74592 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU50 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

Skipper (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper (Pyrgus 

ruralis lagunae) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

6,242 acres (ac) (2,525 hectares (ha)) fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. The critical habitat 

is located in San Diego County, 

California, on lands under Federal 

(3,516 ac (1,423 ha)), State (381 ac (154 

ha)), and private (2,345 ac (948 ha)) 

ownership. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

January 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 

Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 

92011 (telephone 760/431–9440). The 

final rule, economic analysis, and maps 

are available via the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/ 

431–9440; facsimile, 760/431–9624. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. The role that designation of 

critical habitat plays in protecting 

habitat of listed species, however, is 

often misunderstood. As discussed in 

more detail below in the discussion of 

exclusions under ESA section 4(b)(2), 

there are significant limitations on the 

regulatory effect of designation under 

ESA section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) 

designation provides additional 

protection to habitat only where there is 

a federal nexus; (2) the protection is 

relevant only when, in the absence of 

designation, destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat 

would in fact take place (in other words, 

other statutory or regulatory protections, 

policies, or other factors relevant to 

agency decisionmaking would not 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification); and (3) designation of 

critical habitat triggers the prohibition 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of that habitat, but it does not require 

specific actions to restore or improve 

habitat. 

Currently, only 475 species or 36 

percent of the 1,310 listed species in the 

U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 

Service have designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,310 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

originally proposed for designation, we 

evaluated the benefits of designation in 

light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In that case, the Ninth Circuit 

invalidated the Service’s regulation 

defining ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat.’’ In 

response, on December 9, 2004, the 

Director issued guidance to be 

considered in making section 7 adverse 

modification determinations. This 

critical habitat designation does not use 

the invalidated regulation in our 

consideration of the benefits of 

including areas in this final designation. 

The Service will carefully manage 

future consultations that analyze 

impacts to designated critical habitat, 

particularly those that appear to be 

resulting in an adverse modification 

determination. Such consultations will 

be reviewed by the Regional Office prior 

to finalizing to ensure that an adequate 

analysis has been conducted that is 

informed by the Director’s guidance. 

On the other hand, to the extent that 

designation of critical habitat provides 

protection, that protection can come at 

significant social and economic cost. In 

addition, the mere administrative 

process of designation of critical habitat 

is expensive, time-consuming, and 

controversial. The current statutory 

framework of critical habitat, combined 

with past judicial interpretations of the 

statute, make critical habitat the subject 

of excessive litigation. As a result, 

critical habitat designations are driven 

by litigation and courts rather than 

biology, and made at a time and under 

a timeframe that limits our ability to 

obtain and evaluate the scientific and 

other information required to make the 

designation most meaningful. 

In light of these circumstances, the 

Service believes that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, the Service’s 

own proposals to list critically 

imperiled species, and final listing 

determinations on existing proposals are 

all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, and is very expensive, 

thus diverting resources from 

conservation actions that may provide 

relatively more benefit to imperiled 

species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74593 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

These costs, which are not required for 

many other conservation actions, 

directly reduce the funds available for 

direct and tangible conservation actions. 

Background 

It is our intent in this document to 

reiterate and discuss only those topics 

directly relevant to the development 

and designation of critical habitat or 

relevant information obtained since the 

final listing. For more information on 

the biology and ecology of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper, refer to the final 

rule listing this species as endangered 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), and the 

proposed critical habitat rule for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper published in 

the Federal Register on December 13, 

2005 (70 FR 73699). 

Previous Federal Actions 

Previous Federal actions for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper can be found 

in the proposed critical habitat rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73699). 

On January 10, 2003, the Center for 

Biological Diversity (Center) filed a 

lawsuit against the Service for violations 

under the Act and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II) 

for the Service’s failure to designate 

critical habitat for the species (CBD v. 

USFWS Civ. No. 03–0058-BTM (NLS)). 

In a stipulated settlement agreement 

dated July 29, 2003, the Service agreed 

to reconsider its ‘‘not prudent’’ finding 

and propose critical habitat, if prudent, 

on or before November 30, 2005, and to 

publish a final critical habitat rule, if 

prudent, on or before November 30, 

2006. This final rule complies with the 

settlement agreement. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested comments from the 

public on the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Laguna 

Mountains skipper during three 

comment periods. The first comment 

period opened on December 13, 2006, 

associated with the publication of the 

proposed rule (70 FR 73699) and closed 

on February 13, 2006. The second 

comment period opened on April 13, 

2006, associated with the 

announcement of a public hearing held 

on April 22, 2006, in Carlsbad, CA (71 

FR 19157), and closed on May 15, 2006. 

We also requested comments on the 

proposed rule and draft economic 

analysis (DEA) during a comment 

period that opened July 7, 2006 (71 FR 

38593) and closed on August 7, 2006. 

We contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule during these three 

comment periods. 

During the first comment period, we 

received 8 comment letters directly 

addressing the proposed critical habitat 

designation: 4 from peer reviewers, 1 

from a Federal agency, and 3 from 

organizations or individuals. During the 

second comment period, we received 1 

comment letter from a Federal agency 

and 1 transcribed statement from an 

organization during the public hearing 

directly addressing the proposed critical 

habitat designation. During the final 

comment period associated with the 

DEA, we received 1 comment letter from 

a Federal agency and 1 comment from 

an organization directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and the draft economic analysis. 

In total, seven commenters supported 

designation (2 comments were from the 

same commenter) of critical habitat for 

the Laguna Mountains skipper, two 

opposed designation (2 comments were 

from the same commenter), and one 

commenter expressed neither support 

nor opposition to the proposed critical 

habitat designation. Comments received 

are addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from six knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

four of the peer reviewers. Peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

the Laguna Mountains skipper, and 

addressed them in the following 

summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the PCEs appear appropriate; 

however use of the alternate hostplant 

Potentilla glandulosa may not be 

necessary or essential because its use 

may be limited to special circumstances. 

Our Response: We agree P. glandulosa 

use appears to be limited to special 

circumstances, but we believe the 

scientific information available (Pratt 

2006, p. 4) indicates it increases 

population survival probability in 

circumstances where this alternate 

hostplant co-occurs with the most 

commonly utilized hostplant, Horkelia 

clevelandii. Under special 

circumstances (e.g. dry environmental 

conditions), the Laguna Mountains 

skipper is likely to use this alternate 

hostplant that grows more commonly in 

shaded areas, and have a higher survival 

rate as compared to use of H. clevelandii 

under the same special circumstances. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that we should use presence 

of the hostplant, Potentilla glandulosa, 

as a criterion to identify critical habitat 

in addition to Horkelia clevelandii. 

Our Response: As stated in our 

response to Comment 1, we believe P. 

glandulosa may only be a necessary or 

essential hostplant for population 

survival in circumstances where it cooccurs with H. clevelandii. Also, while 

the use by the Laguna Mountains 

skipper of P. glandulosa as a hostplant 

has been documented (Pratt 1999, p. 10; 

Osborne 2005), we have no occurrence 

data for P. glandulosa. Therefore, we are 

unable to map areas occupied by this 

hostplant species as critical habitat. 

(3) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

suggested subunits should be connected 

because areas between subunits are 

essential for Laguna Mountains skipper 

movement. Both reviewers stated 

Laguna Mountains skippers disperse 

farther than 20 meters, and cautioned 

reliance on mark-release-recapture 

studies because they tend to 

underestimate dispersal ability. One 

reviewer stated he has observed a male 

Laguna Mountains skipper flying over 

trees; another stated he has seen Laguna 

Mountains skippers fly over 50 meters 

in seconds, and into forested areas 

without returning. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information and agree that connectivity 

between subunits should be maintained 

to provide for species’ movement. 

However, we based the delineation of 

critical habitat on the presence of the 

species or the presence of the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) (e.g. 

hostplants within forest openings). Most 

areas between subunits are not known 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74594 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

to contain either the species or the 

PCEs. Movement areas cannot be 

identified as a PCE because, as reviewer 

comments indicated, areas that allow 

butterfly flight are relatively allinclusive and thus cannot be 

specifically described in a relevant way 

that differentiates essential habitat from 

non-essential habitat. Also, as a result of 

movement areas being relatively allinclusive, we do not know what specific 

geographic areas between subunits are 

essential for movement. Although a 

greater ability to disperse than 

commonly hypothesized would mean 

more frequent movement among habitat 

patches than indicated in the proposed 

critical habitat rule, it would not change 

how we identified critical habitat. See 

the Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section below for more 

information. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted compatibility of grazing with 

Laguna Mountains skipper occupancy 

depends not only on cattle density, but 

also environmental conditions. He 

stated that while cattle do not normally 

eat hostplants during larval butterfly 

development, he has observed heavy 

grazing on hostplants during drought 

years on Laguna Mountain. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information and have incorporated it 

into the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this final rule. We will also consider 

this information in future management 

recommendations. 

(5) Comment: One peer-reviewer 

stated that the Laguna Mountains 

skipper may be extirpated on Laguna 

Mountain, and captive breeding is the 

only way to ensure long-term survival of 

the species. 

Our Response: We acknowledge 

individuals have not been detected in 

this unit since 1999 (Pratt 1999, p. 7), 

and any remaining populations are not 

likely to be resilient enough to survive 

into the foreseeable future under current 

conditions. However, because 

insufficient evidence exists to conclude 

Laguna Mountain no longer supports an 

extant population in Unit 1, a 

presumption of extirpation would be 

premature. Even more detectable and 

highly surveyed butterfly populations 

that appeared to have been extirpated 

have been rediscovered, at least 

temporarily (e.g. Basu 1997, p.1, Essig 

Museum 2006). Surveys of varying 

intensity and duration were conducted 

in 8 of the 10 years between 1994 and 

2003. During this 10-year period, only 

four adult skippers were found: A single 

individual in 1995 (Levy 1997, pp. i–

xxvi); one adult in 1996 (Levy 1997, pp. 

i–xxvi); and at least two adults in 1999 

(Pratt 1999, p. 7). All observations of 

adult skippers have been at the El 

Prado/Laguna Campground. A single 

skipper larval shelter was found in 1997 

at the Meadow Kiosk, along Sunrise 

Highway (Pratt 1999, p. 27). Despite 

recent intensive survey efforts at 

historical locations and select areas 

considered to be suitable skipper habitat 

(Faulkner 2000, p. 2; 2001, p. 2; 2002, 

p. 1; 2003, p. 2; 2004, p. 2; Osborne 

2002, p. 2; 2003, p. 2), such as Agua 

Dulce campground, adult skippers have 

not been seen on Laguna Mountain 

since 1999. However, not all suitable 

habitat has been intensively surveyed 

and low density populations are 

difficult to detect. We agree captive 

breeding may be necessary to ensure 

long-term survival of the species on 

Laguna Mountain. 

