 3716779;
500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778;
500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778;
500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777;
500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776;
500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776;
500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775;
500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775;
500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774;
500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716773;
500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773;
500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716772;
500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772;
500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771;
500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771;
500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770;
500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769;
500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769;
500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768;
500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716767;
500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767;
500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766;
500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766;
500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765;
500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716453; 500180, 3716396; 500181, 3716131;
500010, 3716115; 499920, 3716070; 499820, 3716020; 499809, 3716013;
499809, 3716013; 499804, 3716010; 499676, 3716013; 499676, 3716013;
499675, 3715929; 499675, 3715929; 499669, 3715926; 499560, 3715877;
499560, 3716013; 499560, 3716013; 499417, 3716012; 499415, 3716012;
499415, 3715832; 499252, 3715812; 499195, 3715717; 499166, 3715670;
499158, 3715600; 499158, 3715600; 499147, 3715508; 499034, 3715357;
499025, 3715330; 499025, 3715330; 498939, 3715072; 498844, 3715034;
498768, 3715025; 498637, 3714966; 498637, 3714966; 498621, 3714959;
498590, 3714804; 498564, 3714680; 498549, 3714412; 498565, 3714290;
498549, 3714218; 498549, 3714073; 498468, 3714072; 498460, 3714072;
498284, 3714069; 498285, 3714010; 498285, 3714005; 498119, 3714003;
498005, 3714001; 497973, 3714001; 497909, 3714000; 497865, 3713999;
497817, 3713999; 497762, 3713998; 497762, 3713998; 497611, 3714040;
497536, 3714122; 497328, 3714352; 497167, 3714371; 497116, 3714377;
497116, 3714379; 497116, 3714385; 497115, 3714483; 497118, 3714774;
497118, 3714797; 497118, 3714799; 497114, 3714799; 497109, 3714799;
495457, 3714793; 494866, 3714791; 494879, 3714858; 494858, 3714858;
494815, 3714786; 494012, 3714783; 493832, 3714783; 493832, 3714783;
493831, 3714783; 492831, 3714782; 492830, 3714782; 492635, 3714782;
492640, 3714780; 492640, 3714780; 492548, 3714782; 492548, 3714782;
492548, 3714782; 492530, 3714782; 492516, 3714782; 492406, 3714782;
492327, 3714782; 492302, 3714782; 492300, 3714782; 492300, 3714921;
492300, 3714921; 492328, 3714940; 492356, 3714959; 492687, 3715186;
492904, 3715335; 493417, 3715698; 493428, 3715706; 493435, 3715699;
493475, 3715656; 493525, 3715654; 493632, 3715652; 493636, 3715657;
493747, 3715813; 493814, 3715822; 493824, 3715823; 493971, 3715842;
494048, 3715838; 494148, 3715832; 494196, 3715830; 494280, 3715807;
494400, 3715775; 494439, 3715774; 494489, 3715772; 494574, 3715770;
494648, 3715751; 494705, 3715736; 494797, 3715672; 494849, 3715635;
494888, 3715590; 494926, 3715546; 495057, 3715609; 495261, 3715609;
495324, 3715562; 495350, 3715588; 495396, 3715635; 495445, 3715692;
495465, 3715715; 495473, 3715724; 495513, 3715731; 495617, 3715749;
495720, 3715760; 495740, 3715762; 495901, 3715758; 495942, 3715754;
495999, 3715749; 496083, 3715728; 496245, 3715719; 496295, 3715753;
496295, 3715753; 496389, 3715711; 496401, 3715711; 496473, 3715708;
496482, 3715708; 496516, 3715707; 496572, 3715731; 496630, 3715758;
496723, 3715865; 496828, 3715931; 496851, 3715946; 496901, 3715996;
497000, 3716094; 497018, 3716113; 497075, 3716169; 497087, 3716217;
497138, 3716403; 497179, 3716557; 497164, 3716735; 497079, 3716780;
496941, 3716855; 496702, 3717093; 496840, 3717214; 496911, 3717221;
[[Page 28842]]
496923, 3717212; 496973, 3717159; 496989, 3717131; 497050, 3717075;
497075, 3717034; 497077, 3716950; 497077, 3716930; 497098, 3716915;
497184, 3716884; 497316, 3716877; 497377, 3716851; 497413, 3716861;
497426, 3716905; 497385, 3716966; 497359, 3716994; 497230, 3717067;
497197, 3717111; 497182, 3717179; 497182, 3717281; 497151, 3717314;
497129, 3717352; 497131, 3717380; 497139, 3717394; 497140, 3717394;
497196, 3717418; 497258, 3717442; 497268, 3717443; 497284, 3717456;
497322, 3717527; 497350, 3717552; 497380, 3717606; 497380, 3717611;
497380, 3717611; 497380, 3717644; 497230, 3717728; 497213, 3717720;
497207, 3717714; 497177, 3717720; 497124, 3717711; 497074, 3717682;
497067, 3717693; 497060, 3717703; 496479, 3717674; 496121, 3717689;
496063, 3717606; 495943, 3717435; 495885, 3717410; 495808, 3717461;
495722, 3717442; 495693, 3717365; 495626, 3717331; 495492, 3717331;
495452, 3717314; 495452, 3717314; 495449, 3717312; 495352, 3717269;
495117, 3717216; 495046, 3717218; 494959, 3717221; 494805, 3717221;
494694, 3717187; 494522, 3717154; 494358, 3717139; 494243, 3717144;
494123, 3717183; 494070, 3717178; 493993, 3717149; 493878, 3717197;
493869, 3717202; 493840, 3717218; 493734, 3717279; 493633, 3717346;
493652, 3717379; 493604, 3717408; 493571, 3717375; 493446, 3717447;
493364, 3717557; 493246, 3717610; 493072, 3717688; 493044, 3717692;
492709, 3717744; 492583, 3717876; 492569, 3718009; 492737, 3718239;
492694, 3718421; 492681, 3718477; 492625, 3718567; 492597, 3718686;
492618, 3718685; 492618, 3718685; 492622, 3718670; 492647, 3718567;
492647, 3718564; 492648, 3718561; 492649, 3718557; 492650, 3718554;
492651, 3718551; 492652, 3718550; 492653, 3718548; 492654, 3718547;
492655, 3718545; 492657, 3718543; 492659, 3718541; 492660, 3718540;
492662, 3718538; 492669, 3718531; 492680, 3718519; 492684, 3718516;
492687, 3718513; 492689, 3718510; 492693, 3718505; 492698, 3718498;
492699, 3718498; 492703, 3718490; 492705, 3718485; 492707, 3718481;
492709, 3718472; 492711, 3718462; 492711, 3718462; 492756, 3718473;
492756, 3718473; 492767, 3718421; 492802, 3718251; 492803, 3718244;
492806, 3718228; 492806, 3718215; 492804, 3718205; 492802, 3718197;
492801, 3718193; 492799, 3718187; 492797, 3718181; 492792, 3718170;
492785, 3718159; 492778, 3718149; 492778, 3718149; 492768, 3718137;
492762, 3718129; 492671, 3718014; 492938, 3718015; 493045, 3718015;
493543, 3718017; 493845, 3718018; 493849, 3717608; 493849, 3717608;
494138, 3717605; 494643, 3717601; 495049, 3717603; 495453, 3717605;
495453, 3717607; 495455, 3717771; 495461, 3718399; 494976, 3718407;
494783, 3718411; 494656, 3718413; 494628, 3718414; 494621, 3718414;
494602, 3718414; 494417, 3718417; 494345, 3718419; 494296, 3718419;
494217, 3718421; 494103, 3718423; 493928, 3718426; 493840, 3718428;
493840, 3718428; 493848, 3718672; 493858, 3719011; 493861, 3719091;
493864, 3719200; 493864, 3719210; 493864, 3719210; 493864, 3719210;
493864, 3719210; 493979, 3719209; 494214, 3719206; 494526, 3719203;
494667, 3719201; 494667, 3719201; 494667, 3719210; 494668, 3719409;
494668, 3719617; 494669, 3719801; 494670, 3720032; 494671, 3720447;
494671, 3720447; thence returning to 494486, 3720445. Excluding land
bounded by 499546, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545,
3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545,
3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544,
3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543,
3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543,
3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542,
3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542,
3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541,
3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540,
3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540,
3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499539, 3716748; 499539, 3716748; 499539,
3716748; 499539, 3716749; 499539, 3716749; 499539, 3716749; 499538,
3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538,
3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537,
3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537,
3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536,
3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499535,
3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535,
3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499534, 3716749; 499534,
3716749; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499534,
3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533,
3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533,
3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532,
3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499531,
3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531,
3716751; 499531, 3716751; 499531, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530,
3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530,
3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529,
3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529,
3716751; 499528, 3716751; 499528, 3716751; 499528, 3716752; 499528,
3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499527,
3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527,
3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526,
3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 3716753; 499526,
3716753; 499526, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525,
3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525,
3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499524, 3716753; 499524, 3716753; 499524,
3716753; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 3716754; 499524,
3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523,
3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523,
3716754; 499522, 3716754; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522,
3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499521,
3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521,
3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716756; 499520,
3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520,
3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499519,
3716756; 499519, 3716756; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519,
3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499518,
3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518,
3716757; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 3716758; 499518,
3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517,
3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517,
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516,
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516,
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515,
[[Page 28843]]
3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515,
3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499514, 3716760; 499514, 3716760; 499514,
3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514,
3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499513,
3716761; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513,
3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513,
3716762; 499512, 3716762; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512,
3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512,
3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499511, 3716764; 499511,
3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511,
3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511,
3716765; 499511, 3716765; 499510, 3716765; 499508, 3716768; 499493,
3716786; 499493, 3716786; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492,
3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492,
3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716788; 499492, 3716788; 499491,
3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491,
3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716789; 499491,
3716789; 499491, 3716789; 499491, 3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490,
3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 3716790; 499490,
3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490,
3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499489, 3716790; 499489, 3716791; 499489,
3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489,
3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716792; 499489,
3716792; 499489, 3716792; 499489, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488,
3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488,
3716792; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488,
3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499487, 3716793; 499487,
3716793; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487,
3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487,
3716794; 499487, 3716795; 499487, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486,
3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486,
3716795; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486,
3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499485,
3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485,
3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485,
3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485,
3716798; 499484, 3716798; 499484, 3716798; 499484, 3716799; 499484,
3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484,
3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716800; 499484,
3716800; 499484, 3716800; 499484, 3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483,
3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483,
3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483,
3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716802; 499483, 3716802; 499483,
3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482,
3716802; 499482, 3716803; 499482, 3716803; 499477, 3716812; 499477,
3716813; 499453, 3716862; 499453, 3716862; 499453, 3716862; 499444,
3716871; 499353, 3716944; 499347, 3716948; 499248, 3717028; 499067,
3716918; 498635, 3716657; 498635, 3716657; 498634, 3716602; 498629,
3716418; 498795, 3716421; 499116, 3716425; 499299, 3716427; 499334,
3716428; 499415, 3716429; 499415, 3716429; 499806, 3716412; 499810,
3716412; 499814, 3716412; 499816, 3716856; 499816, 3716856; 499809,
3716855; 499684, 3716831; 499675, 3716825; 499659, 3716812; 499602,
3716769; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564,
3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499563,
3716752; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563,
3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562,
3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562,
3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561,
3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561,
3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560,
3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499559,
3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559,
3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558,
3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558,
3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557,
3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499556,
3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556,
3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555,
3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555,
3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554,
3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554,
3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553,
3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499552, 3716748; 499552,
3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552,
3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551,
3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499550,
3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550,
3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549,
3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549,
3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548,
3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499547,
3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547,
3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; thence returning to 499546,
3716748. Continuing to include as Critical Habitat lands bounded by
500357, 3718083; 500349, 3718085; 500340, 3718087; 500331, 3718087;
500321, 3718087; 500315, 3718086; 500311, 3718086; 500302, 3718083;
500296, 3718082; 500293, 3718081; 500288, 3718079; 500288, 3718079;
500274, 3718074; 500274, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074;
500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074;
500273, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074;
500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500271, 3718074;
500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073;
500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073;
500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073;
500270, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073;
500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500268, 3718073;
500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073;
500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073;
500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073;
500267, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 500266, 3718073;
500266, 3718073; 500251, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072;
500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072;
[[Page 28844]]
500250, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072;
500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072;
500248, 3718072; 500248, 3718072; 500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071;
500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071;
500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071;
500247, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071;
500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071;
500245, 3718071; 500245, 3718071; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070;
500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070;
500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070;
500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500243, 3718070;
500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069;
500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500242, 3718069;
500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718068;
500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068;
500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068;
500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718067; 500241, 3718067; 500241, 3718067;
500241, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718067;
500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066;
500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066;
500239, 3718066; 500239, 3718066; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065;
500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065;
500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718064; 500239, 3718064; 500239, 3718064;
500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064;
500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063;
500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063;
500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062;
500238, 3718062; 500237, 3718062; 500237, 3718062; 500237, 3718061;
500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061;
500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718060; 500232, 3718060;
500227, 3718060; 500226, 3718060; 500224, 3718060; 500222, 3718060;
500222, 3718060; 500222, 3718050; 500222, 3718050; 500222, 3718050;
500222, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050;
500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050;
500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050;
500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050;
500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050;
500219, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050;
500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500217, 3718050;
500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050;
500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050;
500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050;
500216, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050;
500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500214, 3718050;
500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050;
500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050;
500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050;
500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050;
500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500211, 3718050;
500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050;
500211, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050;
500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050;
500209, 3718050; 500209, 3718050; 500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049;
500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 500208, 3718049;
500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049;
500208, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049;
500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049;
500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049;
500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500205, 3718049;
500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049;
500205, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049;
500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049;
500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049;
500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500202, 3718049; 500202, 3718049;
500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048;
500202, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048;
500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048;
500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048;
500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048;
500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048;
500199, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048;
500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048;
500197, 3718048; 500197, 3718048; 500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047;
500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 500196, 3718047;
500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047;
500196, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047;
500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047;
500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047;
500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500193, 3718047;
500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718046;
500193, 3718046; 500193, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046;
500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046;
500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046;
500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500190, 3718046;
500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046;
500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045;
500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045;
500189, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045;
500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045;
500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045;
500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718044; 500187, 3718044; 500186, 3718044;
500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044;
500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044;
500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044;
500185, 3718044; 500184, 3718044; 500184, 3718044; 500184, 3718043;
500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043;
500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043;
500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500182, 3718043;
500182, 3718043; 500182, 3718045; 500180, 3718050; 500178, 3718056;
500178, 3718062; 500177, 3718067; 500178, 3718073; 500178, 3718079;
500179, 3718084; 500181, 3718090; 500185, 3718099; 500186, 3718102;
500187, 3718105; 500187, 3718109; 500188, 3718115; 500187, 3718119;
[[Page 28845]]
500186, 3718125; 500185, 3718129; 500182, 3718135; 500136, 3718206;
500132, 3718212; 500127, 3718218; 500121, 3718223; 500115, 3718228;
500109, 3718232; 500102, 3718236; 500096, 3718239; 500088, 3718242;
500085, 3718242; 500087, 3718268; 500087, 3718276; 500086, 3718284;
500084, 3718292; 500081, 3718299; 500078, 3718310; 500074, 3718322;
500071, 3718333; 500070, 3718345; 500068, 3718357; 500068, 3718369;
500068, 3718381; 500069, 3718398; 500069, 3718404; 500069, 3718409;
500068, 3718415; 500067, 3718421; 500065, 3718426; 500062, 3718431;
500033, 3718490; 500031, 3718495; 500029, 3718500; 500026, 3718504;
500023, 3718508; 500020, 3718512; 500016, 3718516; 500006, 3718524;
500003, 3718526; 499999, 3718530; 499995, 3718535; 499992, 3718540;
499989, 3718545; 499987, 3718551; 499985, 3718557; 499983, 3718563;
499982, 3718568; 499980, 3718578; 499977, 3718587; 499973, 3718596;
499967, 3718607; 499961, 3718619; 499955, 3718631; 499954, 3718631;
499952, 3718637; 499949, 3718644; 499947, 3718651; 499946, 3718658;
499931, 3718759; 499931, 3718765; 499931, 3718771; 499932, 3718776;
499933, 3718782; 499934, 3718788; 499937, 3718795; 499940, 3718800;
499941, 3718803; 499942, 3718804; 499946, 3718813; 499949, 3718821;
499951, 3718829; 499953, 3718837; 499954, 3718845; 499954, 3718853;
499953, 3718862; 499952, 3718870; 499936, 3718933; 499926, 3718951;
499944, 3718947; 499944, 3718947; 499960, 3718944; 500049, 3718925;
500207, 3718936; 500207, 3718934; 500208, 3718913; 500210, 3718777;
500212, 3718650; 500213, 3718633; 500213, 3718619; 500214, 3718536;
500366, 3718536; 500366, 3718536; 500369, 3718517; 500378, 3718435;
500422, 3718059; 500422, 3718059; 500403, 3718058; 500403, 3718058;
500400, 3718060; 500400, 3718060; 500400, 3718061; 500393, 3718066;
500385, 3718072; 500376, 3718076; 500368, 3718080; 500368, 3718080;
500360, 3718083; 500359, 3718083; thence returning to 500357, 3718083.
Continue to 500187, 3717622; 500000, 3717623; 499967, 3717713; 499917,
3717846; 499917, 3717857; 499923, 3717858; 499927, 3717859; 499931,
3717860; 499938, 3717863; 499942, 3717865; 499945, 3717868; 499948,
3717870; 499953, 3717876; 499955, 3717880; 499957, 3717883; 499960,
3717891; 499962, 3717895; 499964, 3717898; 499967, 3717901; 499969,
3717904; 499972, 3717907; 499976, 3717910; 499979, 3717912; 499983,
3717914; 499986, 3717916; 499990, 3717917; 499994, 3717918; 499998,
3717918; 500002, 3717919; 500026, 3717919; 500026, 3717919; 500213,
3717924; 500224, 3717924; 500224, 3717922; 500225, 3717921; 500225,
3717921; 500230, 3717622; 500230, 3717622; thence returning to 500187,
3717622. Continue to 491502, 3714828; 491542, 3714827; 491542, 3714827;
491506, 3714754; 491500, 3714742; 491398, 3714534; 491396, 3714529;
491376, 3714490; 491306, 3714347; 491302, 3714339; 491302, 3714339;
491303, 3714339; 490908, 3713519; 490764, 3713221; 490740, 3713172;
490622, 3712839; 490613, 3712849; 490573, 3712746; 490564, 3712723;
490542, 3712723; 490550, 3712747; 490611, 3712919; 490620, 3712944;
490707, 3713186; 490720, 3713214; 491262, 3714337; 491261, 3714337;
491267, 3714350; 491267, 3714350; 491335, 3714489; 491336, 3714492;
491409, 3714641; 491463, 3714749; 491500, 3714824; thence returning to
491502, 3714828. Continue to 493853, 3712379; 493853, 3712254; 493776,
3712306; 493776, 3712403; 493853, 3712388; thence returning to 493853,
3712379.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Skinner/Johnson follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 28846]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28847]]
(7) Unit 3: Sage Unit, Riverside County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Sage. Land bounded by the
following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 505035, 3716405; 505035, 3716405;
505175, 3716404; 505175, 3716404; 505245, 3716403; 505267, 3716403;
505380, 3716402; 505427, 3716402; 505429, 3716017; 505429, 3715985;
505432, 3715985; 505727, 3715975; 505831, 3715971; 505831, 3715971;
505831, 3715774; 505831, 3715547; 505025, 3715591; 505025, 3715611;
505026, 3715641; 505027, 3715789; 505027, 3715789; 505029, 3715890;
505030, 3715988; 505032, 3716141; 505032, 3716189; 505032, 3716189;
thence returning to 505035, 3716405.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Sage Unit), Unit 4 (Wilson Valley Unit),
and Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Unit) follows:
[[Page 28848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28849]]
(8) Unit 4: Wilson Valley Unit, Riverside County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Cahuilla Mountain, Sage, and
Vail Lake. Land bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 510234,
3707784; 510234, 3707785; 510234, 3707800; 510234, 3707808; 509911,
3707810; 509378, 3707813; 509357, 3707813; 509356, 3707812; 509356,
3707812; 509094, 3707816; 509094, 3707816; 509094, 3707816; 509092,
3707833; 509092, 3707835; 509064, 3708174; 509061, 3708213; 509060,
3708216; 509060, 3708217; 509311, 3708214; 509360, 3708214; 509412,
3708213; 509447, 3708213; 509447, 3708213; 509535, 3708212; 509558,
3708212; 509712, 3708211; 509854, 3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509870,
3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509935, 3708209; 510386, 3708205; 510689,
3708203; 511420, 3708197; 511480, 3708197; 511507, 3708197; 511507,
3708197; 511507, 3708172; 511507, 3708066; 511507, 3708066; 511506,
3707959; 511506, 3707934; 511505, 3707784; 511504, 3707636; 511504,
3707594; 511503, 3707514; 511503, 3707503; 511503, 3707503; 511503,
3707375; 511502, 3707375; 511087, 3707383; 510706, 3707390; 510706,
3707390; 510706, 3707390; 510706, 3707424; 510704, 3707599; 510702,
3707780; 510680, 3707780; 510595, 3707781; thence returning to 510234,
3707784. Continue to 510706, 3707390; 510707, 3707301; 510715, 3706625;
510715, 3706625; 510035, 3706610; 510035, 3706610; 510025, 3706704;
510024, 3706709; 510024, 3706712; 510015, 3706798; 509994, 3707007;
509994, 3707007; 509973, 3707206; 509973, 3707206; 509963, 3707305;
509953, 3707404; 509953, 3707404; 510609, 3707392; 510678, 3707390;
thence returning to 510706, 3707390.
(ii) Note: Unit 4 (Wilson Valley) for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly is depicted on the map in paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Unit, Riverside County,
California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Bachelor Mountain, Sage,
Pechanga, and Vail Lake. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 501858, 3709596; 501858, 3709596; 502139, 3709646;
502615, 3709631; 502626, 3709625; 502643, 3709615; 502643, 3709609;
502642, 3709465; 502642, 3709465; 502641, 3709286; 502641, 3709256;
502640, 3709087; 502640, 3709074; 502640, 3709046; 503036, 3709037;
503036, 3709037; 503174, 3709034; 503340, 3709031; 503433, 3709028;
503434, 3708993; 503434, 3708987; 503434, 3708987; 503434, 3708899;
503435, 3708725; 503435, 3708713; 503435, 3708707; 503435, 3708707;
503437, 3708213; 503437, 3708213; 503437, 3708213; 501828, 3708226;
501828, 3708226; 501828, 3708226; 501829, 3708245; 501829, 3708258;
501841, 3708792; 501844, 3708936; 501849, 3709192; 501853, 3709344;
501853, 3709354; 501853, 3709364; thence returning to 501858, 3709596.
Continue to 500229, 3708250; 500085, 3708249; 499766, 3708247; 499671,
3708246; 499671, 3708246; 499668, 3708295; 499768, 3708331; 499694,
3708419; 499652, 3708468; 499727, 3708495; 499768, 3708510; 499887,
3708558; 499915, 3708657; 499987, 3708725; 500070, 3708773; 500134,
3708820; 500154, 3708832; 500220, 3708869; 500220, 3708868; thence
returning to 500229, 3708250. Continue to 501828, 3708226; 501830,
3708001; 501831, 3707844; 501833, 3707599; 501834, 3707442; 501835,
3707394; 501835, 3707318; 501835, 3707318; 501550, 3707363; 501429,
3707383; 501022, 3707448; 500616, 3707513; 500397, 3707548; 500210,
3707578; 500210, 3707578; 500210, 3707582; 500214, 3707723; 500226,
3708156; 500229, 3708250; 500229, 3708250; 500229, 3708250; 500719,
3708249; 501023, 3708249; 501441, 3708237; 501466, 3708236; 501737,
3708229; 501801, 3708227; 501817, 3708226; thence returning to 501828,
3708226. Continue to 507529, 3701874; 507531, 3701777; 507532, 3701729;
507532, 3701729; 507513, 3701663; 507489, 3701583; 507470, 3701544;
507352, 3701469; 507350, 3701469; 507350, 3701467; 507271, 3701434;
507218, 3701448; 507155, 3701416; 507129, 3701371; 507113, 3701304;
507071, 3701262; 506993, 3701239; 506916, 3701235; 506865, 3701235;
506805, 3701244; 506703, 3701200; 506640, 3701170; 506568, 3701135;
506494, 3701063; 506399, 3701047; 506264, 3701054; 506246, 3701061;
506242, 3701061; 506242, 3701072; 505840, 3701071; 505840, 3701071;
505840, 3701068; 505840, 3701068; 505833, 3701068; 505723, 3701058;
505713, 3701052; 505415, 3701052; 505035, 3701052; 505013, 3701052;
504656, 3701290; 504313, 3701648; 504171, 3701886; 503985, 3702199;
503837, 3702780; 503528, 3702954; 503528, 3702954; 503494, 3702973;
503477, 3702981; 503477, 3702981; 503417, 3703009; 503271, 3703077;
503258, 3703095; 503250, 3703106; 503340, 3703114; 503415, 3703121;
503866, 3703163; 503873, 3703164; 503946, 3703171; 503953, 3703172;
505023, 3703271; 505023, 3703271; 505026, 3703040; 505026, 3703040;
505029, 3702852; 505029, 3702852; 505030, 3702776; 505031, 3702723;
505031, 3702702; 505039, 3702145; 505043, 3701881; 505043, 3701881;
505266, 3701880; 505443, 3701879; 505443, 3701879; 505722, 3701878;
505843, 3701877; 505848, 3701877; 506242, 3701875; 506242, 3701875;
506242, 3702278; 506244, 3702278; 506643, 3702274; 506643, 3702106;
506642, 3702087; 506642, 3701873; 506642, 3701873; 506657, 3701873;
506684, 3701873; 507103, 3701873; 507282, 3701874; thence returning to
507529, 3701874.