(6) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed critical 

habitat rule alluded to the Laguna 

Mountains skipper fitting a 

metapopulation distribution, while such 

distribution has not been established 

through research. He also stated the 

critical habitat designation was based on 

the species representing a 

metapopulation behavior. 

Our Response: We do not know what 

type of population dynamics the species 

exhibits and did not intend to imply 

that we did understand such dynamics. 

Under the Species Status and 

Distribution section of the proposed 

rule, our statement, ‘‘If the Laguna 

Mountains skipper populations are 

characterized by metapopulation 

dynamics, habitat patches within the 

population distribution not occupied at 

any given time are still required for 

population viability,’’ was intended to 

convey that not all suitable habitat is 

occupied at the same time and habitat 

that does not appear to be occupied at 

a given time is still important for 

population viability. We delineated 

critical habitat on Palomar and Laguna 

Mountains based on the following 

criteria (and not on metapopulation 

behavior): (1) Meadow complexes 

occupied by the Laguna Mountains 

skipper at the time of listing; (2) 

meadow complexes known to be 

currently occupied; and (3) meadow 

complexes historically, but not known 

to be currently, occupied but considered 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. For more information see the 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section below. 

(7) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that he agreed meadows are 

essential for survival of the species, and 

dependable water sources must be 

available. He expressed concern that 

loss of water in Laguna Mountain’s 

‘‘upper Boiling Springs survey site’’ has 

greatly reduced the abundance and 

diversity of skipper species in the past 

3 to 4 years. He expressed the opinion 

that water loss has resulted in 

extirpation of the ‘‘Hilda blue butterfly’’

from Palomar Mountain and stated that 

ground water monitoring is crucial for 

maintaining populations of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information and concurrence with our 

PCEs and criteria used to identify 

critical habitat. We agree that water 

availability is important for the species’

conservation which is why it was 

included as a primary constituent 

element in the proposed and this final 

critical habitat rule. 

(8) Comment: One peer reviewer 

disagreed with our statement ‘‘few, 

incomplete or no recent surveys have 

been conducted at sites not known to be 

occupied [Subunits 1B & 1C].’’ He stated 

that most sites on Laguna Mountain 

have been surveyed during the past 3 to 

4 years, with negative results. He further 

stated that this does not mean the 

Laguna Mountains skipper is absent 

from those areas, but ‘‘rather has not 

been encountered during first 

generation protocol surveys.’’

Our Response: We appreciate the 

correction. To clarify, the majority of 

high-quality habitat sites on Laguna 

Mountain have been regularly surveyed 

for the past 3 to 4 years; however, some 

areas remain unsurveyed or only 

sporadically surveyed. We also agree 

this does not mean the Laguna 

Mountains skipper is absent from those 

areas which are adjacent to occupied 

habitat or were historically occupied. 

(9) Comment: One peer reviewer 

questioned why subunits 1B and 1C 

were proposed for designation, because 

no Laguna Mountains skippers have 

been recorded from these units. She 

questioned why these specific areas 

were selected rather than other sites on 

Laguna Mountain where the hostplant 

grows. 

Our Response: As stated in our 

response to Comment 5 we acknowledge 

populations on Laguna Mountain 

appear to be small; however, 

insufficient evidence exists to conclude 

Laguna Mountain no longer supports an 

extant population. Subunits 1B and 1C 

were included in the designation 

because: (1) These areas were 

considered to be historically occupied 

by the species; (2) they are the nearest 

to the occupied unit 1C where our data 

indicates they contain high densities of 

hostplant; and (3) they are likely to be 

important future species reintroduction 

sites on Laguna Mountain. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74595 

(10) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated it was not known if all areas 

proposed as critical habitat were 

essential to conservation of the species. 

However, she also stated it seemed 

appropriate to designate patches of 

meadow habitat with hostplants 

between, and adjacent to, recent 

sightings of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. 

Our Response: As described in the 

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

section of the proposed rule and this 

final rule, we delineated critical habitat 

to include patches of meadow habitat 

with hostplants between and adjacent to 

recent sightings of Laguna Mountains 

skippers. We cannot determine what 

geographic scale the peer reviewer was 

referring to. 

(11) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated she agreed that no areas outside 

of our proposed designation should 

have been proposed for designation. 

However, she also stated that of the 

areas not proposed for critical habitat 

designation, the area most likely to be 

essential is Dyche Valley on Palomar 

Mountain, south of Mendenhall Valley. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information and concurrence with our 

proposed designation. We included a 

discussion in the proposed rule of 

unoccupied areas that may contain 

suitable habitat for the species as part of 

a discussion of the species’ current 

status and distribution (see Status and 

Distribution section of the proposed 

rule). We did not include Dyche Valley 

because we had no hostplant or species 

occurrence information for this area, 

and therefore could not conclude it was 

essential to the species’ conservation. 

(12) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

stated Laguna Mountains skippers use 

more diverse nectar sources than 

indicated in the proposed critical 

habitat rule. One peer reviewer 

suggested the list of nectar sources 

should include Taraxacum vulgare 

(common dandelion) and the hostplant 

Horkelia clevelandii. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information, and will consider it in 

future management recommendations. 

We believe the PCEs are sufficiently 

broad with regard to use of diverse 

nectar sources, and already include the 

hostplant H. clevelandii, therefore we 

did not revise our PCEs. 

(13) Comment: One peer reviewer 

expressed concern that population size 

estimates and comparisons given in the 

proposed critical habitat rule were not 

reliable. He expressed particular 

concern that due to disease, parasitism, 

and predation, these kind of estimates 

extrapolated from immature life stages 

greatly overestimate population size. 

Our Response: We agree that there is 

a high amount of uncertainty inherent 

in the population estimates and the 

effect of factors such as disease, 

parasitism, and predation on the 

population may not be accurately 

reflected. However, even with these 

limitations, the population estimates 

outlined in the proposed rule are 

currently the best available information. 

We appreciate this information and will 

consider it in future management 

recommendations. 

Public Comments 

(14) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that U.S. Forest Service (Forest 

Service or USFS) actions to date, and 

land management plans addressing 

conservation of Laguna Mountains 

skipper habitat, should result in 

exclusion of Cleveland National Forest 

lands from critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: We acknowledge the 

Cleveland National Forest has 

implemented measures to minimize 

impacts to the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. We also acknowledge two 

existing Forest Service management 

plans contain general provisions for 

conservation of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper: the Land Management Plan for 

the Cleveland National Forest (LMP, 

Forest Service 2005, pp. 1–57) and a 

habitat management guide for four 

sensitive plant species in mountain 

meadows (Cleveland National Forest 

1991, pp. 1–36). The habitat 

management guide, while providing 

more specific conservation measures 

than the land management plan, is still 

specific to ‘‘discrete [montane] meadow 

communities’’ and the four sensitive 

plant species. While these mapped 

community areas (Cleveland National 

Forest 1991, pp. 5–7) do include some 

areas identified as essential for Laguna 

Mountains skipper (e.g. southern 

Mendenhall Valley; see unit 

descriptions below), many smaller forest 

openings and adjacent open-canopy 

woodland areas are not included, such 

as Observatory Campground and Trail. 

Also, habitat management guides and 

plans do not mandate conservation 

measures, and therefore do not provide 

adequate protection of essential habitat. 

For example, the 1993 scheduled 

management action for Delphinium 

hesparium (Cleveland National Forest 

1991 p.17), a grazing exclosure in the 

Garnet Kiosk area (southern Laguna 

Meadow area, also identified as 

essential to the Laguna Mountains 

skipper), has not yet been implemented. 

Existing Forest Service measures and 

management plans do not provide 

specific or sufficient enough 

conservation measures for Laguna 

Mountains skipper habitat, and the 

benefits of including these areas within 

critical habitat are not outweighed by 

any potential benefits of excluding the 

areas (see Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section of this final 

rule for a detailed discussion). 

Therefore, we did not exclude Forest 

Service lands from the final designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(15) Comment: One commenter stated 

that lands managed by the Cleveland 

National Forest should not be excluded 

from critical habitat designation based 

on their Land Management Plan because 

the plan provides few specific benefits 

to the species. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

in the response to Comment 14 above, 

we did not exclude Forest Service lands 

from the final designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(16) Comment: Two commenters 

asserted that the Laguna Mountains 

skipper may be extirpated on Laguna 

Mountain; therefore designation of 

critical habitat at that location is not 

appropriate. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to Comment 5 above, 

insufficient information exists to 

conclude Laguna Mountain no longer 

supports an extant population in Unit 1. 

Therefore, we cannot agree at this time 

with the commenter’s assertion. Also, if 

the Laguna Mountains skipper has been 

extirpated from Laguna Mountain, 

reintroduction will likely to be 

necessary to promote the conservation 

of the subspecies, and unoccupied 

habitat would still be considered 

essential. Current occupancy is not 

required for the designation of critical 

habitat if the area is essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

(17) Comment: One commenter stated 

that if critical habitat is designated, a 

greater conservation value could be 

achieved by further limiting critical 

habitat designation to a ‘‘more refined 

boundary’’ within proposed critical 

habitat. Specific recommended refined 

boundaries, primarily following the U.S. 

Forest Service’s habitat model for 

Laguna Mountains skipper, were 

delineated on maps provided with these 

comments. 

Our Response: We re-evaluated the 

methodology used to delineate the 

proposed critical habitat unit 

boundaries and have revised the final 

critical habitat unit boundaries based on 

information provided by this 

commenter. In total, these revisions 

have resulted in the removal of 

approximately 420 ac (169 ha) from 

final critical habitat (see Summary of 

Changes from the Proposed Rule section 

below for a detailed discussion). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74596 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(18) Comment: One commenter stated 

that designation of critical habitat will 

‘‘further hinder or destroy all economic 

activity’’ and ‘‘terminate or curtail 

recreational use’’ on Forest Service land 

on Laguna Mountain. 

Our Response: Although designation 

of critical habitat may increase the 

number of Forest Service consultations 

on projects in essential habitat, and 

should increase conservation measures 

for the species at a few key locations, 

the designation should not significantly 

increase restrictions on economic 

activities or restrict recreational 

activities relative to current levels. As 

stated below (under Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection), economic activities, such as 

relatively low density grazing, should 

not adversely modify habitat if carefully 

managed to minimize or avoid 

destruction of hostplants. The total 

estimated future costs (loss of economic 

gain due to critical habitat designation) 

in the Draft Economic Analysis over the 

next 20 years to grazing on Laguna 

Mountain range from $42,000 to $76,000 

(Industrial Economics, Incorporated, 

p. ES–10). Total estimated future cost 

for recreational activities is $3,305,000 

(Industrial Economics, Incorporated, p. 

ES–10). Total future costs to grazing and 

recreation on Laguna Mountain average 

from $167,350 to $169,050 per year, a 

relatively low estimate. The Draft 

Economic Analysis states, ‘‘While 

changes in [livestock production and 

recreational camping] could affect the 

regional economy, the magnitude of the 

expected change is insignificant (i.e., 

less than one percent for grazing and 

less than 0.01 percent for camping) in 

light of the total size of the regional 

economy.’’ (Industrial Economics, 

Incorporated, p. ES–13). Future cost 

value estimates will also be reduced by 

the reduction in area designated as 

critical habitat relative to what was 

proposed (see Summary of Changes 

from Proposed Rule below). 

(19) Comment: One commenter stated 

that subunits 1B and 1C on Laguna 

Mountain should not be designated as 

critical habitat because: (1) Subunit 1A 

provides substantial habitat already; (2) 

subunits 1B and 1C are not contiguous 

with Laguna Meadow as stated in the 

proposed critical habitat rule; and (3) 

designation based on potential 

reintroduction is not justified. 

Our Response: As stated in the 

proposed rule, Subunits 1B and 1C were 

proposed as critical habitat because they 

are connected to occupied habitat, were 

historically occupied, and contain 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. To clarify, while not physically 

connected, these subunits are 

ecologically connected to occupied 

habitat (Laguna Meadow) by relatively 

undisturbed forested habitat that allows 

for species movement between Laguna 

Meadow and Subunits 1B and 1C. We 

have clarified this in the Critical Habitat 

Designation section of this final rule. 

We also stated in the proposed rule that 

we believe that given the species’ small 

population size and very limited range, 

reintroduction may be necessary for 

long-term persistence of the species. 

Since critical habitat identifies areas 

essential to species conservation, we 

believe inclusion of these unoccupied 

areas in final critical habitat is justified. 

(20) Comment: One commenter stated 

the designation of independent, nonconnected subunits within each 

mountain contradicts the statement in 

the proposed rule that connectivity 

areas among meadows are required for 

species’ survival. The commenter stated 

that Laguna Mountains skippers are 

‘‘highly mobile’’ and known to fly 

through forested environments, and 

failure to designate critical habitat 

connecting subunits could reduce the 

likelihood of species survival. 

Our Response: See response to 

Comment 3 above. 

(21) Comment: One commenter stated 

because hostplant mapping and 

knowledge of habitat use by Laguna 

Mountains skippers is incomplete, all 

areas within hostplant elevation limits 

on Laguna Mountain should be 

designated as critical habitat. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

hostplant mapping and knowledge of 

habitat use by Laguna Mountains 

skippers is incomplete; however, we are 

required to use the best available 

information to designate habitat that 

contains the primary constituent 

elements required by the species and is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. In the absence of more 

complete hostplant mapping 

information, we limited the designation 

to those areas that the available 

information indicates contain the PCEs 

and are essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

(22) Comment: One commenter 

wanted to make sure that critical habitat 

designation would not affect the fire 

safety of human and natural 

communities on Laguna Mountain. 

Our Response: The designation of 

critical habitat will not affect fire safety 

of human communities on Laguna 

Mountain. Public safety is always the 

first priority in the event of a fire. Also, 

the local Service field office has several 

biologists trained as resource advisors 

who work cooperatively with 

firefighters to ensure that impacts to 

natural communities are minimized to 

the maximum extent practicable during 

fire fighting activities. As stated below 

(under Special Management 

Considerations or Protection), fire 

management activities, such as tree and 

brush removal for fuel modification, 

should not adversely modify habitat if 

carefully managed to minimize or avoid 

destruction of hostplants. 

(23) Comment: One commenter 

objected to our assertion that critical 

habitat provides little benefit above that 

provided by other provisions of the Act. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

sections ‘‘Designation of Critical Habitat 

Provides Little Additional Protection to 

Species,’’ ‘‘Role of Critical Habitat in 

Actual Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act,’’ and 

‘‘Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat’’ and other 

sections of this and other critical habitat 

designations, we believe that, in most 

cases, other conservation mechanisms 

provide greater incentives and 

conservation benefits than does the 

designation of critical habitat. These 

other mechanisms include the section 4 

recovery planning process, section 6 

funding to the States, section 7 

consultations, the section 9 protective 

prohibitions of unauthorized take, the 

section 10 incidental take permit 

process, and cooperative programs with 

private and public landholders and 

tribal nations. 

Comments Related to the Draft 

Economic Analysis (DEA) 

(24) Comment: One comment stated 

that the DEA fails to evaluate benefits 

associated with protecting critical 

habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. The same commenter noted 

that cost savings associated with 

protecting the hydrological function of 

meadows and conducting fire abatement 

around proposed new utility structures 

throughout critical habitat should be 

included in the DEA. 

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the Secretary to designate 

critical habitat based on the best 

scientific data available after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Service’s approach for estimating 

economic impacts includes both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. The measurement of economic 

efficiency is based on the concept of 

opportunity costs, which reflect the 

value of goods and services foregone in 

order to comply with the effects of the 

designation (e.g., lost economic 

opportunity associated with restrictions 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74597 

on land use). Where data are available, 

the economic analyses do attempt to 

measure the net economic impact. 

However, no data was found that would 

allow for the measurement of such an 

impact, nor was such information 

submitted during the public comment 

period. 

While the Secretary must consider 

economic and other relevant impacts as 

part of the final decision-making 

process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

the Act explicitly states that it is the 

government’s policy to conserve all 

threatened and endangered species and 

the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. Thus, we believe that explicit 

consideration of broader social values 

for the subspecies and its habitat, 

beyond the more traditionally defined 

economic impacts, is not necessary as 

Congress has already clarified the social 

importance. 

We note, as a practical matter, it is 

difficult to develop credible estimates of 

such values, as they are not readily 

observed through typical market 

transactions and can only be inferred 

through advanced, tailor-made studies 

that are time consuming and expensive 

to conduct. We currently lack both the 

budget and time needed to conduct such 

research before meeting our courtordered final rule deadline. In summary, 

we believe that society places 

significant value on conserving any and 

all threatened and endangered species 

and the habitats upon which they 

depend and thus needs only to consider 

whether the economic impacts (both 

positive and negative) are significant 

enough to merit exclusion of any 

particular area without causing the 

species to go extinct. 

(25) Comment: One comment stated 

that the DEA overestimates costs 

associated with conserving the Laguna 

Mountains skipper, because it includes 

economic impacts attributable to listing 

under the ESA. The comment further 

stated that the costs associated with 

listing of a species are separate from 

critical habitat designation and therefore 

should not be included in the economic 

impacts analysis for critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

is intended to assist the Secretary in 

determining whether the benefits of 

excluding particular areas from the 

designation outweigh the biological 

benefits of including those areas in the 

designation. Also, this information 

allows us to comply with direction from 

the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 

that ‘‘co-extensive’’ effects should be 

included in the economic analysis to 

inform decision-makers regarding which 

areas to designate as critical habitat 

(New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (248 F.3d 1277)). 

This analysis identifies those 

potential activities believed to be most 

likely to threaten the Laguna Mountains 

skipper and its habitat and, where 

possible, quantifies the economic 

impact to avoid, mitigate, or compensate 

for such threats within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. 

Where critical habitat is being proposed 

after a species is listed, some future 

impacts may be unavoidable, regardless 

of the final designation and exclusions 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

However, due to the difficulty in 

making a credible distinction between 

listing and critical habitat effects within 

critical habitat boundaries, this analysis 

considers all future conservation-related 

impacts to be co-extensive with the 

designation. 

(26) Comment: One comment stated 

the costs for fuel management projects 

are underestimated because they do not 

include increased costs associated with 

additional planning and analysis as well 

as higher treatment costs that might be 

associated with avoiding certain areas 

within proposed critical habitat areas. 

Our Response: We revised the DEA to 

include the costs associated with 

additional planning, analysis, and 

treatment required to ensure that 

Laguna Mountains skipper habitat is 

avoided. Cleveland National Forest staff 

estimate these costs to be approximately 

$2,000 per fuels management project 

and three fuels management projects per 

year in proposed critical habitat areas, 

or approximately $6,000 per year. 

(27) Comment: One comment stated 

the administrative costs associated with 

section 7 consultations for the 

Cleveland National Forest are ‘‘very 

much underestimated.’’

Our Response: Based on information 

provided by the Cleveland National 

Forest, we revised the DEA’s estimate of 

future administrative costs associated 

with section 7 consultations. As shown 

in Exhibit 8–8 of the DEA, 

administrative costs are forecasted to be 

$1.4 million (undiscounted dollars) over 

the next 20 years. In present value 

terms, costs are $1.1 million, assuming 

a three percent discount rate; and 

$828,000, assuming a seven percent 

discount rate. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

Based on information received from 

Terrell (2006a, p. 3 and 4) during the 

public comment periods, we reevaluated the proposed critical habitat 

boundaries. Terrell (2006a, p. 3 and 4) 

suggested we limit critical habitat 

designation to Cleveland National 

Forest’s Laguna Mountains skipper 

modeled habitat (Winter 2000, pg. 1) 

within proposed critical habitat units. 