(ii) Note: Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak Mountain) for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly is depicted on the map in paragraph (7)(ii) of
this entry.
(10) Unit 6: Tule Peak Unit, Riverside County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Aguanga, Beauty Mountain, and
Anza. Land bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527628,
3703575; 527233, 3703541; 527233, 3703541; 527232, 3703658; 527230,
3703925; 527230, 3703934; 527229, 3704074; 527228, 3704118; 527226,
3704307; 526831, 3704287; 526824, 3704287; 526813, 3704286; 526813,
3704286; 526811, 3704467; 526806, 3704812; 526803, 3705067; 527305,
3705070; 527625, 3705073; 527626, 3704522; 527626, 3704231; 527627,
3703961; 527627, 3703809; 527627, 3703725; 527627, 3703709; 527628,
3703696; 527628, 3703575; thence returning to 527628, 3703575. Continue
to 526311, 3703859; 526400, 3703866; 526403, 3703470; 526403, 3703470;
526365, 3703467; 526040, 3703439; 525983, 3703434; 525980, 3703823;
525980, 3703835; thence returning to 526311, 3703859. Continue to
528328, 3703573; 528328, 3703573; 528310, 3703558; 528208, 3703471;
528051, 3703364; 527873, 3703263; 527737, 3703197; 527631, 3703161;
527630, 3703161; 527630, 3703161; 527628, 3703575; 527628, 3703575;
528134, 3703574; 528153, 3703574; thence returning to 528328, 3703573.
Continue to 526412, 3702730; 526363, 3702718; 525995, 3702627; 525987,
3702626; 525605, 3702584; 525588, 3702582; 525588, 3702582; 525588,
3702696; 525588, 3702696; 525854, 3702707; 525986, 3702713; 526140,
3702719; 526368, 3702728; thence returning to 526412, 3702730.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Tule Peak) and Unit 7 (Bautista) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 28850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28851]]
(8) Unit 7: Bautista Unit, Riverside County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Anza, Butterfly Peak, Blackburn
Canyon, and Idyllwild. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 524940, 3714398; 524927, 3714405; 524915, 3714413;
524912, 3714415; 524909, 3714416; 524891, 3714427; 524867, 3714442;
524861, 3714445; 524843, 3714457; 524824, 3714470; 524819, 3714473;
524796, 3714488; 524773, 3714505; 524750, 3714521; 524727, 3714538;
524704, 3714555; 524702, 3714557; 524687, 3714568; 524679, 3714573;
524654, 3714586; 524629, 3714600; 524617, 3714607; 524605, 3714614;
524580, 3714629; 524556, 3714644; 524532, 3714659; 524513, 3714671;
524509, 3714674; 524492, 3714686; 524485, 3714690; 524480, 3714693;
524481, 3714769; 524482, 3715168; 524477, 3716096; 524477, 3716098;
524477, 3716098; 524477, 3716100; 524471, 3716251; 524469, 3716299;
524465, 3716399; 524461, 3716501; 524460, 3716518; 524266, 3716521;
524066, 3716524; 524027, 3716524; 523864, 3716521; 523861, 3716521;
523854, 3716740; 523656, 3716816; 523633, 3716826; 523462, 3716890;
523431, 3716902; 523428, 3716906; 523360, 3717007; 523341, 3717034;
523361, 3717047; 523540, 3717157; 523666, 3717226; 523707, 3717229;
523748, 3717231; 523775, 3717233; 523867, 3717239; 523874, 3717240;
523880, 3717246; 523937, 3717306; 523947, 3717323; 523947, 3717323;
523970, 3717369; 523961, 3717692; 523961, 3717716; 523961, 3717716;
523960, 3717730; 523983, 3717727; 524035, 3717723; 524048, 3717721;
524066, 3717720; 524069, 3717725; 524206, 3717824; 524277, 3717924;
524258, 3717981; 524258, 3718099; 524324, 3718142; 524348, 3718208;
524249, 3718307; 524196, 3718411; 524225, 3718430; 524431, 3718538;
524632, 3718643; 524731, 3718695; 524845, 3718714; 524902, 3718643;
524906, 3718567; 524864, 3718525; 524797, 3718482; 524741, 3718468;
524807, 3718373; 524873, 3718312; 524925, 3718302; 524982, 3718350;
525058, 3718397; 525081, 3718405; 525131, 3718553; 525220, 3718672;
525468, 3718851; 525745, 3719098; 525416, 3719350; 525111, 3719584;
524566, 3719376; 524430, 3719396; 524239, 3719425; 523912, 3719713;
523615, 3719822; 523367, 3719822; 523190, 3720727; 523182, 3720746;
523189, 3720781; 523152, 3720828; 523144, 3720939; 523142, 3720964;
522899, 3721091; 522836, 3721107; 522744, 3721130; 522579, 3721130;
522394, 3721100; 522200, 3721091; 521967, 3721149; 521734, 3721139;
521510, 3721159; 521365, 3721149; 521205, 3721194; 521190, 3721198;
520928, 3721236; 520850, 3721100; 520626, 3721120; 520374, 3721275;
520189, 3721304; 519995, 3721343; 519791, 3721460; 519582, 3721532;
519574, 3721535; 519479, 3721553; 519098, 3721695; 518771, 3721772;
518561, 3721822; 518505, 3721878; 518487, 3721892; 518467, 3721909;
518364, 3721991; 518293, 3722048; 518329, 3722089; 518346, 3722109;
518477, 3722260; 518335, 3722443; 518113, 3722392; 517968, 3722358;
517956, 3722392; 517925, 3722480; 517918, 3722500; 517913, 3722512;
517756, 3722952; 517601, 3723163; 517479, 3723317; 517374, 3723450;
517333, 3723502; 517919, 3723509; 517950, 3723509; 518230, 3723509;
518526, 3723509; 518809, 3723538; 519119, 3723580; 519345, 3723580;
519570, 3723641; 519712, 3723679; 520150, 3723679; 520362, 3723622;
520419, 3723354; 520334, 3723156; 520673, 3723086; 521194, 3723178;
521273, 3723192; 521570, 3723192; 521824, 3723135; 521993, 3722895;
522318, 3722881; 522445, 3722881; 522700, 3722796; 522826, 3722686;
522926, 3722599; 522949, 3722552; 523039, 3722373; 523180, 3722147;
523392, 3722118; 523674, 3722203; 523858, 3722132; 524070, 3721836;
524211, 3721511; 524310, 3721158; 524427, 3721017; 524485, 3720947;
524487, 3720945; 524515, 3720927; 524945, 3720678; 525609, 3720409;
526076, 3720080; 526329, 3719901; 526492, 3719823; 526491, 3719804;
526480, 3719413; 526509, 3719413; 526519, 3719413; 526520, 3719365;
526884, 3719367; 526885, 3719348; 526890, 3719196; 526912, 3718594;
526923, 3718593; 526923, 3718516; 527300, 3718525; 527316, 3718184;
527316, 3718184; 527316, 3718184; 527343, 3718185; 527345, 3718115;
527707, 3718119; 528111, 3718123; 528117, 3717769; 528144, 3717769;
528505, 3717777; 528510, 3717777; 528913, 3717788; 528913, 3717618;
528912, 3717449; 528914, 3717449; 528915, 3717385; 529317, 3717395;
529323, 3717396; 529719, 3717401; 529719, 3717427; 529720, 3717427;
529718, 3717640; 529717, 3717803; 529716, 3717803; 529716, 3717836;
529714, 3718072; 529749, 3718072; 529839, 3718072; 530135, 3718199;
530263, 3718411; 530503, 3718693; 530573, 3718891; 530644, 3719188;
530921, 3719188; 530969, 3719188; 531294, 3718934; 531322, 3718679;
531322, 3718439; 531251, 3718143; 531491, 3717888; 531627, 3717821;
531717, 3717775; 532000, 3717790; 532155, 3717719; 532141, 3717521;
531957, 3717366; 531816, 3717083; 532000, 3717055; 532212, 3717069;
532593, 3717069; 532664, 3717394; 532732, 3717483; 532861, 3717648;
533144, 3717451; 533341, 3717239; 533666, 3716999; 533920, 3716759;
534274, 3716603; 534347, 3716608; 534683, 3716631; 534881, 3716815;
535149, 3716928; 535516, 3716857; 535534, 3716835; 535542, 3716823;
535700, 3716617; 535815, 3716473; 535971, 3716278; 535982, 3716264;
536051, 3716216; 536103, 3716180; 536178, 3716127; 536251, 3716077;
536265, 3716067; 536326, 3716031; 536404, 3715985; 536513, 3715922;
536527, 3715914; 536604, 3715869; 536705, 3715667; 536725, 3715627;
536731, 3715615; 536731, 3715614; 537028, 3715276; 537338, 3715276;
537391, 3715260; 537443, 3715246; 537505, 3715228; 537525, 3715222;
537635, 3715191; 537925, 3715191; 538016, 3715191; 538100, 3715186;
538120, 3715185; 538203, 3715180; 538482, 3715163; 538580, 3715082;
538722, 3714964; 538737, 3714952; 538892, 3714824; 539038, 3714870;
539245, 3714937; 539434, 3714891; 539515, 3714872; 539528, 3714869;
539717, 3714824; 539895, 3714781; 539895, 3714777; 539923, 3714762;
539922, 3714300; 539919, 3713604; 539919, 3713579; 539917, 3713220;
539923, 3712426; 539923, 3712307; 539524, 3712228; 539368, 3712239;
539033, 3712239; 538609, 3712253; 538328, 3712372; 538242, 3712409;
538327, 3712634; 538327, 3712635; 538369, 3712974; 538324, 3713016;
538322, 3713018; 538214, 3713120; 538143, 3713185; 537939, 3713208;
537928, 3713209; 537922, 3713209; 537890, 3713213; 537621, 3713242;
537084, 3713242; 537024, 3713218; 537002, 3713210; 536999, 3713209;
536973, 3713209; 536963, 3713209; 536732, 3713207; 536712, 3713207;
536326, 3713211; 536104, 3713213; 536087, 3713214; 536086, 3713214;
536072, 3713200; 536030, 3713158; 535993, 3713121; 535965, 3713119;
535889, 3713112; 535844, 3713108; 535753, 3713089; 535577, 3713167;
535565, 3713177; 535543, 3713196; 535461, 3713264; 535419, 3713298;
535402, 3713313; 535343, 3713362; 535202, 3713459; 535132, 3713508;
535090, 3713537; 534887, 3713657; 534804, 3713706; 534693, 3713771;
534677, 3713790; 534649, 3713822; 534550, 3713934; 534375, 3714083;
534261, 3714142; 534173, 3714187; 534056, 3714213; 533907, 3714343;
533857, 3714382;
[[Page 28852]]
533725, 3714486; 533690, 3714520; 533523, 3714681; 533348, 3714837;
533192, 3714909; 533165, 3714935; 533114, 3714987; 533075, 3715344;
532860, 3715448; 532735, 3715539; 532672, 3715585; 532528, 3715650;
532423, 3715698; 532386, 3715715; 532326, 3715725; 532237, 3715740;
532230, 3715741; 532149, 3715797; 532106, 3716045; 532030, 3716121;
532029, 3716122; 532010, 3716141; 531908, 3716243; 531589, 3716251;
531547, 3716135; 531543, 3716125; 531541, 3716120; 531525, 3716075;
531609, 3715995; 531878, 3715737; 531878, 3715737; 531712, 3715735;
531577, 3715733; 531511, 3715732; 531321, 3715730; 531309, 3715732;
531302, 3715733; 531207, 3715747; 531107, 3715762; 531087, 3715765;
530947, 3715786; 530698, 3715760; 530680, 3715758; 530607, 3715727;
530454, 3715659; 530329, 3715726; 530289, 3715748; 530257, 3715765;
530080, 3715751; 529885, 3715735; 529820, 3715730; 529736, 3715723;
529608, 3715714; 529480, 3715720; 529473, 3715720; 529402, 3715723;
529304, 3715728; 529281, 3715775; 529226, 3715884; 529078, 3715890;
529069, 3715890; 529064, 3715891; 529065, 3715917; 529069, 3715977;
529070, 3716008; 529049, 3716018; 528908, 3716092; 528869, 3716112;
528776, 3716112; 528684, 3716112; 528446, 3716112; 528446, 3716120;
528433, 3716352; 528421, 3716352; 528320, 3716352; 528303, 3716352;
528297, 3716138; 528199, 3716131; 528199, 3716119; 528198, 3716105;
528193, 3715962; 528093, 3715970; 527969, 3715979; 527770, 3715995;
527770, 3716116; 527771, 3716519; 527771, 3716525; 527766, 3716525;
527558, 3716535; 527558, 3716519; 527560, 3716315; 527560, 3716221;
527561, 3716130; 527561, 3716125; 527155, 3716125; 527153, 3716125;
526959, 3716125; 526853, 3716124; 526753, 3716124; 526621, 3716124;
526539, 3716123; 526540, 3716116; 526549, 3715911; 526549, 3715911;
526648, 3715908; 526751, 3715906; 526886, 3715902; 526932, 3715901;
526939, 3715690; 526946, 3715476; 526760, 3715480; 526655, 3715482;
526551, 3715483; 526550, 3715483; 526547, 3715571; 526543, 3715682;
526543, 3715689; 526439, 3715689; 526343, 3715689; 526343, 3715678;
526342, 3715569; 526341, 3715534; 526340, 3715474; 526237, 3715468;
526138, 3715462; 526138, 3715449; 526138, 3715227; 526138, 3715029;
526138, 3714927; 526138, 3714911; 526139, 3714828; 526139, 3714627;
526139, 3714428; 526139, 3714417; 526136, 3714417; 526124, 3714417;
526125, 3714112; 526121, 3714112; 526052, 3714115; 526036, 3714116;
526017, 3714118; 525989, 3714122; 525972, 3714124; 525961, 3714125;
525933, 3714129; 525929, 3714130; 525905, 3714133; 525878, 3714138;
525857, 3714139; 525828, 3714140; 525800, 3714142; 525791, 3714142;
525772, 3714144; 525744, 3714146; 525725, 3714148; 525716, 3714149;
525687, 3714152; 525670, 3714154; 525659, 3714156; 525631, 3714160;
525603, 3714164; 525576, 3714169; 525549, 3714174; 525548, 3714174;
525520, 3714179; 525516, 3714180; 525492, 3714185; 525465, 3714192;
525437, 3714198; 525410, 3714206; 525403, 3714207; 525383, 3714213;
525355, 3714221; 525328, 3714229; 525301, 3714238; 525297, 3714239;
525287, 3714243; 525286, 3714243; 525275, 3714247; 525248, 3714256;
525243, 3714258; 525221, 3714266; 525195, 3714276; 525172, 3714286;
525169, 3714287; 525143, 3714298; 525117, 3714309; 525091, 3714321;
525065, 3714333; 525040, 3714345; 525035, 3714348; 525014, 3714358;
524989, 3714371; 524964, 3714385; thence returning to 524940, 3714398.