Methodology in Winter (2000, pg. 1) 

was described as follows: 

‘‘Elevation between 4000 and 6100 feet. 

Vegetation type is grassland that is within 

100 meters of contact with oak woodland/ 

conifer forest vegetation type and conifer/ 

woodland type that is within 100 meters of 

contact with grassland. As of 3/6 [2000], heb 

(herbaceous in veg cover was limited by 3 

soil types, crouch, reiff, loamy alluvial). 

Additional work included incorporating 

entire meadows in addition to the edges 

based on the 100m contact above, and 

excluding the most southern (Corta Madera) 

portions of screen due to vegetation surveys 

indicating no presence of Horkelia [on] 

private lands.’’

This qualitative method of delineating 

meadows in many areas on Laguna 

Mountain is similar to the information 

we used in our critical habitat proposal 

(see Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat section below). Terrell (2006a, 

pp. 5, 6) provided a map using Winter’s 

(2000) methods to map habitat within 

proposed critical habitat units, and 

recommended limiting critical habitat 

designation to those areas. We 

considered this information and agreed 

that using the modeled habitat 

constituted the best available scientific 

information, thus justifying some unit 

boundary adjustments; however 

additional data on habitat type use (e.g., 

open oak woodland at Pine Hill 

(Osborne 2002)) and host plant 

distribution since 2000 justify including 

some areas not mapped by Winter 

(2000, pg.1). 

We overlaid the Cleveland National 

Forest’s Laguna Mountains skipper 

modeled habitat (Winter 2000, pg. 1) 

boundaries on the proposed critical 

habitat boundaries for Unit 1 (Laguna 

Mountain) and removed those areas 

from proposed critical habitat which fell 

outside of the modeled habitat and for 

which we did not have main hostplant 

(Horkelia clevelandii) occurrence data 

(see the Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat section below for a 

detailed discussion). This re-evaluation 

resulted in the removal of 

approximately 420 ac (169 ha) from Unit 

1 (Laguna Mountain). The areas 

removed were primarily located in the 

northeastern portion of Subunit 1B, the 

southwestern portion of Subunit 1C, 

and the southeastern portion of Subunit 

1A, as well as open woodland north of 

Boiling Springs Ravine in Subunit 1A. 

This re-evaluation of proposed critical 

habitat boundaries did not result in any 

changes to lands designated in Unit 2. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74598 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) 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 (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) 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 to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 is a purely protective measure 

and does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. 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 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features thereon may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Thus, we 

do not include areas where existing 

management is sufficient to conserve 

the species. (As discussed below, such 

areas may also be excluded from critical 

habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2)). 

Areas outside of the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing may only be included in critical 

habitat if they are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, when the best available 

scientific data do not demonstrate that 

the conservation needs of the species 

require additional areas, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing. An 

area currently occupied by the species 

but not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing will likely, but not 

always, be essential to the conservation 

of the species and, therefore, typically 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service 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 determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources 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. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 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 may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

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, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

designate as critical habitat within areas 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, we consider those physical and 

biological features (PCEs) that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historical geographical and 

ecological distributions of a species. 

The specific primary constituent 

elements required for the Laguna 

Mountains skipper are derived from the 

biological needs of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper as described in the 

Background section of the proposed rule 

(70 FR 73699). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74599 

Food, Water, or Other Nutritional or 

Physiological Requirements 

Laguna Mountains skippers require 

sunlight provided in the open meadows, 

open woodlands, or other forest 

openings. Butterflies are exothermic 

(i.e., they remain at the same 

temperature as their environment) and, 

like most insects, body temperature is of 

overriding importance in limiting flight 

(Chapman 1982, p. 217–272). Butterfly 

flight activity is limited by light 

intensity. Therefore, they require areas 

for basking in the sun in order to raise 

their body temperature for flight 

(Chapman 1982, p. 217–272). 

Additionally, surface moisture such as 

puddles and seeps (not flowing water) 

provide water and minerals for adults. 

Adult Laguna Mountains skippers need 

annual or perennial nectar sources 

including meadow and woodlandassociated herbaceous annual 

wildflowers, and perennial herbs (e.g. 

Horkelia clevelandii, Lasthenia spp. 

(goldfields), Pentachaeta aurea (goldenrayed pentachaeta), Ranunculus spp. 

(buttercups), and Sidalcea spp. 

(checkerbloom)). 

Sites for Breeding and Reproduction 

Laguna Mountains skippers require 

Horkelia clevelandii to lay eggs on and 

for the caterpillars to eat and construct 

their pupal shelters. The species has 

also been documented on Potentilla 

glandulosa (Pratt 1999, p. 10; Osborne 

2005). However, P. glandulosa may only 

be used as a hostplant for population 

survival in special circumstances (e.g., 

dry environmental conditions) where it 

occurs near H. clevelandii. Hostplant 

patches must be dense enough to 

support breeding (provide multiple and 

diverse sites for depositing eggs), 

although the exact host-plant patch size 

and density required for breeding is not 

known. A ‘‘patch’’ of hostplants may 

consist of one to several clumps of H. 

clevelandii or P. glandulosa growing 

together, as well as numerous 

individual plants that are growing in 

close proximity to each other. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, and for Normal Behavior 

The species’ current geographic range 

is fragmented and small, population 

densities are relatively low, and the 

quality of most breeding habitat has 

been compromised to some degree by 

grazing, recreation impacts, or alien 

plants. Therefore, all landscape 

connectivity areas among occupied 

meadows and forest openings that adult 

Laguna Mountains skippers can move 

through are required for the 

conservation of the species. To facilitate 

the use of connectivity areas for adult 

movement between breeding sites, 

maintenance of populations of 

hostplants and adult nectar sources is 

important, even if they are not likely to 

be used for breeding. 

Historical and Geographic Distribution 

of the Species 

The occupied areas designated as 

critical habitat are representative of the 

historical and geographical distribution 

of the species. Areas included in the 

final designation that are not known to 

be occupied were all historically 

occupied and will restore a portion of 

the historical geographic distribution of 

the Laguna Mountains skipper. 

Connectivity is required for 

recolonization of habitat to occur (e.g., 

after extirpation by fire) and for genetic 

diversity to be maintained. 

Primary Constituents for the Laguna 

Mountains Skipper 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (PCEs) essential 

to the conservation of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. All areas designated 

as critical habitat for the Laguna 

Mountains skipper are within the 

species’ historical geographic range and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support at 

least one life history function. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the Laguna Mountains 

skipper’s PCEs are: 

(1) The hostplants, Horkelia 

clevelandii or Potentilla glandulosa, in 

meadows or forest openings needed for 

reproduction. 

(2) Nectar sources suitable for feeding 

by adult Laguna Mountains skippers, 

including Lasthenia spp., Pentachaeta 

aurea, Ranunculus spp., and Sidalcea 

spp. found in woodlands or meadows. 

(3) Wet soil or standing water 

associated with features such as seeps, 

springs, or creeks where water and 

minerals are obtained during the adult 

flight season. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of areas supporting PCEs 

necessary to support the life history 

functions which were the basis for the 

proposal. In general, critical habitat 

units are designated based on sufficient 

PCEs being present to support one or 

more of the species’ life history 

functions. In this instance, all units 

contain all PCEs and support multiple 

life processes. Because not all life 

history functions require all the PCEs, 

not all critical habitat will uniformly 

contain all the PCEs. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we use the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. We have also 

reviewed available information that 

pertains to the habitat requirements of 

this species. Information sources 

include data from field surveys for 

Horkelia clevelandii, regional 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

vegetation and species coverages, data 

compiled in the California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB), and survey 

data for the Laguna Mountains skipper 

from reports submitted by biologists 

holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery 

permits. We identified critical habitat 

based on the assessment of those 

physical and biological components 

identified above, the known and 

historical occurrences of Laguna 

Mountains skipper, and available 

information on the distribution of H. 

clevelandii. We designated no areas 

outside the individual mountains 

presently occupied by the species. 

To delineate critical habitat, we 

identified meadow complexes 

(meadows and forest openings 

connected by open forest canopy) on 

Palomar and Laguna Mountains 

occupied by the Laguna Mountains 

skipper at the time of listing and known 

to be currently occupied. The species 

was known to occupy only one meadow 

complex (Laguna Meadow) on Laguna 

Mountain at the time of listing, but we 

also identified two meadow complexes 

on Laguna Mountain that contain 

habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of the species. These 

meadow complexes were not known to 

be occupied at the time of listing, 

however, they have not been extensively 

surveyed, and Laguna Mountain as a 

whole was historically considered to be 

occupied by the skipper. These areas are 

important for expansion and 

enhancement of populations in Laguna 

Meadow and are therefore considered 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Using infrared satellite imagery, we 

visually outlined meadows and forest 

openings that contained species or 

hostplant occurrence data. Maps were 

produced by overlaying a 328 square ft 

(100 square m) grid on the initial handdrawn polygons and selecting those grid 

cells that fell within the hand drawn 

polygons. Specifically, on Palomar 

Mountain (Unit 2) we defined subunits 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74600 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

based on the selected grid cells because 

meadows were more clearly defined and 

species occupancy and distribution 

information was more clearly defined. 

On Laguna Mountain (Unit 1), where 

meadows were not as clearly defined 

and species distribution information 

and occupancy was less certain, we then 

overlaid the Cleveland National Forest’s 

Laguna Mountains skipper modeled 

habitat boundaries and removed areas 

outside of the modeled habitat for 

which we did not have occurrence data 

for the species or its main hostplant 

(Horkelia clevelandii). Specifically, we 

removed: (1) All grid cells more than 

328 ft (100 m) distant from species 

occurrence locations, hostplant 

occurrence locations, or Forest Service 

modeled habitat; (2) remaining grids 

cells not connected to the three subunits 

of Unit 1; and (3) all grid cells with over 

97 percent of their area more than 328 

ft (100 m) distant from species 

occurrence locations, hostplant 

occurrence locations habitat. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including within the boundaries 

of the map contained within this final 

rule developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, and other structures that 

lack PCEs for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. The scale of the maps prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed areas. Any such structures 

and the land under them inadvertently 

left inside critical habitat boundaries 

shown on the maps of this final rule 

have been excluded by text in the final 

rule and are not designated as critical 

habitat. Therefore, Federal actions 

limited to these areas would not trigger 

section 7 consultation, unless they may 

affect the species or primary constituent 

elements in adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands that we have determined were 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain sufficient primary constituent 

elements to support life history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. We are also designating 

lands that were not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing but have 

been determined to be essential for the 

conservation of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing 

support the primary constituent 

elements that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Threats to those essential 

features that define critical habitat 

(PCEs) for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper include the direct and indirect 

impacts of human development and 

recreation, surface and groundwater 

management practices, and grazing 

intensity. 

Areas identified as critical habitat are 

composed of 38 percent private land 

holdings, where habitat is subject to 

rural development and overgrazing, 

potential stream and groundwater 

diversions, and recreational activities. 

State and Federal landholdings (6 and 

56 percent, respectively) are also subject 

to grazing and recreational activities. 

While designation of critical habitat 

does not impose any management 

requirements, particularly on State or 

private land, the following are measures 

that could be undertaken to benefit the 

species. 

Grazing can cause direct mortality of 

larvae and eggs by trampling and 

consumption. The density of cattle 

grazed in meadow habitat should be 

monitored and managed as well as 

levels of habitat degradation resulting 

from existing levels of grazing. 

Environmental conditions should also 

be considered when determining 

appropriate cattle density in meadow 

habitat occupied by the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. While cattle do not 

normally eat hostplants while larvae are 

developing, they have been observed 

grazing on hostplants during drought 

years on Laguna Mountain (Pratt 2006, 

p. 4). Adaptive management may be 

needed to adjust cattle grazing intensity, 

and protection measures may include 

exclosures to prevent grazing of 

hostplants. Monitoring of potential 

changes in hydrology caused by stream 

and groundwater diversions should be 

undertaken and any necessary 

management to prevent habitat 

conversion from wet to dry meadows, or 

open woody canopy to closed. 

On Palomar Mountain, commercial 

drinking water projects and stream 

alterations on private lands are 

currently diverting stream and 

groundwater to an unknown extent. 

Drying of meadows results in vegetation 

changes (for a general discussion see 

Naumburg et al. 2005) that could 

eliminate primary constituent elements 

within Laguna Mountains skipper 

habitat (e.g. hostplants and surface 

moisture, PCEs 1 and 3). Recreational 

activities such as camping and 

horseback riding can cause direct 

mortality of Laguna Mountains skipper 

larvae by trampling, and may increase 

encroachment of exotic vegetation 

affecting the availability of hostplants 

(PCE 1) and nectar sources (PCE 2). 

Changes in surface and groundwater 

availability due to disturbance by cattle 

and humans can also result in meadow 

habitat conversion (PCE 1). 

The provisions within two Forest 

Service management documents 

promote the conservation of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. The Land 

Management Plan provides long-term 

management direction for National 

Forest Service lands (Terrell 2006a, pg. 

1; and b, pp. 1–2). In addition, the 

Cleveland National Forest has a habitat 

management guide for four sensitive 

plant species in mountain meadows 

habitat (Cleveland National Forest 1991, 

pp.1–36). While the USFS has 

completed some conservation actions 

for the species, the avoidance and 

mitigation standards in both 

management plans are general and do 

not specify what actions are needed, or 

what is considered essential habitat. 

Therefore, habitat essential to the 

Laguna Mountains skipper where 

special management actions may be 

needed to minimize impacts resulting 

from recreation, grazing, and exotic 

plant invasion needs to be identified. 

Areas designated as critical habitat 

contain physical and biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

Laguna Mountains skipper that may 

require some level of management or 

protection to address current and future 

threats to the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. Subunits 2A, 2B, and 2C may 

require special management due to all 

threats described above. All subunits in 

Unit 1 may require special management 

due to all threats described above except 

diverting stream and groundwater. 

Subunit 2D may require management 

primarily of recreation impacts. Fire 

management activities, such as logging, 

fuel modification, or relatively low 

density grazing, should not adversely 

modify habitat if carefully and 

adaptively managed to minimize or 

avoid destruction of hostplants. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 2 units, further 

divided into 7 subunits, as critical 

habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. Unit 1, Laguna Mountain, 

consists of subunits 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

Unit 2, Palomar Mountain, consists of 

subunits 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. Lands 

being designated are under Federal 

(3,516 ac (1,423 ha)), private (2,361 ac 

(954 ha)), and State (381 ac (154 ha)) 

ownership. Table 1 outlines the acreage 

and landownership of the areas 

designated as critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper. The critical 

habitat areas described below constitute 

our best assessment at this time of areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74601 

of listing, containing the primary 

constituent elements essential for the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, and those 

additional areas found to be essential to 

the conservation of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. All three PCEs are 

generally distributed throughout all the 

subunits: Nectar sources are the most 

evenly distributed PCE (PCE 2); host 

plants (PCE 1) are generally 

concentrated near the edges of larger 

meadows, streams, and in forest 

openings; wet areas are the most 

localized (PCE 3), found in association 

with natural seeps, cattle troughs, 

streams, and ponds or lakes. 

TABLE 1.—AREA, IN ACRES (AC) AND HECTARES (HA), AND LANDOWNERSHIP OF THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL

HABITAT FOR THE LAGUNA MOUNTAINS SKIPPER

Critical habitat unit/subunit Total area ac 

(ha) Federal 1 ac (ha) Private ac (ha) State 2 ac (ha) 

Unit 1—Laguna Mountain 

Subunit 1A (Laguna Meadow) ......................................................... 2,610 (1,056) 2,531 (1,024) 79 (32) 0 

Subunit 1B (Filaree Flat) ................................................................. 233 (94) 233 (94) 0 0 

Subunit 1C (Agua Dulce Campground and Horse Meadow) .......... 500 (202) 374 (151) 126 (51) 0 

Unit 1 Total ............................................................................... 3,343 (1,352) 3,138 (1,269) 205 (83) 0 

Unit 2—Palomar Mountain 

Subunit 2A (Mendenhall Valley and Observatory Campground) .... 1,092 (442) 231 (94) 861 (348) 0 

Subunit 2B (Upper French Valley, Observatory Trail, and Palomar 

Observatory Meadows) ................................................................ 998 (404) 93 (38) 905 (366) 0 

Subunit 2C (Upper Doane Valley and Girl Scout Camp) ................ 547 (221) 40 (16) 316 (128) 191 (77) 

Subunit 2D (Lower French Valley and Lower Doane Valley) ......... 262 (106) 14 (6) 58 (23) 190 (77) 

Unit 2 Total ............................................................................... 2,899 (1,173) 378 (154) 2,140 (865) 381 (154) 

Total of Units 1 and 2 ............................................................... 6,242 (2,525) 3,516 (1,423) 2,345 (948) 381 (154) 

1Federal lands = U.S. Forest Service. 

2State Lands = California State Parks. 

Unit 1: Laguna Mountain 

Unit 1 encompasses approximately 

3,343 ac (1,352 ha) (Table 1), and is 

approximately centered on Laguna 

Mountain peak located in south-central 

San Diego County, east of the 

community of Alpine, California. This 

unit is divided into three subunits 

which each contain all of the primary 

constituent elements. This unit is 

crucial to the species primarily because 

the species was first described from this 

unit and represents the southernmost 

portion of the species’’ range. 

Maintaining two widely separate units 

(i.e., Laguna and Palomar Mountains), 

and multiple subunits limits the 

potential for a catastrophic event to 

extirpate all remaining populations. 

Because the number of known occupied 

sites and low population densities are 

not sufficient to overcome the threat of 

extirpation, connectivity and expansion 

into unoccupied meadow complexes is 

necessary for the conservation of the 

Laguna Mountains skipper. 

Connectivity is important for 

recolonization of habitat to occur (e.g., 

after extirpation by fire) and genetic 

diversity to be maintained among local 

populations. 

Unit 1A: Laguna Meadow 

Unit 1A (2,610 ac (1,056 ha)) is 

currently occupied and was known to 

be occupied at the time of listing. This 

subunit contains habitat features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and is the site where the species 

was first described (i.e., northern 

Laguna Meadow, near Little Laguna 

Lake). Until 2000, adult skippers were 

consistently found in this area. The 

Cleveland National Forest lands in this 

unit are subject to grazing and 

recreational activities, and special 

management considerations such as 

grazing density adjustments or 

exclosures to protect hostplants may be 

required to maintain the PCEs. This 

subunit contains 2,531 (1,024 ha) of 

Forest Service managed lands and 79 ac 

(32 ha) of privately owned land (Table 

1). 

Unit 1B: Filaree Flat 

Subunit 1B (233 ac (94 ha)) is not 

currently known to be occupied, and 

was not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing, but was historically 

occupied. This subunit is essential 

because: (1) It contains habitat features 

essential to the conservation of any 

populations occupying Subunit 1A (2) 

provides for population expansion and 

enhancement; (3) minimizes habitat 

fragmentation; and (4) is representative 

of the historical geographical and 

ecological distribution of the species. 

This subunit contains 233 ac (94 ha) of 

Forest Service managed lands (Table 1). 

Unit 1C: Agua Dulce Campground and 

Horse Meadow 

Subunit 1C (500 ac (202 ha)) is not 

currently known to be occupied and 

was not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing. This subunit is essential 

because: (1) It contains habitat features 

essential to the conservation of any 

populations occupying Subunit 1A; (2) 

provides for population expansion and 

enhancement; (3) minimizes habitat 

fragmentation; and (4) is representative 

of the historical geographical and 

ecological distribution of the species. 

This subunit contains 374 ac (151 ha) of 

Forest Service managed lands and 126 

ac (51 ha) of privately owned land 

(Table 1). 

Unit 2: Palomar Mountain 

Unit 2 encompasses approximately 

2,899 ac (1,173 ha) (Table 1), and is 

approximately centered on Palomar 

Mountain peak located in north-central 

San Diego County near the border of 

Riverside County. Unit 2 consists of four 

subunits which each contain all of the 

primary constituent elements. Unit 2 

includes the most densely populated 

area in the species’’ range and 

encompasses the northernmost portion 

of the range. Maintaining two widely 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74602 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

separate units (i.e., Laguna and Palomar 

Mountains) and multiple subunits limits 

the potential for a catastrophic event to 

extirpate all remaining populations. 