Excluding land bounded by 525336, 3717346; 525538, 3717338; 525526,
3717651; 525245, 3717656; 525259, 3717478; 525275, 3717451; and
excluding land bounded by 525483, 3717132; 525482, 3717132; 525478,
3717134; 525478, 3717134; 525473, 3717137; 525473, 3717137; 525468,
3717139; 525468, 3717139; 525463, 3717142; 525463, 3717142; 525459,
3717145; 525458, 3717145; 525454, 3717148; 525454, 3717148; 525449,
3717151; 525449, 3717151; 525445, 3717154; 525445, 3717154; 525440,
3717157; 525440, 3717157; 525436, 3717160; 525436, 3717160; 525431,
3717164; 525431, 3717164; 525427, 3717167; 525427, 3717167; 525423,
3717170; 525423, 3717171; 525419, 3717174; 525418, 3717174; 525414,
3717178; 525414, 3717178; 525410, 3717181; 525410, 3717181; 525406,
3717185; 525406, 3717185; 525402, 3717189; 525402, 3717189; 525398,
3717193; 525398, 3717193; 525395, 3717197; 525394, 3717197; 525391,
3717201; 525391, 3717201; 525387, 3717205; 525387, 3717205; 525384,
3717209; 525383, 3717209; 525380, 3717213; 525380, 3717213; 525377,
3717217; 525376, 3717218; 525373, 3717222; 525373, 3717222; 525370,
3717226; 525370, 3717226; 525367, 3717231; 525366, 3717231; 525363,
3717235; 525363, 3717235; 525360, 3717240; 525360, 3717240; 525357,
3717244; 525357, 3717244; 525354, 3717249; 525354, 3717249; 525351,
3717254; 525255, 3717419; 525269, 3717240; 525299, 3716874; 525328,
3716873; 525366, 3716908; 525367, 3716909; 525367, 3716909; 525368,
3716910; 525368, 3716910; 525369, 3716911; 525369, 3716911; 525370,
3716911; 525370, 3716912; 525371, 3716912; 525371, 3716913; 525372,
3716913; 525372, 3716914; 525372, 3716914; 525373, 3716914; 525373,
3716915; 525374, 3716915; 525374, 3716916; 525375, 3716916; 525375,
3716917; 525376, 3716917; 525376, 3716917; 525377, 3716918; 525377,
3716918; 525378, 3716919; 525378, 3716919; 525379, 3716919; 525379,
3716920; 525380, 3716920; 525380, 3716921; 525381, 3716921; 525381,
3716921; 525382, 3716922; 525382, 3716922; 525383, 3716923; 525383,
3716923; 525384, 3716923; 525384, 3716924; 525385, 3716924; 525385,
3716925; 525386, 3716925; 525386, 3716925; 525387, 3716926; 525387,
3716926; 525388, 3716927; 525388, 3716927; 525389, 3716927; 525389,
3716928; 525390, 3716928; 525390, 3716929; 525391, 3716929; 525392,
3716929; 525392, 3716930; 525393, 3716930; 525393, 3716930; 525394,
3716931; 525394, 3716931; 525395, 3716932; 525395, 3716932; 525396,
3716932; 525396, 3716933; 525397, 3716933; 525397, 3716933; 525398,
3716934; 525398, 3716934; 525399, 3716935; 525399, 3716935; 525400,
3716935; 525400, 3716936; 525401, 3716936; 525402, 3716936; 525402,
3716937; 525403, 3716937; 525403, 3716937; 525404, 3716938; 525404,
3716938; 525405, 3716938; 525405, 3716939; 525406, 3716939; 525406,
3716939; 525407, 3716940; 525408, 3716940; 525408, 3716940; 525409,
3716941; 525409, 3716941; 525410, 3716941; 525410, 3716942; 525411,
3716942; 525411, 3716942; 525412, 3716943; 525412, 3716943; 525413,
3716943; 525414, 3716944; 525414, 3716944; 525415, 3716944; 525415,
3716945; 525416, 3716945; 525416, 3716945; 525417, 3716946; 525418,
3716946; 525418, 3716946; 525419, 3716947; 525419, 3716947; 525420,
3716947; 525420, 3716948; 525421, 3716948; 525421, 3716948; 525422,
3716948; 525423, 3716949; 525423, 3716949; 525424, 3716949; 525424,
3716950; 525425, 3716950; 525425, 3716950; 525426, 3716950; 525427,
3716951; 525427, 3716951; 525428, 3716951; 525428, 3716952; 525429,
3716952; 525430, 3716952; 525430, 3716952; 525431, 3716953; 525431,
3716953; 525432, 3716953; 525432, 3716954; 525433, 3716954; 525434,
3716954; 525434, 3716954; 525435, 3716955; 525435, 3716955; 525436,
[[Page 28853]]
3716955; 525436, 3716955; 525437, 3716956; 525438, 3716956; 525438,
3716956; 525439, 3716957; 525439, 3716957; 525440, 3716957; 525441,
3716957; 525441, 3716958; 525442, 3716958; 525442, 3716958; 525443,
3716958; 525444, 3716959; 525444, 3716959; 525445, 3716959; 525445,
3716959; 525446, 3716960; 525447, 3716960; 525447, 3716960; 525448,
3716960; 525448, 3716960; 525449, 3716961; 525449, 3716961; 525450,
3716961; 525450, 3716961; 525451, 3716961; 525451, 3716962; 525452,
3716962; 525452, 3716962; 525453, 3716962; 525453, 3716962; 525454,
3716963; 525455, 3716963; 525455, 3716963; 525456, 3716963; 525456,
3716963; 525457, 3716964; 525457, 3716964; 525458, 3716964; 525458,
3716964; 525459, 3716965; 525459, 3716965; 525460, 3716965; 525460,
3716965; 525461, 3716965; 525461, 3716966; 525462, 3716966; 525462,
3716966; 525463, 3716966; 525463, 3716967; 525464, 3716967; 525464,
3716967; 525465, 3716967; 525466, 3716968; 525466, 3716968; 525467,
3716968; 525467, 3716968; 525468, 3716969; 525468, 3716969; 525469,
3716969; 525469, 3716969; 525470, 3716970; 525470, 3716970; 525471,
3716970; 525471, 3716970; 525472, 3716971; 525472, 3716971; 525473,
3716971; 525473, 3716971; 525474, 3716972; 525474, 3716972; 525475,
3716972; 525475, 3716972; 525476, 3716973; 525476, 3716973; 525477,
3716973; 525477, 3716974; 525478, 3716974; 525478, 3716974; 525479,
3716974; 525479, 3716975; 525480, 3716975; 525480, 3716975; 525481,
3716976; 525481, 3716976; 525482, 3716976; 525482, 3716976; 525483,
3716977; 525483, 3716977; 525484, 3716977; 525484, 3716978; 525485,
3716978; 525485, 3716978; 525486, 3716979; 525486, 3716979; 525487,
3716979; 525487, 3716979; 525487, 3716980; 525488, 3716980; 525488,
3716980; 525489, 3716981; 525489, 3716981; 525490, 3716981; 525490,
3716982; 525491, 3716982; 525491, 3716982; 525492, 3716983; 525492,
3716983; 525493, 3716983; 525493, 3716984; 525494, 3716984; 525494,
3716984; 525495, 3716984; 525495, 3716985; 525496, 3716985; 525496,
3716985; 525496, 3716986; 525497, 3716986; 525497, 3716986; 525498,
3716987; 525498, 3716987; 525499, 3716987; 525499, 3716988; 525500,
3716988; 525500, 3716989; 525501, 3716989; 525501, 3716989; 525502,
3716990; 525502, 3716990; 525502, 3716990; 525503, 3716991; 525503,
3716991; 525504, 3716991; 525504, 3716992; 525505, 3716992; 525505,
3716992; 525506, 3716993; 525506, 3716993; 525506, 3716993; 525507,
3716994; 525507, 3716994; 525508, 3716995; 525508, 3716995; 525509,
3716995; 525509, 3716996; 525510, 3716996; 525510, 3716996; 525510,
3716997; 525511, 3716997; 525511, 3716997; 525512, 3716998; 525512,
3716998; 525513, 3716999; 525513, 3716999; 525513, 3716999; 525514,
3717000; 525514, 3717000; 525515, 3717001; 525515, 3717001; 525516,
3717001; 525516, 3717002; 525516, 3717002; 525517, 3717002; 525517,
3717003; 525518, 3717003; 525518, 3717004; 525518, 3717004; 525519,
3717004; 525519, 3717005; 525520, 3717005; 525520, 3717006; 525520,
3717006; 525521, 3717006; 525521, 3717007; 525522, 3717007; 525522,
3717008; 525522, 3717008; 525523, 3717008; 525523, 3717009; 525524,
3717009; 525524, 3717010; 525524, 3717010; 525525, 3717011; 525525,
3717011; 525526, 3717011; 525526, 3717012; 525526, 3717012; 525527,
3717013; 525527, 3717013; 525528, 3717013; 525528, 3717014; 525528,
3717014; 525529, 3717015; 525529, 3717015; 525530, 3717016; 525530,
3717016; 525530, 3717016; 525531, 3717017; 525531, 3717017; 525531,
3717018; 525532, 3717018; 525532, 3717019; 525533, 3717019; 525533,
3717019; 525533, 3717020; 525534, 3717020; 525534, 3717021; 525534,
3717021; 525535, 3717022; 525535, 3717022; 525535, 3717023; 525536,
3717023; 525536, 3717023; 525536, 3717024; 525537, 3717024; 525537,
3717025; 525538, 3717025; 525538, 3717026; 525538, 3717026; 525539,
3717027; 525539, 3717027; 525539, 3717027; 525540, 3717028; 525540,
3717028; 525540, 3717029; 525541, 3717029; 525541, 3717030; 525541,
3717030; 525542, 3717031; 525542, 3717031; 525542, 3717032; 525543,
3717032; 525543, 3717033; 525543, 3717033; 525544, 3717033; 525544,
3717034; 525544, 3717034; 525545, 3717035; 525545, 3717035; 525545,
3717036; 525546, 3717036; 525546, 3717037; 525546, 3717037; 525547,
3717038; 525547, 3717038; 525547, 3717039; 525548, 3717039; 525548,
3717040; 525548, 3717040; 525548, 3717041; 525549, 3717041; 525549,
3717042; 525549, 3717042; 525550, 3717043; 525550, 3717043; 525550,
3717043; 525551, 3717044; 525551, 3717044; 525551, 3717045; 525551,
3717045; 525552, 3717046; 525552, 3717046; 525552, 3717047; 525553,
3717047; 525553, 3717048; 525553, 3717048; 525553, 3717049; 525554,
3717049; 525554, 3717050; 525554, 3717050; 525555, 3717051; 525555,
3717051; 525555, 3717052; 525555, 3717052; 525556, 3717053; 525556,
3717053; 525556, 3717054; 525557, 3717054; 525557, 3717055; 525557,
3717055; 525557, 3717056; 525558, 3717056; 525558, 3717057; 525558,
3717057; 525558, 3717058; 525559, 3717058; 525559, 3717059; 525559,
3717059; 525559, 3717060; 525560, 3717060; 525560, 3717061; 525560,
3717061; 525560, 3717062; 525561, 3717063; 525561, 3717063; 525561,
3717064; 525561, 3717064; 525562, 3717065; 525562, 3717065; 525562,
3717066; 525562, 3717066; 525563, 3717067; 525563, 3717067; 525563,
3717068; 525563, 3717068; 525564, 3717069; 525564, 3717069; 525564,
3717070; 525564, 3717070; 525564, 3717071; 525565, 3717071; 525565,
3717072; 525565, 3717072; 525565, 3717073; 525565, 3717074; 525566,
3717074; 525566, 3717075; 525566, 3717075; 525566, 3717076; 525567,
3717076; 525567, 3717077; 525567, 3717077; 525567, 3717078; 525567,
3717078; 525568, 3717079; 525568, 3717079; 525568, 3717080; 525568,
3717080; 525568, 3717081; 525569, 3717082; 525569, 3717082; 525570,
3717091; 525560, 3717105; 525560, 3717105; 525555, 3717106; 525555,
3717106; 525550, 3717107; 525550, 3717107; 525544, 3717109; 525544,
3717109; 525539, 3717110; 525539, 3717110; 525534, 3717111; 525534,
3717111; 525529, 3717113; 525528, 3717113; 525523, 3717115; 525523,
3717115; 525518, 3717117; 525518, 3717117; 525513, 3717118; 525513,
3717118; 525508, 3717120; 525508, 3717120; 525503, 3717122; 525503,
3717123; 525498, 3717125; 525497, 3717125; 525493, 3717127; 525492,
3717127; 525488, 3717129; 525487, 3717129; and excluding land bounded
by 525380, 3716871; 525388, 3716870; 525389, 3716878; 525375, 3716878;
525372, 3716871; and excluding land bounded by 525434, 3716924; 525433,
3716924; 525433, 3716924; 525432, 3716923; 525432, 3716923; 525431,
3716923; 525431, 3716923; 525430, 3716922; 525430, 3716922; 525429,
3716922; 525429, 3716921; 525428, 3716921; 525428, 3716921; 525427,
3716921; 525427, 3716920; 525426, 3716920; 525426, 3716920; 525425,
3716919; 525425, 3716919; 525424, 3716919; 525424, 3716918; 525423,
3716918; 525423, 3716918; 525422, 3716918; 525422, 3716917; 525421,
3716917; 525421, 3716917; 525420, 3716916; 525420, 3716916; 525419,
3716916; 525419, 3716915; 525418, 3716915; 525418, 3716915; 525417,
3716915; 525417, 3716914; 525416, 3716914; 525416, 3716914; 525415,