Unit 2A: Mendenhall Valley and 

Observatory Campground 

Subunit 2A (1,092 ac (442 ha)) is 

known to be currently occupied and 

was occupied at the time of listing. 

Subunit 2A supports the largest known 

population of Laguna Mountains 

skipper and represents the best 

opportunity for the conservation of this 

species. This unit is composed of a large 

amount of private land holdings with 

habitat potentially subject to future rural 

development and other land use 

changes, overgrazing, stream diversion, 

and private recreational use. This 

subunit is the only meadow complex 

(i.e., Mendenhall Valley and associated 

forest openings) where multiple adults 

have been consistently detected since 

the time of listing. Lands in this subunit 

are subject to grazing activities, and 

special management considerations 

such as hostplant distribution 

monitoring, exclosure maintenance, and 

grazing density adjustments may be 

required to maintain the PCEs. This 

subunit contains 231 ac (94 ha) of Forest 

Service managed lands and 861 ac (348 

ha) of privately owned land (Table 1). 

Unit 2B: Upper French Valley, 

Observatory Trail, and Palomar 

Observatory Meadows 

Subunit 2B (998 ac (404 ha)) is known 

to be currently occupied and was 

occupied at the time of listing. The 

distribution of small forest openings and 

meadows, and the five occurrence 

records along the Observatory Trail, 

indicate historical occupancy of Laguna 

Mountains skipper populations in 

unsurveyed portions of Upper French 

Valley. Lands in this subunit are subject 

to grazing and recreational activities, 

and special management considerations 

such as hostplant distribution 

monitoring, grazing and recreation 

exclosure maintenance, and grazing 

density adjustments may be required to 

maintain the PCEs. This subunit 

contains 93 ac (38 ha) of Forest Service 

managed lands and 905 ac (366 ha) of 

privately owned land (Table 1). 

Unit 2C: Upper Doane Valley and Girl 

Scout Camp 

Subunit 2C (547 ac (221 ha)) is known 

to be currently occupied, but was not 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing. Subunit 2C is essential because: 

(1) It contains habitat features essential 

to the conservation of the species; (2) 

allows for population expansion and 

enhancement; and (3) minimizes habitat 

fragmentation. This subunit contains 40 

ac (16 ha) of Forest Service managed 

lands, 316 ac (128 ha) of privately 

owned land, and 191 ac (77 ha) of Stateowned land (i.e., California State Parks) 

(Table 1). 

Unit 2D: Lower French Valley and Lower 

Doane Valley 

Subunit 2D (262 ac (106 ha)) is known 

to be currently occupied and was 

occupied at the time of listing. Reports 

of multiple Laguna Mountains skipper 

observations in this subunit in 2005 

(Walker 2006) indicate relatively high 

current densities in these valleys, and 

has confirmed the importance of this 

subunit for species conservation. Lands 

in this subunit are subject to grazing 

activities, and special management 

considerations such as hostplant 

distribution monitoring, exclosure 

maintenance, and grazing density 

adjustments may be required to 

maintain the PCEs. This subunit 

contains 14 (6 ha) of Federal land (i.e., 

Forest Service), 58 ac (23 ha) of 

privately owned land, and 190 ac (77 

ha) of State-owned land (i.e., California 

State Parks) (Table 1). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only. However, 

once proposed species becomes listed, 

or proposed critical habitat is 

designated as final, the full prohibitions 

of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal 

action. The primary utility of the 

conference procedures is to maximize 

the opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Formal 

conferences are typically used when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to cause 

adverse effects to proposed species or 

critical habitat, inclusive of those that 

may cause jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report; while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated; if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

Once a species is listed or critical 

habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such a species or to destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. Recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

regulatory definition of ‘‘adverse 

modification’’ at 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)). Pursuant to 

current national policy and the statutory 

provisions of the Act, we determine 

destruction or adverse modification 

based on whether, with implementation 

of the proposed Federal action, the 

affected critical habitat would remain 

functional (or retain the current ability 

for the primary constituent elements to 

be functionally established) 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, 

compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) will be documented 

through the Service’s issuance of: (1) A 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74603 

concurrence letter for Federal actions 

that may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding a project is likely to result 

in jeopardy to a listed species or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent project 

alternatives, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined 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, that are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that the Director believes 

would avoid jeopardy to the listed 

species or destruction or adverse 

modification of 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 certain instances, including 

where a new species is listed or critical 

habitat is subsequently designated that 

may be affected by the Federal action, 

where the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law. Consequently, some Federal 

agencies may request reinitiation of 

consultation with us on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat or adversely 

modify or destroy proposed critical 

habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Laguna Mountains skipper 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 Corps under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a 

permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act from the Service) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

also be 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 

consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to the Laguna 

Mountains Skipper and Its Critical 

Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

When performing jeopardy analyses 

for the Laguna Mountains skipper, the 

Service applies an analytical framework 

that relies heavily on the importance of 

core area populations to the survival 

and recovery of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is 

focused not only on these populations 

but also on the habitat conditions 

necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the Laguna Mountains skipper 

in a qualitative fashion without making 

distinctions between what is necessary 

for survival and what is necessary for 

recovery. Generally, if a proposed 

Federal action is incompatible with the 

viability of the affected core area 

population(s), inclusive of associated 

habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The analytical framework described 

in the Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum is used to complete 

section 7(a)(2) analyses for Federal 

actions affecting Laguna Mountains 

skipper critical habitat. The key factor 

related to the adverse modification 

determination is whether, with 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action, the affected critical habitat 

would remain functional (or retain the 

current ability for the primary 

constituent elements to be functionally 

established) to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Generally, the conservation role of 

Laguna Mountains skipper critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

area populations. 

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 that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper is appreciably reduced. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore result in consultation for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that destroy Laguna 

Mountains skipper hostplants and 

immature life stages of the species. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to overgrazing by livestock, 

vegetation removal, and recreational 

activities. These activities could 

eliminate breeding and nectaring 

resources for the adults, and directly 

destroy eggs, pupae, or larvae. 

(2) Actions that would, over the longterm or permanently destroy habitat 

containing primary constituent 

elements. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to: removal or 

destruction of hostplants and nectar 

sources by paving or piling logs; 

erection of permanent structures or 

cultivation of large shrubs or trees that 

impede adult movement; manipulation 

of seeps, springs, or creeks that 

eliminates surface moisture; paved road 

construction in occupied habitat; and 

rural development that eliminates or 

fragments habitat. These activities 

reduce the amount of available habitat 

and directly and indirectly increase the 

extirpation probability of associated 

Laguna Mountains skipper populations. 

(3) Actions that would alter the 

vegetation of meadow habitat, for 

example invasion of exotic species or 

forest encroachment. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

stream or groundwater diversion. These 

activities could decrease the area of 

open meadow and soil moisture content 

and eliminate suitable Laguna 

Mountains skipper oviposition sites. 

Fire management activities, such as 

tree and brush removal for fuel 

modification, or relatively low density 

grazing should not adversely modify 

habitat if carefully managed to minimize 

or avoid destruction of hostplants. 

All of the units identified as critical 

habitat contain features essential to the 

conservation of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. All units are within the 

geographic range of the species. Federal 

agencies already consult with us on 

activities in areas currently occupied by 

the Laguna Mountains skipper, or if the 

species may be affected by the action, to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74604 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Laguna Mountains skipper. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, 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 [s]he determines that 

the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of specifying such area as 

part of the critical habitat, unless [s]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 Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion and the Congressional record 

is clear that in making a determination 

under the section the Secretary has 

discretion as to which factors and how 

much weight will be given to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2), in considering 

whether to exclude a particular area 

from the designation, we must identify 

the benefits of including the area in the 

designation, identify the benefits of 

excluding the area from the designation, 

and determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. If an exclusion is 

contemplated, then we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. 

Forest Service actions, completed and 

ongoing, contribute to the conservation 

of the Laguna Mountains skipper and its 

habitat. The Cleveland National Forest 

has implemented measures to minimize 

impacts to the Laguna Mountains 

skipper, pursuant to consultation with 

the Service under section 7 of the Act 

(Service Biological Opinions 1–6–05–F–

773.9, 1–6–99–F–22, and 1–6–01–F–

1694). Implemented post-listing impact 

minimization measures include: (1) An 

exclosure to reduce recreation impacts 

and tree thinning to enhance habitat in 

1997 at Observatory Campground; (2) 

grazing exclosures to study grazing 

effects in 1996, 1999, and 2000, at 

Mendenhall Valley, Little Laguna 

Meadow, and Laguna Meadow; (3) 

visitor impact monitoring and visitor 

capacity reduction to minimize 

recreation impacts at Laguna 

Campground; and (4) habitat studies 

and surveys from 2000 to 2006 to 

increase biological knowledge of the 

species. 

Provisions within two Forest Service 

management documents also promote 

conservation of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. The Cleveland National Forest 

has a habitat management guide for four 

sensitive plant species in mountain 

meadows habitat (Cleveland National 

Forest 1991, pp. 1–36). While the 

habitat management guide is designed 

to facilitate conservation of meadow 

habitat and protection of sensitive plant 

species affected by grazing and 

recreation, it does not specifically 

provide for conservation of the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. In addition, the 

2005 Land Management Plan for the 

Cleveland National Forest (LMP) 

provides long-term strategic 

management direction for Forest Service 

lands (Terrell 2006a, pp. 1; 2006b, pp. 

1–2). According to the Forest Service 

Land Management Plan Part 1: Southern 

California National Forests Vision 

(Forest Service 2005, p. 3): 

The purpose of the [LMP] is to articulate 

the long-term vision and strategic 

management direction for each southern 

California national forest and to facilitate the 

development of management activities . . . It 

is important to emphasize that the revised 

forest plans are completely strategic. They do 

not make project level decisions nor do they 

compel managers to implement specific 

actions or activities. Current uses are carried 

forward. Any changes made to existing uses 

or new proposals will be determined at the 

project level according to the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

New hostplant and Laguna Mountains 

skipper locations have been recorded 

since the Cleveland National Forest 

developed a model (map) of Laguna 

Mountains skipper habitat (Winter 2000, 

pg. 1). Although Forest Service modeled 

habitat (Winter 2000, pg. 1) comprised 

67 percent (4,464 of 6,662 acres (1,807 

of 2,696 ha)) of Laguna Mountains 

skipper proposed critical habitat, some 

areas of proposed critical habitat where 

hostplant occurrence data were 

concentrated fell outside of Forest 

Service modeled habitat (e.g., at the 

southern end of subunit 1A). 

The Forest Service LMP provides 

some species-specific directions for 

protecting the Laguna Mountains 

skipper, including the standard, 

‘‘[a]void or mitigate, following 

consultation, activities resulting in 

direct trampling or erosion problems to 

Laguna Mountains Skipper suitable and 

occupied habitat and adjacent areas.’’

Because there are relatively large areas 

of habitat not known to be occupied on 

Laguna and Palomar Mountains, 

designation of critical habitat will help 

identify where consultation and 

conservation is needed for the Laguna 

Mountains skipper. Because the benefits 

of exclusion of the areas identified as 

critical habitat within the Cleveland 

National Forest do not outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion of these areas, we 

did not exclude Forest Service lands 

from the final designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Based on the best available 

information including the prepared 

economic analysis, we believe that all of 

the units known to occupied at the time 

of listing contain the features essential 

for conservation of the species and that 

the units not known to be currently 

occupied are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Our 

economic analysis indicates an overall 

low cost resulting from the designation. 

Therefore, we have found no areas for 

which the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and 

have not excluded any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper based on 

economic impacts. 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

we must consider other relevant impacts 

in addition to economic ones. We are 

not aware of any habitat conservation 

plans currently being developed for 

Laguna Mountains skipper on any lands 

included in this final designation. Also, 

this designation does not include any 

Tribal lands or trust resources. 

Therefore, we anticipate no impact to 

national security, Tribal lands, 

partnerships, or habitat conservation 

plans from this critical habitat 

designation. As such, we have 

considered these potential impacts but 

are not excluding any lands from this 

designation under section 4(b)(2). 

Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. We may exclude areas from 

critical habitat upon a determination 

that the benefits of such exclusions 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such 

areas as critical habitat. We cannot 

exclude such areas from critical habitat 

when such exclusion will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft analysis was 

made available for public review on July 

7, 2006 (71 FR 38593). We accepted 

comments on the draft analysis until 

August 7, 2006. We respond to the 

comments we received on the draft 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74605 

analysis in the Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations section above. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper. This 

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. This economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on 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. 

This 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. 

Laguna Mountains skipper 

conservation activities are likely to 

primarily impact recreational camping 

and utility maintenance activities. The 

draft economic analysis estimates the 

potential total future impacts to range 

from $6.5 million to $8.9 million 

(undiscounted) over 20 years. 

Discounted future costs are estimated to 

be $3.7 million to $5.1 million over this 

same time period ($351,000 to $480,000 

annually) using a real rate of 7 percent, 

or $5.0 million to $6.9 million ($337,000 

to $461,000 annually) using a real rate 

of 3 percent. Differences in the low and 

high impact estimates result primarily 

from uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts to utility companies conducting 

maintenance activities and making 

repairs in proposed critical habitat. The 

low-end estimate of costs assumes 

grazing on private lands is not affected 

and biologists’ time on site during 

utility repairs and maintenance is 

limited to one day per project. Costs 

under this estimate are dominated (88 

percent) by welfare losses to campers in 

Subunits 1A and 1C. The high-end 

estimate of costs assumes grazing 

activities on private lands in proposed 

critical habitat will be restricted and 

that utility projects will last longer than 

a single day. Costs under this estimate 

are dominated by lost camping 

opportunities (64 percent) and to a 

lesser extent costs to utilities (22 

percent). In the low-end estimate, 95 

percent of the costs are associated with 

Subunits 1A and 1C. In the high-end 

estimate, Subunits 1A and 1C again 

dominate total costs, accounting for 83 

percent of total estimated impacts. 

A copy of the final economic analysis 

with supporting documents is included 

in our administrative record and may be 

obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered 

Species (see ADDRESSES section) or for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the tight 

timeline for publication in the Federal 

Register, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. As explained above, 

we prepared an economic analysis of 

this action. We used this analysis to 

meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act to determine the economic 

consequences of designating the specific 

areas as critical habitat. We also used it 

to help determine whether to exclude 

any area from critical habitat, as 

provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we 

determine that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless we determine, 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

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 (i.e., 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. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The SBREFA 

also amended the RFA to require a 

certification statement. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. 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 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the 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 rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil 

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74606 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted 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 Laguna Mountains skipper. 

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. 

Our economic analysis determined 

that costs involving conservation 

measures for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper would be incurred for activities 

involving: (1) Grazing activities; (2) 

recreational camping activities; (3) 

recreational hiking activities; (4) utility 

activities; (5) rural development; (6) 

other activities on Federal lands; and, 

(7) Laguna Mountains skipper 

management activities on State lands. 

As explained in our draft economic 

analysis, impacts of skipper 

conservation are not anticipated to 

affect small entities in five of these 

seven categories: hiking; utilities; rural 

development; other activities on Federal 

lands; and management activities on 

State lands. Since neither Federal nor 

State governments are defined as small 

entities by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), the economic 

impacts borne by the Forest Service and 

the California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) resulting from 

implementation of skipper conservation 

activities or modifications to activities 

on Federal lands are not relevant to this 

analysis. Likewise, neither of the major 

utility companies involved (SDG&E and 

AT&T) would fit the SBA definition of 

small entities. Accordingly, the small 

business analysis focuses on economic 

impacts to grazing and recreational 

camping activities. 

The designation includes areas of 

USFS and private lands that are used for 

livestock grazing. On some Federal 

allotments that contain Laguna 

Mountains skipper habitat, meadow 

areas have been excluded from grazing, 

thus reducing the carrying capacity, or 

permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs), 

on those allotments. Historically, 

returns to cattle operations have been 

low throughout the West. In recent 

years, these returns have been lower due 

to the recent wildfires and droughts in 

California. As a result, any reductions in 

grazing effort for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper may affect the sustainability of 

ranching operations in these areas. The 

analysis assumes that in the future, 

grazing efforts on proposed critical 

habitat areas will be reduced, or in the 

high-end estimate, eliminated on private 

land due to skipper concerns. Private 

ranchers could be affected either by 

reductions in federally permitted AUMs 

that they hold permits to, or by 

reductions on grazing efforts on private 

property to avoid adverse impacts on 

Laguna Mountains skipper habitat. The 

expected reduction in AUMs is based on 

an examination of historical grazing 

levels, section 7 consultations, and 

discussions with range managers, 

wildlife biologist, and permittees. Based 

on this analysis, the high-end impact on 

grazing activities is estimated at an 

annual reduction of 1,979 AUMs, of 

which 1,363 are federally permitted and 

618 are private. The majority of these 

AUM reductions fall on two ranchers: 

one operating in Subunit 1A and 

another operating in Subunit 2A. 

Therefore, cumulatively over 20 years, 

two ranchers could be affected by total 

reductions in AUMs due to Laguna 

Mountains skipper conservation 

activities. 

The economic analysis considers 

lower- and upper-bounds of potential 

economic impact on recreational 

camping activities. The lower-bound 

equals no economic impact. In the 

upper-bound, economic impacts are 

estimated for recreational campers 

whose activities may be interrupted by 

Laguna Mountains skipper conservation 

activities resulting in a decrease in the 

number of camping trips. Scenario 2 

concludes that camping trips may 

decrease by as many as 5,352 trips per 

year. If fewer camping trips were to 

occur within proposed critical habitat 

areas, local establishments providing 

services to campers may be indirectly 

affected by Laguna Mountains skipper 

conservation activities. Decreased 

visitation may reduce the amount of 

money spent in the region across a 

variety of industries, including food and 

beverage stores, food service and 

drinking places, accommodations, 

transportation and rental services. 

The economic analysis uses regional 

economic modeling—in particular a 

software package called IMPLAN—to 

estimate the total economic effects of 

the reduction in economic activity in 

camping-related industries in the one 

county (San Diego County) associated 

with Laguna Mountains skipper 

conservation activities. Commonly used 

by State and Federal agencies for policy 

planning and evaluation purposes, 

IMPLAN translates estimates of initial 

trip expenditures (e.g., food, lodging, 

and gas) into changes in demand for 

inputs to affected industries. Changes in 

output and employment are calculated 

for all industries and then aggregated to 

determine the regional economic impact 

of reduced recreational camping-related 

expenditures potentially associated with 

Laguna Mountains skipper conservation 

activities. 

This analysis uses the average 

expenditures reported by the 2001 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation for 

California for fishing, hunting and 

wildlife-associated recreation, or 

approximately $26.23 per trip. This pertrip estimate of expenditures is then 

combined with the number of camping 

trips potentially lost due to Laguna 

Mountains skipper conservation 

activities (a 1-year loss of 5,352 trips per 

year) to estimate the regional economic 

impacts. When compared to the $192 

billion dollar regional economy of San 

Diego County, the potential loss 

generated by a decrease in camping trips 

is a relatively small impact (i.e., less 

than 0.01 percent). Therefore based on 

these results, this analysis determines 

no significant effect on camping-related 

industries due to Laguna Mountains 

skipper conservation activities in San 

Diego County. 

In general, two different mechanisms 

in section 7 consultations could lead to 

additional regulatory requirements for 

the approximately four small 

businesses, on average, that may be 

required to consult with us each year 

regarding their project’s impact on 

Laguna Mountains skipper and its 

habitat. First, if we conclude, in a 

biological opinion, that a proposed 

action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species or 

adversely modify its critical habitat, we 

can offer ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives.’’ Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives are alternative actions that 

can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the scope of the Federal 

agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that would 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

A Federal agency and an applicant may 

elect to implement a reasonable and 

prudent alternative associated with a 

biological opinion that has found 

jeopardy or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. An agency or applicant 

could alternatively choose to seek an 

exemption from the requirements of the 

Act or proceed without implementing 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74607 

the reasonable and prudent alternative. 