[[Page 28854]]
3716913; 525415, 3716913; 525414, 3716913; 525414, 3716912; 525413,
3716912; 525413, 3716912; 525412, 3716911; 525412, 3716911; 525412,
3716911; 525411, 3716910; 525411, 3716910; 525410, 3716910; 525410,
3716909; 525409, 3716909; 525409, 3716909; 525408, 3716908; 525408,
3716908; 525407, 3716908; 525407, 3716907; 525406, 3716907; 525406,
3716907; 525405, 3716906; 525405, 3716906; 525405, 3716906; 525404,
3716905; 525404, 3716905; 525403, 3716905; 525403, 3716904; 525402,
3716904; 525402, 3716904; 525402, 3716885; 525419, 3716876; 525435,
3716876; 525471, 3716881; 525472, 3716881; 525473, 3716881; 525473,
3716881; 525474, 3716881; 525474, 3716881; 525475, 3716881; 525476,
3716880; 525476, 3716880; 525477, 3716880; 525477, 3716880; 525478,
3716879; 525478, 3716879; 525479, 3716879; 525479, 3716879; 525480,
3716878; 525480, 3716878; 525481, 3716877; 525481, 3716877; 525482,
3716877; 525482, 3716876; 525483, 3716876; 525483, 3716875; 525483,
3716875; 525484, 3716874; 525484, 3716874; 525485, 3716873; 525485,
3716873; 525485, 3716872; 525486, 3716872; 525486, 3716871; 525486,
3716871; 525486, 3716870; 525487, 3716870; 525487, 3716869; 525487,
3716868; 525487, 3716868; 525487, 3716867; 525487, 3716867; 525715,
3716858; 526066, 3716845; 526065, 3716845; 526061, 3716847; 526061,
3716847; 526057, 3716849; 526057, 3716849; 526052, 3716850; 526052,
3716850; 526048, 3716852; 526048, 3716852; 526044, 3716854; 526044,
3716854; 526039, 3716856; 526039, 3716856; 526035, 3716858; 526035,
3716858; 526031, 3716860; 526031, 3716860; 526027, 3716862; 526027,
3716863; 526023, 3716865; 526022, 3716865; 526019, 3716867; 526018,
3716867; 526014, 3716869; 526014, 3716870; 526010, 3716872; 526010,
3716872; 526007, 3716875; 526006, 3716875; 526003, 3716877; 526002,
3716877; 525999, 3716880; 525999, 3716880; 525995, 3716883; 525995,
3716883; 525991, 3716885; 525991, 3716886; 525987, 3716888; 525987,
3716888; 525984, 3716891; 525984, 3716891; 525980, 3716894; 525980,
3716894; 525977, 3716897; 525976, 3716897; 525973, 3716901; 525973,
3716901; 525970, 3716904; 525969, 3716904; 525966, 3716907; 525966,
3716907; 525963, 3716910; 525963, 3716910; 525960, 3716914; 525959,
3716914; 525956, 3716917; 525956, 3716917; 525953, 3716921; 525953,
3716921; 525950, 3716924; 525950, 3716924; 525947, 3716928; 525947,
3716928; 525944, 3716931; 525944, 3716932; 525941, 3716935; 525941,
3716935; 525938, 3716939; 525938, 3716939; 525935, 3716943; 525935,
3716943; 525933, 3716947; 525933, 3716947; 525930, 3716951; 525930,
3716951; 525927, 3716954; 525927, 3716955; 525925, 3716958; 525925,
3716959; 525923, 3716962; 525922, 3716963; 525920, 3716967; 525920,
3716967; 525918, 3716971; 525918, 3716971; 525916, 3716975; 525916,
3716975; 525914, 3716978; 525912, 3716981; 525909, 3716985; 525906,
3716989; 525902, 3716992; 525899, 3716996; 525896, 3716999; 525892,
3717003; 525889, 3717006; 525886, 3717010; 525882, 3717013; 525878,
3717016; 525875, 3717019; 525871, 3717023; 525867, 3717026; 525863,
3717029; 525860, 3717031; 525856, 3717034; 525852, 3717037; 525848,
3717040; 525844, 3717042; 525840, 3717045; 525835, 3717047; 525831,
3717050; 525827, 3717052; 525823, 3717055; 525818, 3717057; 525814,
3717059; 525810, 3717061; 525805, 3717063; 525801, 3717065; 525796,
3717067; 525792, 3717068; 525787, 3717070; 525783, 3717072; 525778,
3717073; 525773, 3717074; 525769, 3717076; 525764, 3717077; 525759,
3717078; 525755, 3717079; 525750, 3717080; 525745, 3717081; 525740,
3717082; 525736, 3717083; 525731, 3717083; 525724, 3717084; 525612,
3717098; 525596, 3717085; 525595, 3717076; 525595, 3717075; 525594,
3717074; 525594, 3717073; 525594, 3717073; 525594, 3717072; 525593,
3717071; 525593, 3717071; 525593, 3717070; 525593, 3717069; 525592,
3717069; 525592, 3717068; 525592, 3717068; 525592, 3717067; 525592,
3717066; 525591, 3717066; 525591, 3717065; 525591, 3717065; 525591,
3717064; 525590, 3717063; 525590, 3717063; 525590, 3717062; 525590,
3717062; 525589, 3717061; 525589, 3717060; 525589, 3717060; 525589,
3717059; 525588, 3717059; 525588, 3717058; 525588, 3717057; 525588,
3717057; 525587, 3717056; 525587, 3717056; 525587, 3717055; 525587,
3717055; 525586, 3717054; 525586, 3717053; 525586, 3717053; 525585,
3717052; 525585, 3717052; 525585, 3717051; 525585, 3717050; 525584,
3717050; 525584, 3717049; 525584, 3717049; 525583, 3717048; 525583,
3717047; 525583, 3717047; 525583, 3717046; 525582, 3717046; 525582,
3717045; 525582, 3717045; 525581, 3717044; 525581, 3717043; 525581,
3717043; 525581, 3717042; 525580, 3717042; 525580, 3717041; 525580,
3717041; 525579, 3717040; 525579, 3717039; 525579, 3717039; 525578,
3717038; 525578, 3717038; 525578, 3717037; 525577, 3717037; 525577,
3717036; 525577, 3717036; 525576, 3717035; 525576, 3717034; 525576,
3717034; 525575, 3717033; 525575, 3717033; 525575, 3717032; 525574,
3717032; 525574, 3717031; 525574, 3717031; 525573, 3717030; 525573,
3717029; 525573, 3717029; 525572, 3717028; 525572, 3717028; 525572,
3717027; 525571, 3717027; 525571, 3717026; 525571, 3717026; 525570,
3717025; 525570, 3717024; 525570, 3717024; 525569, 3717023; 525569,
3717023; 525569, 3717022; 525568, 3717022; 525568, 3717021; 525567,
3717021; 525567, 3717020; 525567, 3717020; 525566, 3717019; 525566,
3717019; 525566, 3717018; 525565, 3717018; 525565, 3717017; 525564,
3717016; 525564, 3717016; 525564, 3717015; 525563, 3717015; 525563,
3717014; 525563, 3717014; 525562, 3717013; 525562, 3717013; 525561,
3717012; 525561, 3717012; 525561, 3717011; 525560, 3717011; 525560,
3717010; 525559, 3717010; 525559, 3717009; 525559, 3717009; 525558,
3717008; 525558, 3717008; 525557, 3717007; 525557, 3717007; 525557,
3717006; 525556, 3717006; 525556, 3717005; 525555, 3717005; 525555,
3717004; 525555, 3717004; 525554, 3717003; 525554, 3717003; 525553,
3717002; 525553, 3717002; 525553, 3717001; 525552, 3717001; 525552,
3717000; 525551, 3717000; 525551, 3716999; 525550, 3716999; 525550,
3716998; 525550, 3716998; 525549, 3716997; 525549, 3716997; 525548,
3716996; 525548, 3716996; 525547, 3716995; 525547, 3716995; 525547,
3716994; 525546, 3716994; 525546, 3716993; 525545, 3716993; 525545,
3716992; 525544, 3716992; 525544, 3716992; 525543, 3716991; 525543,
3716991; 525542, 3716990; 525542, 3716990; 525542, 3716989; 525541,
3716989; 525541, 3716988; 525540, 3716988; 525540, 3716987; 525539,
3716987; 525539, 3716986; 525538, 3716986; 525538, 3716986; 525537,
3716985; 525537, 3716985; 525537, 3716984; 525536, 3716984; 525536,
3716983; 525535, 3716983; 525535, 3716982; 525534, 3716982; 525534,
3716982; 525533, 3716981; 525533, 3716981; 525532, 3716980; 525532,
3716980; 525531, 3716979; 525531, 3716979; 525530, 3716979; 525530,
3716978; 525529, 3716978; 525529, 3716977; 525528, 3716977; 525528,
3716976; 525527, 3716976; 525527, 3716976; 525526, 3716975; 525526,
3716975; 525525, 3716974; 525525, 3716974; 525524, 3716974; 525524,
3716973; 525523, 3716973; 525523, 3716972; 525522, 3716972; 525522,
[[Page 28855]]
3716971; 525521, 3716971; 525521, 3716971; 525520, 3716970; 525520,
3716970; 525519, 3716969; 525519, 3716969; 525518, 3716969; 525518,
3716968; 525517, 3716968; 525517, 3716967; 525516, 3716967; 525516,
3716967; 525515, 3716966; 525515, 3716966; 525514, 3716966; 525514,
3716965; 525513, 3716965; 525513, 3716964; 525512, 3716964; 525512,
3716964; 525511, 3716963; 525510, 3716963; 525510, 3716963; 525509,
3716962; 525509, 3716962; 525508, 3716961; 525508, 3716961; 525507,
3716961; 525507, 3716960; 525506, 3716960; 525506, 3716960; 525505,
3716959; 525505, 3716959; 525504, 3716959; 525504, 3716958; 525503,
3716958; 525502, 3716957; 525502, 3716957; 525501, 3716957; 525501,
3716956; 525500, 3716956; 525500, 3716956; 525499, 3716955; 525499,
3716955; 525498, 3716955; 525498, 3716954; 525497, 3716954; 525496,
3716954; 525496, 3716953; 525495, 3716953; 525495, 3716953; 525494,
3716952; 525494, 3716952; 525493, 3716952; 525492, 3716951; 525492,
3716951; 525491, 3716951; 525491, 3716950; 525490, 3716950; 525490,
3716950; 525489, 3716950; 525489, 3716949; 525488, 3716949; 525487,
3716949; 525487, 3716948; 525486, 3716948; 525486, 3716948; 525485,
3716947; 525485, 3716947; 525484, 3716947; 525483, 3716946; 525483,
3716946; 525482, 3716946; 525482, 3716946; 525481, 3716945; 525480,
3716945; 525480, 3716945; 525479, 3716944; 525479, 3716944; 525478,
3716944; 525478, 3716944; 525477, 3716943; 525476, 3716943; 525476,
3716943; 525475, 3716943; 525475, 3716942; 525474, 3716942; 525473,
3716942; 525473, 3716941; 525472, 3716941; 525472, 3716941; 525471,
3716941; 525471, 3716940; 525470, 3716940; 525469, 3716940; 525469,
3716940; 525468, 3716939; 525468, 3716939; 525467, 3716939; 525466,
3716939; 525466, 3716938; 525465, 3716938; 525465, 3716938; 525464,
3716938; 525463, 3716937; 525463, 3716937; 525462, 3716937; 525462,
3716937; 525461, 3716936; 525460, 3716936; 525460, 3716936; 525459,
3716936; 525458, 3716936; 525458, 3716935; 525457, 3716935; 525457,
3716935; 525456, 3716935; 525456, 3716935; 525455, 3716934; 525455,
3716934; 525454, 3716934; 525454, 3716934; 525453, 3716934; 525453,
3716933; 525452, 3716933; 525452, 3716933; 525451, 3716933; 525451,
3716932; 525450, 3716932; 525450, 3716932; 525449, 3716932; 525449,
3716931; 525448, 3716931; 525448, 3716931; 525447, 3716931; 525446,
3716931; 525446, 3716930; 525445, 3716930; 525445, 3716930; 525444,
3716930; 525444, 3716929; 525443, 3716929; 525443, 3716929; 525442,
3716929; 525442, 3716928; 525441, 3716928; 525441, 3716928; 525440,
3716928; 525440, 3716927; 525439, 3716927; 525439, 3716927; 525438,
3716927; 525438, 3716926; 525437, 3716926; 525437, 3716926; 525436,
3716926; 525436, 3716925; 525435, 3716925; 525435, 3716925; and
excluding land bounded by 526091, 3716237; 526123, 3716234; 526132,
3716233; 526136, 3716233; 526136, 3716292; 526136, 3716423; 526136,
3716548; 526166, 3716550; 526362, 3716559; 526366, 3716559; 526374,
3716741; 526380, 3716866; 526386, 3716992; 526278, 3716986; 526183,
3717080; 526131, 3717037; 526131, 3717037; 526125, 3717031; 526122,
3716959; 526119, 3716866; 526118, 3716843; 526104, 3716453; 525716,
3716463; 525596, 3716466; 525300, 3716473; 525291, 3716474; 525289,
3716474; 525223, 3716474; 525115, 3716474; 525115, 3716382; 525115,
3716378; 525076, 3716378; 525084, 3716279; 524986, 3716282; 524885,
3716286; 524875, 3716286; 524875, 3716101; 524875, 3716084; 524875,
3716082; 525714, 3716048; 525704, 3716201; 525927, 3716254; and
excluding land bounded by 525777, 3717434; 526121, 3717419; 526120,
3717641; 525770, 3717647.
(ii) Note: Unit 7 (Bautista) for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is
depicted on the map in paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit 8: Otay Unit, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Jamul Mountains, Dulzura, Otay
Mesa, Otay Mountain, and Tecate. Land bounded by the following
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 505693, 3606447; 505703, 3606427; 505702,
3606427; 505702, 3606426; 505693, 3606046; 505691, 3605963; 505687,
3605768; 505677, 3605363; 505668, 3604969; 505635, 3604959; 505560,
3604935; 505239, 3604836; 505150, 3604808; 505147, 3604807; 505125,
3604572; 505124, 3604564; 504912, 3604574; 504650, 3604587; 504549,
3604707; 504464, 3604807; 503596, 3604788; 503441, 3604784; 503423,
3604784; 502983, 3604518; 502810, 3604205; 502732, 3604207; 502715,
3605000; 502151, 3605003; 502141, 3605216; 502141, 3605222; 502335,
3605289; 502913, 3605488; 502919, 3605481; 502922, 3605478; 503260,
3605591; 503260, 3605593; 503257, 3605604; 503255, 3605606; 503274,
3605613; 503537, 3605704; 503545, 3605706; 503856, 3605814; 503909,
3605832; 503935, 3605840; 504176, 3605924; 504337, 3605979; 504546,
3606052; 504617, 3606076; 504799, 3606141; 505139, 3606262; 505378,
3606338; 505594, 3606413; 505692, 3606446; 505693, 3606447; thence
returning to 505693, 3606447. Continue to 506421, 3607499; 506490,
3607502; 506512, 3607503; 506510, 3607549; 506510, 3607549; 506489,
3607885; 506564, 3607917; 506564, 3607917; 506776, 3608010; 506859,
3608047; 506976, 3608221; 507010, 3608271; 507025, 3608294; 507168,
3608518; 507452, 3608739; 507453, 3608758; 507569, 3608830; 507852,
3608932; 507977, 3608971; 508040, 3609097; 508040, 3609363; 508199,
3609449; 508324, 3609517; 508518, 3609622; 508714, 3609755; 508740,
3609897; 508745, 3609928; 508824, 3610006; 508996, 3610006; 509114,
3610061; 509177, 3610137; 509190, 3610152; 509192, 3610155; 509333,
3610179; 509420, 3610202; 509490, 3610163; 509537, 3610108; 509537,
3610202; 509553, 3610351; 509725, 3610390; 509984, 3610508; 510011,
3610531; 510039, 3610555; 510149, 3610563; 510305, 3610500; 510517,
3610469; 510666, 3610508; 510713, 3610641; 510792, 3610822; 510828,
3610885; 510909, 3611025; 510930, 3611061; 511066, 3611284; 511301,
3611402; 511497, 3611417; 511497, 3611226; 511497, 3611221; 511676,
3611260; 511787, 3611284; 512102, 3611553; 512218, 3611653; 512210,
3611672; 512171, 3611755; 512265, 3612060; 512273, 3612311; 512352,
3612421; 512508, 3612507; 512610, 3612531; 512691, 3612505; 512759,
3612484; 512785, 3612488; 512844, 3612496; 512872, 3612501; 512916,
3612507; 513018, 3612593; 513049, 3612664; 513144, 3612719; 513261,
3612742; 513266, 3612803; 513267, 3612819; 513269, 3612844; 513295,
3612845; 513313, 3612846; 513418, 3612851; 513457, 3612852; 513567,
3612758; 513567, 3612664; 513567, 3612523; 513620, 3612383; 513653,
3612295; 513880, 3612084; 513953, 3612024; 514096, 3611906; 514147,
3611864; 514249, 3611966; 514177, 3611992; 514163, 3611998; 514139,
3612068; 513990, 3612209; 513888, 3612217; 513786, 3612350; 513763,
3612499; 513810, 3612617; 513833, 3612627; 513935, 3612672; 514006,
3612774; 514147, 3612876; 514148, 3612877; 514232, 3612971; 514280,
3613025; 514335, 3613158; 514406, 3613236; 514471, 3613282; 514539,
3613330; 514546, 3613351; 514552, 3613367; 514610, 3613526; 514798,
3613636; 514939,
[[Page 28856]]
3613730; 515036, 3613762; 515127, 3613793; 515179, 3613793; 515192,
3613793; 515292, 3613793; 515354, 3613848; 515235, 3613960; 515225,
3613970; 515221, 3613973; 515228, 3613982; 515252, 3614011; 515292,
3614059; 515297, 3614078; 515307, 3614110; 515322, 3614162; 515331,
3614193; 515389, 3614212; 515410, 3614219; 515519, 3614255; 515707,
3614342; 515935, 3614420; 516107, 3614428; 516264, 3614420; 516405,
3614420; 516562, 3614420; 516686, 3614366; 516687, 3614365; 516716,
3614316; 516746, 3614265; 516797, 3614177; 516837, 3614113; 516853,
3614086; 516860, 3614075; 516861, 3614075; 516945, 3614047; 516977,
3614036; 517103, 3614036; 517346, 3614028; 517487, 3613942; 517491,
3613951; 517496, 3613962; 517496, 3613962; 517498, 3613967; 517565,
3614114; 517565, 3614271; 517518, 3614451; 517377, 3614436; 517197,
3614451; 517024, 3614404; 516899, 3614467; 516711, 3614530; 516687,
3614544; 516475, 3614671; 516409, 3614712; 516391, 3614722; 516370,
3614735; 516347, 3614749; 516309, 3614772; 516281, 3614789; 516256,
3614804; 515982, 3614812; 515903, 3614828; 515793, 3614867; 515648,
3614946; 515605, 3614969; 515480, 3615118; 515413, 3615147; 515370,
3615165; 515369, 3615155; 515354, 3615024; 515322, 3614927; 515315,
3614906; 515221, 3614843; 515237, 3614734; 515307, 3614593; 515323,
3614451; 515252, 3614279; 515158, 3614224; 515043, 3614170; 515041,
3614169; 515020, 3614135; 514994, 3614091; 514923, 3614005; 514839,
3613953; 514781, 3613916; 514759, 3613903; 514737, 3613812; 514737,
3613811; 514727, 3613769; 514637, 3613726; 514580, 3613699; 514563,
3613691; 514536, 3613673; 514414, 3613589; 514312, 3613495; 514218,
3613370; 514188, 3613266; 514177, 3613225; 514163, 3613174; 514100,
3613056; 514022, 3613017; 513928, 3612938; 513818, 3612821; 513801,
3612835; 513783, 3612852; 513747, 3612883; 513637, 3613025; 513583,
3613059; 513490, 3613118; 513488, 3613119; 513421, 3613141; 513371,
3613158; 513366, 3613135; 513347, 3613056; 513285, 3612993; 513120,
3613072; 513034, 3612931; 512900, 3612907; 512806, 3612852; 512704,
3612695; 512553, 3612659; 512540, 3612656; 512391, 3612570; 512226,
3612531; 512140, 3612413; 512124, 3612295; 512148, 3612123; 512116,
3611958; 512044, 3611864; 512038, 3611856; 512037, 3611856; 511981,
3611841; 511930, 3611826; 511842, 3611802; 511764, 3611668; 511682,
3611550; 511677, 3611543; 511513, 3611551; 511262, 3611512; 511121,
3611425; 510870, 3611253; 510827, 3611065; 510827, 3611062; 510815,
3611010; 510799, 3610997; 510643, 3610869; 510509, 3610845; 510376,
3610900; 510334, 3610910; 510236, 3610934; 510180, 3610947; 510101,
3610938; 509976, 3610924; 509929, 3610918; 509906, 3610916; 509608,
3610767; 509563, 3610759; 509562, 3610759; 509294, 3610712; 508996,
3610712; 508800, 3610775; 508773, 3610776; 508675, 3610783; 508637,
3610786; 508581, 3610790; 508564, 3610802; 508385, 3610931; 508369,
3611080; 508361, 3611159; 508354, 3611160; 508344, 3611162; 508226,
3611186; 508126, 3611206; 508079, 3611300; 508094, 3611508; 508095,
3611512; 507961, 3611676; 507679, 3611786; 507350, 3611778; 507136,
3611739; 507067, 3611726; 507052, 3611723; 506926, 3611943; 506853,
3612078; 506774, 3612225; 506770, 3612233; 506683, 3612319; 506527,
3612374; 506370, 3612609; 506363, 3612643; 506357, 3612669; 506346,
3612719; 506354, 3612797; 506383, 3612873; 506346, 3612867; 506269,
3612995; 506217, 3613021; 506166, 3613008; 506094, 3613153; 506050,
3613240; 506054, 3613375; 506054, 3613388; 506058, 3613539; 506063,
3613717; 506075, 3613744; 506153, 3613914; 506176, 3613964; 506269,
3614165; 506282, 3614194; 506326, 3614368; 506360, 3614505; 506427,
3614773; 506437, 3614812; 506449, 3615804; 506449, 3615986; 506449,
3615998; 506617, 3616036; 506765, 3616066; 507068, 3616127; 507175,
3616245; 507215, 3616290; 507300, 3616384; 507442, 3616642; 507472,
3616667; 507738, 3616887; 507686, 3617093; 507738, 3617389; 507825,
3617489; 507918, 3617596; 507934, 3617618; 508086, 3617840; 508315,
3617902; 508421, 3617931; 508726, 3617837; 508923, 3617776; 509132,
3617601; 509478, 3617312; 509563, 3617128; 509748, 3616732; 509779,
3616310; 509813, 3615856; 509392, 3615485; 509271, 3615379; 509234,
3615102; 509184, 3614742; 509155, 3614529; 509236, 3614331; 509401,
3613929; 509461, 3613782; 509571, 3613835; 509579, 3613838; 509813,
3613727; 509982, 3613676; 510097, 3613641; 510615, 3613752; 510972,
3613542; 511465, 3613197; 511580, 3613165; 511711, 3613129; 511838,
3613094; 511884, 3613081; 511909, 3613074; 511954, 3613137; 512144,
3613407; 512183, 3613549; 512214, 3613664; 512279, 3613900; 512345,
3613974; 512575, 3614233; 512579, 3614376; 512588, 3614689; 512574,
3614758; 512501, 3615146; 512378, 3615158; 512588, 3615441; 512711,
3615565; 512945, 3615799; 513026, 3615830; 513204, 3615898; 513401,
3615676; 513447, 3615669; 513512, 3615659; 513765, 3615620; 513871,
3615620; 513890, 3615620; 513907, 3615634; 514157, 3615839; 514190,
3615994; 514215, 3616189; 514286, 3616328; 514299, 3616355; 514300,
3616356; 514188, 3616418; 514111, 3616472; 514046, 3616517; 513875,
3616716; 513840, 3616758; 513526, 3617123; 513365, 3617321; 513236,
3617480; 513229, 3617488; 513293, 3617543; 513417, 3617650; 513458,
3617686; 513526, 3617695; 513786, 3617729; 513897, 3617788; 513928,
3617804; 513945, 3617803; 514207, 3617798; 514893, 3617785; 514900,
3617785; 515006, 3617796; 515058, 3617801; 515165, 3617812; 515236,
3617819; 515478, 3617844; 515630, 3617859; 515611, 3618107; 515481,
3618107; 515438, 3618107; 515482, 3618290; 515544, 3618554; 515611,
3618837; 515605, 3618955; 515593, 3619214; 515528, 3619360; 515478,
3619473; 515450, 3619536; 515478, 3619550; 515541, 3619583; 515679,
3619654; 515772, 3619658; 515872, 3619662; 516094, 3619672; 516178,
3619572; 516230, 3619510; 516354, 3619363; 516425, 3619358; 516661,
3619344; 516663, 3619344; 517047, 3619350; 517124, 3619367; 517210,
3619385; 517337, 3619412; 517334, 3619334; 517329, 3619217; 517319,
3618961; 517571, 3618934; 517757, 3618937; 517982, 3618940; 518000,
3618925; 518000, 3618875; 518012, 3618865; 518045, 3618837; 518090,
3618817; 518100, 3618795; 518108, 3618778; 518121, 3618751; 518169,
3618720; 518234, 3618738; 518243, 3618756; 518252, 3618771; 518306,
3618751; 518445, 3618664; 518451, 3618660; 518458, 3618544; 518463,
3618469; 518231, 3618151; 518231, 3618151; 518187, 3618129; 518103,
3617942; 518229, 3617848; 518229, 3617766; 518232, 3617753; 518303,
3617445; 518430, 3617371; 518451, 3617359; 518685, 3617100; 518661,
3616792; 518661, 3616582; 518664, 3616578; 518833, 3616360; 519129,
3616225; 519232, 3616173; 519425, 3616077; 519610, 3616089; 519795,
3616184; 519850, 3616212; 520042, 3616311; 520216, 3616298; 520237,
3616289; 520308, 3616194; 520313, 3616187; 520364, 3616142; 520422,
3616027; 520537, 3615912; 520556, 3615822; 520556, 3615804; 520556,
3615669; 520563, 3615490; 520581, 3615472; 520646, 3615406; 520646,
3615406; 520665, 3615323; 520627, 3615272; 520590, 3615249; 520544,
[[Page 28857]]
3615221; 520460, 3615112; 520358, 3615080; 520269, 3614984; 520246,
3614963; 520166, 3614888; 520083, 3614735; 519981, 3614619; 519891,
3614543; 519880, 3614539; 519821, 3614517; 519674, 3614524; 519610,
3614485; 519622, 3614402; 519712, 3614319; 519643, 3614219; 519642,
3614216; 519386, 3614216; 519386, 3614219; 519405, 3614383; 519285,
3614385; 519148, 3614387; 519034, 3614389; 519028, 3614285; 519027,
3614262; 519021, 3614159; 519122, 3614154; 519149, 3614152; 519148,
3614093; 519143, 3613551; 519166, 3613553; 519253, 3613560; 519349,
3613567; 519392, 3613570; 519447, 3613531; 519501, 3613493; 519532,
3613370; 519539, 3613340; 519533, 3613270; 519528, 3613264; 519469,
3613193; 519398, 3613116; 519290, 3613026; 519304, 3613009; 519315,
3612994; 519374, 3612994; 519386, 3612994; 519394, 3612990; 519437,
3612969; 519522, 3612849; 519533, 3612835; 519622, 3612822; 519680,
3612854; 519744, 3612879; 519750, 3612869; 519802, 3612777; 519816,
3612712; 519827, 3612662; 519895, 3612614; 519921, 3612595; 519947,
3612552; 519962, 3612526; 519999, 3612465; 520035, 3612405; 520085,
3612322; 520188, 3612073; 520193, 3612060; 520233, 3611964; 520277,
3611901; 520294, 3611876; 520360, 3611781; 520392, 3611736; 520405,
3611716; 520430, 3611680; 520455, 3611471; 520559, 3611311; 520640,
3611187; 520686, 3611192; 520899, 3611212; 521086, 3611255; 521219,
3611286; 521276, 3611358; 521332, 3611382; 521379, 3611376; 521427,
3611360; 521473, 3611356; 521502, 3611354; 521619, 3611301; 521669,
3611290; 521760, 3611257; 521773, 3611251; 521827, 3611224; 521833,
3611173; 521869, 3611162; 521933, 3611109; 521952, 3611059; 521950,
3611026; 521983, 3611026; 522008, 3610962; 522002, 3610909; 521922,
3610915; 521925, 3610905; 521938, 3610856; 521994, 3610865; 521992,
3610842; 521983, 3610767; 522005, 3610678; 522066, 3610623; 522089,
3610542; 522086, 3610499; 522086, 3610489; 522032, 3610498; 522005,
3610503; 522000, 3610498; 521983, 3610481; 521938, 3610489; 521937,
3610478; 521933, 3610425; 521899, 3610436; 521714, 3610428; 521710,
3610428; 521699, 3610219; 521713, 3610183; 521728, 3610183; 521778,
3610181; 521801, 3610181; 521813, 3610180; 521809, 3610177; 521766,
3610133; 521705, 3610125; 521676, 3610087; 521632, 3610030; 521524,
3609777; 521505, 3609759; 521488, 3609744; 521477, 3609719; 521469,
3609701; 521454, 3609669; 521452, 3609613; 521463, 3609521; 521463,
3609396; 521457, 3609341; 521452, 3609293; 521470, 3609254; 521474,
3609246; 521478, 3608968; 521480, 3608854; 521447, 3608850; 521393,
3608843; 521393, 3608793; 521413, 3608717; 521418, 3608695; 521454,
3608676; 521491, 3608590; 521499, 3608523; 521500, 3608522; 521559,
3608438; 521566, 3608428; 521619, 3608395; 521691, 3608348; 521752,
3608309; 521758, 3608306; 521759, 3608301; 521769, 3608247; 521776,
3608196; 521777, 3608189; 521777, 3608181; 521774, 3608092; 521758,
3608019; 521713, 3607983; 521660, 3607967; 521566, 3607975; 521557,
3608025; 521613, 3608092; 521474, 3608122; 521491, 3608067; 521418,
3607914; 521251, 3607978; 521229, 3607922; 521146, 3607936; 521137,
3607903; 521087, 3607908; 521086, 3607904; 521073, 3607852; 521123,
3607833; 521146, 3607823; 521193, 3607802; 521257, 3607772; 521327,
3607752; 521368, 3607752; 521385, 3607722; 521407, 3607702; 521482,
3607691; 521482, 3607585; 521515, 3607583; 521533, 3607581; 521552,
3607580; 521557, 3607700; 521558, 3607701; 521577, 3607789; 521584,
3607796; 521645, 3607867; 521652, 3607875; 521678, 3607895; 521730,
3607936; 521730, 3607936; 521797, 3607928; 521866, 3607944; 521911,
3607967; 521914, 3607966; 521944, 3607961; 522005, 3607947; 522083,
3607925; 522125, 3607916; 522161, 3607903; 522208, 3607900; 522269,
3607894; 522320, 3607894; 522322, 3607894; 522406, 3607889; 522500,
3607908; 522561, 3607883; 522586, 3607862; 522600, 3607850; 522659,
3607844; 522728, 3607844; 522756, 3607847; 522762, 3607853; 522765,
3607857; 522790, 3607883; 522842, 3607894; 522887, 3607880; 522910,
3607879; 523001, 3607872; 523011, 3607872; 523020, 3607872; 523077,
3607872; 523082, 3607872; 523122, 3607900; 523146, 3607916; 523184,
3607935; 523213, 3607936; 523482, 3607950; 523517, 3607944; 523877,
3607876; 523877, 3607682; 523877, 3607679; 523766, 3607383; 523766,
3607278; 523766, 3607136; 523824, 3606885; 523852, 3606766; 523803,
3606520; 523921, 3606493; 524081, 3606456; 524234, 3606421; 524481,
3606347; 524690, 3606220; 524765, 3606175; 524765, 3606016; 524765,
3605928; 524683, 3605828; 524543, 3605657; 524530, 3605361; 524650,
3605138; 524671, 3605101; 524777, 3604904; 525282, 3604806; 525578,
3604806; 526035, 3604695; 526230, 3604670; 526516, 3604633; 526910,
3604411; 527231, 3604029; 527255, 3603647; 526225, 3603542; 524690,
3603385; 524297, 3603345; 523949, 3603310; 523903, 3603328; 523826,
3603359; 523716, 3603410; 523605, 3603418; 523436, 3603359; 523266,
3603322; 523106, 3603322; 523097, 3603322; 522942, 3603314; 522817,
3603233; 522669, 3603241; 522603, 3603263; 522456, 3603300; 522213,
3603336; 522043, 3603359; 521851, 3603329; 521586, 3603373; 521484,
3603416; 521409, 3603447; 521345, 3603523; 521328, 3603543; 521122,
3603565; 520975, 3603646; 520739, 3603720; 520709, 3603808; 520677,
3603808; 520628, 3603808; 520540, 3603712; 520400, 3603543; 520334,
3603432; 520334, 3603410; 520334, 3603300; 520385, 3603115; 520385,
3603114; 520385, 3603113; 520464, 3603111; 520464, 3603113; 520474,
3603233; 520584, 3603292; 520761, 3603381; 520953, 3603432; 521100,
3603395; 521196, 3603336; 521321, 3603189; 521439, 3603138; 521490,
3603117; 521606, 3603071; 521491, 3603059; 520456, 3602953; 520365,
3602944; 520029, 3602910; 519965, 3602946; 519875, 3602981; 519759,
3603027; 519509, 3603020; 519398, 3603049; 519317, 3603182; 519221,
3603292; 519182, 3603349; 519155, 3603388; 519140, 3603491; 519133,
3603587; 519079, 3603707; 519185, 3603751; 519567, 3603838; 519740,
3604109; 519866, 3604132; 520085, 3604171; 520274, 3604282; 520295,
3604294; 520295, 3604553; 520272, 3604567; 520011, 3604726; 519849,
3604862; 519616, 3605059; 519843, 3605118; 520085, 3605182; 520086,
3605197; 520140, 3605842; 520155, 3605855; 520275, 3606158; 520282,
3606387; 520231, 3606578; 520105, 3606689; 519958, 3606814; 519910,
3606867; 519828, 3606956; 519789, 3606998; 519663, 3607212; 519612,
3607448; 519612, 3607683; 519634, 3607809; 519744, 3608030; 519832,
3608198; 519847, 3608229; 519870, 3608347; 519865, 3608495; 519862,
3608604; 519833, 3608645; 519796, 3608697; 519783, 3608702; 519441,
3608846; 519253, 3608924; 519089, 3608934; 519050, 3609038; 518903,
3609193; 518903, 3609321; 518903, 3609331; 518920, 3609478; 518936,
3609609; 518830, 3609666; 518749, 3609690; 518724, 3609690; 518664,
3609617; 518651, 3609601; 518561, 3609584; 518504, 3609690; 518439,
3609764; 518341, 3609837; 518264, 3609849; 518178, 3609861; 518047,
3609764; 517933, 3609698; 517786, 3609723; 517705, 3609804; 517566,
3609861; 517509, 3609919; 517436, 3609992; 517370, 3610049; 517352,
[[Page 28858]]
3610083; 517305, 3610171; 517150, 3610277; 516946, 3610343; 516710,
3610326; 516660, 3610326; 516555, 3610326; 516473, 3610351; 516482,
3610473; 516473, 3610579; 516514, 3610734; 516596, 3610791; 516571,
3610864; 516490, 3611028; 516433, 3611240; 516433, 3611313; 516367,
3611427; 516270, 3611460; 516188, 3611460; 516074, 3611525; 515878,
3611533; 515826, 3611533; 515770, 3611533; 515584, 3611582; 515263,
3611582; 515167, 3611555; 515092, 3611611; 515087, 3611615; 514997,
3611634; 514932, 3611647; 514810, 3611696; 514688, 3611753; 514590,
3611770; 514508, 3611639; 514440, 3611602; 514418, 3611590; 514263,
3611566; 514141, 3611419; 513970, 3611354; 513774, 3611174; 513766,
3611052; 513766, 3610954; 513760, 3610898; 513660, 3610830; 513636,
3610721; 513574, 3610447; 513417, 3610447; 513216, 3610447; 512859,
3610238; 512575, 3609966; 512608, 3609861; 512723, 3609486; 512255,
3609486; 512057, 3609424; 511687, 3609288; 511661, 3609247; 511515,
3609017; 511515, 3608758; 511626, 3608413; 511665, 3608355; 511733,
3608254; 511835, 3608104; 511659, 3607857; 511589, 3607759; 511239,
3607768; 511108, 3607771; 510454, 3607845; 510023, 3608043; 509996,
3608030; 509560, 3607827; 509708, 3607543; 509814, 3607452; 509979,
3607309; 510004, 3607259; 510115, 3607038; 510312, 3606766; 510300,
3606629; 510288, 3606483; 510522, 3606199; 510732, 3606027; 510584,
3605755; 510670, 3605484; 510769, 3605213; 510892, 3605077; 510898,
3605077; 510933, 3605028; 511000, 3604987; 511089, 3604934; 511191,
3604871; 511191, 3604777; 511207, 3604746; 511325, 3604730; 511427,
3604691; 511591, 3604542; 511623, 3604416; 511656, 3604360; 511595,
3604177; 511690, 3604061; 511829, 3603893; 511989, 3603560; 512187,
3603474; 512433, 3603412; 512483, 3603178; 512483, 3602808; 512544,
3602549; 512882, 3602163; 511729, 3602052; 511703, 3602049; 511655,
3602045; 510059, 3601876; 509854, 3601854; 509239, 3601789; 509184,
3601783; 509184, 3601818; 509184, 3601962; 509153, 3602049; 509148,
3602120; 509145, 3602158; 509145, 3602237; 509011, 3602455; 509012,
3602480; 508989, 3602528; 508918, 3602676; 508894, 3602699; 508810,
3602802; 508785, 3602833; 508696, 3602926; 508636, 3602989; 508447,
3603021; 508392, 3603076; 508361, 3603107; 508306, 3603201; 508328,
3603322; 508330, 3603334; 508377, 3603515; 508377, 3603544; 508377,
3603571; 508377, 3603732; 508377, 3603742; 508397, 3603792; 508413,
3603831; 508494, 3604032; 508491, 3604051; 508476, 3604148; 508471,
3604181; 508314, 3604244; 508110, 3604424; 508043, 3604558; 508024,
3604597; 508061, 3604667; 508087, 3604714; 508133, 3604841; 508162,
3604919; 508173, 3604949; 508162, 3604969; 508118, 3605051; 508157,
3605263; 508094, 3605379; 508071, 3605420; 508173, 3605530; 508165,
3605694; 508165, 3605993; 508165, 3606000; 508146, 3606094; 508126,
3606196; 508118, 3606197; 508024, 3606209; 507875, 3606227; 507577,
3606220; 507415, 3606091; 507391, 3606108; 507277, 3606189; 507137,
3606288; 507023, 3606407; 506982, 3606450; 506870, 3606566; 506836,
3606600; 506834, 3606602; 506825, 3606607; 506777, 3606635; 506582,
3606751; 506581, 3606753; 506641, 3606774; 506671, 3606784; 506619,
3606934; 506589, 3607018; 506430, 3607474; thence returning to 506421,
3607499.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8 (Otay) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 28859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.006
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28860]]
(13) Unit 9: La Posta/Campo Unit, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Cameron Corners, Live Oak
Springs, Campo, Tierra Del Sol. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 555235, 3612703; 555266, 3612642; 555282, 3612538;
555299, 3612347; 555299, 3612204; 555289, 3612185; 555286, 3612179;
555258, 3612122; 555255, 3612116; 555250, 3612113; 555196, 3612065;
555167, 3612040; 555141, 3612041; 554992, 3612051; 554790, 3612076;
554773, 3612078; 554750, 3612088; 554644, 3612135; 554616, 3612172;
555239, 3612178; thence returning to 555235, 3612703. Continue to
556851, 3611831; 556851, 3611792; 556854, 3611388; 556857, 3610862;
556857, 3610859; 556859, 3610589; 556859, 3610438; 556861, 3609806;
556861, 3609643; 556862, 3608972; 556862, 3608918; 556767, 3608971;
556662, 3609029; 556154, 3609661; 556051, 3609942; 555876, 3610417;
555985, 3610583; 556046, 3610677; 556107, 3610771; 556044, 3611140;
556015, 3611311; 556008, 3611382; 555969, 3611769; 556037, 3611820;
556037, 3611884; 556041, 3611885; 556101, 3611901; 556214, 3611905;
556239, 3611937; 556313, 3611993; 556440, 3612043; 556442, 3612043;
556511, 3612053; 556578, 3611968; 556613, 3611912; 556684, 3611841;
556758, 3611806; 556815, 3611806; 556832, 3611806; thence returning to
556851, 3611831. Continue to 559269, 3608184; 559129, 3608366; 558512,
3608706; 557788, 3608752; 557674, 3608729; 557672, 3608729; 557672,
3608979; 557672, 3608979; 557793, 3608980; 558433, 3608985; 559266,
3608992; 559267, 3608896; 559267, 3608810; 559267, 3608809; 559268,
3608585; 559268, 3608448; 559268, 3608441; thence returning to 559269,
3608184. Continue to 551183, 3617445; 551182, 3617374; 550771, 3617373;
550851, 3617445; 551067, 3617445; thence returning to 551183, 3617445.
Continue to 551992, 3617445; 552177, 3617445; 552670, 3617384; 552673,
3617382; 552808, 3617319; 552870, 3617290; 552901, 3617276; 552934,
3617205; 552977, 3617113; 553009, 3617045; 553009, 3617022; 553009,
3616930; 553009, 3616705; 553009, 3616544; 553009, 3616397; 553101,
3616282; 553194, 3616166; 553285, 3616149; 553340, 3616138; 553348,
3616137; 553528, 3615859; 553528, 3615738; 553210, 3615735; 553209,
3616137; 553101, 3616137; 552875, 3616135; 552874, 3616544; 552873,
3616927; 552873, 3616929; 552873, 3616929; 552872, 3616985; 552810,
3616984; 552398, 3616983; 552252, 3616983; 551991, 3616983; thence
returning to 551992, 3617445. Continue to 556827, 3615793; 556828,
3615737; 556830, 3615408; 556831, 3614590; 556831, 3614555; 556816,
3614517; 556830, 3614504; 556831, 3614197; 556833, 3613792; 556834,
3613792; 556835, 3613521; 556835, 3613453; 556837, 3613299; 556840,
3612986; 556840, 3612930; 556842, 3612930; 556843, 3612929; 556844,
3612929; 556844, 3612927; 556844, 3612927; 556802, 3612921; 556740,
3612911; 556636, 3612867; 556619, 3612703; 556553, 3612654; 556515,
3612626; 556479, 3612608; 556444, 3612590; 556423, 3612580; 556416,
3612577; 556521, 3612314; 556400, 3612275; 556307, 3612263; 556206,
3612250; 556186, 3612248; 556121, 3612242; 556039, 3612202; 556022,
3612193; 556018, 3612187; 555967, 3612111; 555748, 3612067; 555710,
3612089; 555707, 3612183; 555704, 3612270; 555660, 3612423; 555647,
3612445; 555602, 3612514; 555590, 3612533; 555584, 3612544; 555577,
3612572; 555545, 3612703; 555507, 3612900; 555458, 3613294; 555375,
3613607; 555290, 3613781; 555280, 3613802; 555260, 3614054; 555275,
3614501; 555306, 3614948; 555310, 3614990; 555337, 3615287; 555386,
3615398; 555506, 3615673; 555626, 3615927; 555679, 3616039; 555707,
3616099; 555753, 3616197; 556016, 3616272; 556184, 3616320; 556215,
3616306; 556416, 3616218; 556437, 3616209; 556570, 3616151; thence
returning to 556827, 3615793. Continue to 551599, 3614195; 551570,
3614263; 551570, 3614263; 551526, 3614370; 551520, 3614383; 551521,
3614511; 551527, 3615370; 551528, 3615536; 551160, 3615550; 551160,
3615696; 551159, 3616111; 551186, 3616112; 551566, 3616122; 551567,
3615699; 551568, 3615371; 551570, 3614568; 551600, 3614567; 551600,
3614481; 551600, 3614370; 551599, 3614263; thence returning to 551599,
3614195. Continue to 554425, 3615730; 554441, 3615730; 554522, 3615639;
554643, 3615503; 554669, 3615392; 554705, 3615241; 554703, 3615200;
554693, 3614945; 554663, 3614637; 554666, 3614487; 554669, 3614396;
554795, 3614111; 554836, 3614027; 554844, 3614011; 554957, 3613779;
555058, 3613574; 555093, 3613469; 555125, 3613372; 554837, 3613372;
554834, 3613779; 554437, 3613777; 554435, 3613777; 554434, 3613580;
554432, 3613580; 554433, 3613380; 554434, 3613175; 554435, 3613041;
554435, 3612974; 554436, 3612795; 554436, 3612774; 554437, 3612565;
554439, 3612565; 554440, 3612406; 554440, 3612406; 554408, 3612449;
554411, 3612565; 554418, 3612773; 554419, 3612804; 554427, 3613038;
554432, 3613175; 554433, 3613218; 554175, 3613196; 554175, 3613378;
554175, 3613578; 554175, 3613771; 554102, 3613775; 554103, 3613775;
554432, 3613777; 554433, 3613777; 554429, 3614501; 554429, 3614578;
554425, 3615390; 554421, 3615720; 554425, 3615720; thence returning to
554425, 3615730. Continue to 551780, 3613764; 551611, 3614166; 552008,
3614166; 552272, 3614167; 552418, 3614167; 552419, 3613766; 552275,
3613766; 552008, 3613765; thence returning to 551780, 3613764. Continue
to 553772, 3613773; 553780, 3613744; 553775, 3613536; 553615, 3613536;
553617, 3613402; 553617, 3613401; 553617, 3613344; 553549, 3613376;
553194, 3613222; 552815, 3613352; 552815, 3613352; 552819, 3613767;
553417, 3613772; 553612, 3613773; 553772, 3613774; thence returning to
553772, 3613773.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 9 (La Posta/Campo) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 28861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.007
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 28862]]
(14) Unit 10: Jacumba Unit, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Jacumba, and Jacumba OE S. Land
bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 573863, 3613297;
574023, 3613274; 574161, 3613286; 574253, 3613292; 574396, 3613303;
574510, 3613303; 574638, 3613245; 574759, 3613218; 574955, 3613176;
575272, 3612817; 575656, 3612485; 575643, 3612410; 575643, 3612410;
575586, 3612080; 575458, 3612014; 575458, 3612014; 575439, 3612004;
575439, 3612004; 575245, 3611903; 575131, 3611815; 575017, 3611638;
575017, 3611608; 575017, 3611608; 575017, 3611404; 574935, 3611182;
575207, 3610803; 575428, 3610462; 575453, 3610310; 575637, 3610253;
575798, 3610029; 575798, 3610029; 575801, 3610025; 575696, 3609704;
575637, 3609610; 575634, 3609606; 575431, 3609284; 575322, 3609111;
575204, 3608925; 575204, 3608842; 575204, 3608780; 575204, 3608757;
575204, 3608606; 575204, 3608573; 575204, 3608558; 575172, 3608561;
574790, 3608586; 574711, 3608610; 574601, 3608645; 574490, 3608679;
574390, 3608710; 574377, 3608716; 574203, 3608800; 574198, 3608803;
574018, 3608889; 573950, 3608954; 573770, 3609124; 573586, 3609379;
573412, 3609620; 573227, 3609838; 573109, 3609978; 573149, 3610253;
573259, 3610819; 573038, 3611122; 573002, 3611221; 572980, 3611281;
572926, 3611429; 572872, 3611577; 572831, 3611688; 572824, 3611763;
572807, 3611925; 572803, 3611958; 572762, 3612351; 572770, 3612391;
572850, 3612772; 572860, 3612821; 573028, 3613163; 573037, 3613182;
573049, 3613205; 573238, 3613440; 573433, 3613566; 573668, 3613480;
573731, 3613440; 573737, 3613337; thence returning to 573863, 3613297.
(ii) Note: Unit 10 (Jacumba) for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is
depicted on the map in paragraph (13)(ii) of this entry.
* * * * *
Dated: June 8, 2009,
Jane Lyder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E9-13800 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S