However, unless an exemption were 

obtained, the Federal agency or 

applicant would be at risk of violating 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to 

proceed without implementing the 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Second, if we find that a proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed animal, 

we may identify reasonable and prudent 

measures designed to minimize the 

amount or extent of take and require the 

Federal agency or applicant to 

implement such measures through nondiscretionary terms and conditions. We 

may also identify discretionary 

conservation recommendations 

designed to minimize or avoid the 

adverse effects of a proposed action on 

listed species or critical habitat, help 

implement recovery plans, or to develop 

information that could contribute to the 

recovery of the species. 

Based on our experience with 

consultations pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act for all listed species, virtually 

all projects—including those that, in 

their initial proposed form, would result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification 

determinations in section 7 

consultations—can be implemented 

successfully with, at most, the adoption 

of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These measures, by definition, must be 

economically feasible and within the 

scope of authority of the Federal agency 

involved in the consultation. We can 

only describe the general kinds of 

actions that may be identified in future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These are based on our understanding of 

the needs of the species and the threats 

it faces, as described in the final listing 

rule and this critical habitat designation. 

Within the final critical habitat units, 

the types of Federal actions or 

authorized activities that we have 

identified as potential concerns are: 

(1) Regulation of activities affecting 

waters of the United States by the Corps 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act; 

(2) Regulation of water flows, 

damming, diversion, and channelization 

implemented or licensed by Federal 

agencies; 

(3) Regulation of timber harvest, 

grazing, mining, and recreation by the 

USFS and BLM; 

(4) Road construction and 

maintenance, right-of-way designation, 

and regulation of agricultural activities; 

(5) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the FEMA; 

and 

(6) Activities funded by the EPA, U.S. 

Department of Energy, or any other 

Federal agency. 

It is likely that a developer or other 

project proponent could modify a 

project or take measures to protect the 

Laguna Mountains skipper. The kinds of 

actions that may be included if future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives 

become necessary include conservation 

set-asides, management of competing 

nonnative species, restoration of 

degraded habitat, and regular 

monitoring. These are based on our 

understanding of the needs of the 

species and the threats it faces, as 

described in the final listing rule and 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

These measures are not likely to result 

in a significant economic impact to 

project proponents. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Federal involvement, and thus section 7 

consultations, would be limited to a 

subset of the area designated. Only two 

potential small entities engaged in 

grazing may be impacted by the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper, and the 

potential economic loss attributable to 

impacts to recreational activities is 

small (i.e., less than 0.01 percent). 

Therefore, for the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, and a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the economic analysis. 

Based on the effects identified in the 

economic analysis, we believe that this 

rule will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more, 

will not cause a major increase in costs 

or prices for consumers, and will not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to 

the final economic analysis for a 

discussion of the effects of this 

determination. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule to designated critical habitat for the 

Laguna Mountains skipper is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) 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, 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits or 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74608 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted 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. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. As such, Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with DOI and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

final critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

California. The designation of critical 

habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper may impose nominal additional 

regulatory restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, may have an 

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 features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species 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 Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

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 

Endangered Species Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the Laguna Mountains 

skipper. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 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 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F. 3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 

(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. We 

have determined that there are no Tribal 

lands supporting Laguna Mountains 

skipper habitat that meets the definition 

of critical habitat. Therefore, critical 

habitat for the Laguna Mountains 

skipper has not been designated on 

Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are staff from the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Laguna Mountains skipper’’ under 

‘‘INSECTS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74609 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

INSECTS 

* * * * * * * 

Skipper, Laguna 

Mountains.

Pyrgus ruralis 

lagunae.

U.S.A. (CA) ........... Entire .................... E ............ 604 17.95(i) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.95(i), add an entry for 

Laguna Mountains Skipper (Pyrgus 

ruralis lagunae) under ‘‘INSECTS’’ in 

the same alphabetical order as this 

species appears in the table in § 17.11(h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(i) Insects. 

* * * * * 

Laguna Mountains Skipper (Pyrgus 

ruralis lagunae) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for San Diego County, California, on the 

maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Laguna 

Mountains skipper are the habitat 

components that provide: 

(i) The hostplants, Horkelia 

clevelandii or Potentilla glandulosa, 

which are needed for reproduction, in 

meadows or forest openings. 

(ii) Nectar sources suitable for feeding 

by adult Laguna Mountains skipper, 

including Lasthenia spp., Pentachaeta 

aurea, Ranunculus spp., and Sidalcea 

spp., found in woodlands or meadows. 

(iii) Wet soil or standing water 

associated with features such as seeps, 

springs, or creeks where water and 

minerals are obtained during the adult 

flight season. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

man-made structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created on a base of USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps, and critical habitat 

units were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Map 1 (index map) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74610 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER12DE06.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74611 

(6) Unit 1: Laguna Mountain, San 

Diego County, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle maps Monument 

Peak and Mount Laguna. 

(i) Subunit 1A: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 551900, 3635400; 551900, 

3635600; 551800, 3635600; 551800, 

3635300; 552000, 3635300; 552000, 

3634900; 551800, 3634900; 551800, 

3635000; 551600, 3635000; 551600, 

3634900; 551400, 3634900; 551400, 

3635300; 551300, 3635300; 551300, 

3635600; 551200, 3635600; 551200, 

3635700; 551100, 3635700; 551100, 

3636000; 551000, 3636000; 551000, 

3636100; 550900, 3636100; 550900, 

3636200; 550800, 3636200; 550800, 

3636100; 550700, 3636100; 550700, 

3636000; 550800, 3636000; 550800, 

3635800; 550600, 3635800; 550600, 

3635700; 550500, 3635700; 550500, 

3635500; 550400, 3635500; 550400, 

3635400; 550300, 3635400; 550300, 

3635300; 550100, 3635300; 550100, 

3635500; 550000, 3635500; 550000, 

3636200; 549800, 3636200; 549800, 

3636500; 549900, 3636500; 549900, 

3636600; 549800, 3636600; 549800, 

3636700; 549700, 3636700; 549700, 

3637000; 549800, 3637000; 549800, 

3637100; 549900, 3637100; 549900, 

3637600; 550200, 3637600; 550200, 

3637900; 550100, 3637900; 550100, 

3638500; 550000, 3638500; 550000, 

3638600; 549900, 3638600; 549900, 

3638500; 549800, 3638500; 549800, 

3638000; 549700, 3638000; 549700, 

3637700; 549500, 3637700; 549500, 

3638000; 549600, 3638000; 549600, 

3638100; 549500, 3638100; 549500, 

3638200; 549100, 3638200; 549100, 

3638400; 549200, 3638400; 549200, 

3638500; 549300, 3638500; 549300, 

3638800; 549400, 3638800; 549400, 

3638900; 549300, 3638900; 549300, 

3639000; 549600, 3639000; 549600, 

3638600; 549700, 3638600; 549700, 

3638700; 549800, 3638700; 549800, 

3638900; 549900, 3638900; 549900, 

3639000; 549700, 3639000; 549700, 

3639200; 549600, 3639200; 549600, 

3639300; 549500, 3639300; 549500, 

3639500; 549400, 3639500; 549400, 

3639600; 549300, 3639600; 549300, 

3640000; 549400, 3640000; 549400, 

3640100; 549700, 3640100; 549700, 

3640000; 549800, 3640000; 549800, 

3640100; 549900, 3640100; 549900, 

3640200; 549700, 3640200; 549700, 

3640300; 549600, 3640300; 549600, 

3640500; 549800, 3640500; 549800, 

3640600; 550100, 3640600; 550100, 

3640500; 550200, 3640500; 550200, 

3640400; 550300, 3640400; 550300, 

3640000; 551000, 3640000; 551000, 

3639900; 551100, 3639900; 551100, 

3639700; 550500, 3639700; 550500, 

3639400; 550400, 3639400; 550400, 

3639300; 550500, 3639300; 550500, 

3639200; 550600, 3639200; 550600, 

3639100; 550700, 3639100; 550700, 

3639000; 550800, 3639000; 550800, 

3638900; 551000, 3638900; 551000, 

3639300; 551100, 3639300; 551100, 

3639500; 551300, 3639500; 551300, 

3639700; 551700, 3639700; 551700, 

3639400; 551800, 3639400; 551800, 

3639300; 551900, 3639300; 551900, 

3639100; 551800, 3639100; 551800, 

3639000; 551900, 3639000; 551900, 

3638900; 551800, 3638900; 551800, 

3638800; 551900, 3638800; 551900, 

3638700; 552100, 3638700; 552100, 

3638800; 552200, 3638800; 552200, 

3638700; 552500, 3638700; 552500, 

3638300; 552300, 3638300; 552300, 

3638400; 552200, 3638400; 552200, 

3638300; 551900, 3638300; 551900, 

3638100; 551500, 3638100; 551500, 

3637900; 551700, 3637900; 551700, 

3637800; 551800, 3637800; 551800, 

3637700; 552100, 3637700; 552100, 

3637600; 552200, 3637600; 552200, 

3637500; 552500, 3637500; 552500, 

3637700; 552600, 3637700; 552600, 

3637800; 553000, 3637800; 553000, 

3638000; 553100, 3638000; 553100, 

3638100; 553600, 3638100; 553600, 

3638000; 553800, 3638000; 553800, 

3637900; 553700, 3637900; 553700, 

3637600; 553800, 3637600; 553800, 

3637400; 553700, 3637400; 553700, 

3637500; 553500, 3637500; 553500, 

3637200; 553100, 3637200; 553100, 

3637100; 553200, 3637100; 553200, 

3636900; 552900, 3636900; 552900, 

3637000; 552800, 3637000; 552800, 

3637100; 552700, 3637100; 552700, 

3637000; 552600, 3637000; 552600, 

3637100; 552400, 3637100; 552400, 

3637200; 552300, 3637200; 552300, 

3637100; 552200, 3637100; 552200, 

3637000; 552000, 3637000; 552000, 

3637100; 551900, 3637100; 551900, 

3637300; 551500, 3637300; 551500, 

3637200; 551400, 3637200; 551400, 

3637100; 551200, 3637100; 551200, 

3636700; 551300, 3636700; 551300, 

3636600; 551400, 3636600; 551400, 

3636500; 551600, 3636500; 551600, 

3636400; 551700, 3636400; 551700, 

3636300; 551800, 3636300; 551800, 

3636200; 552000, 3636200; 552000, 

3636100; 552100, 3636100; 552100, 

3636000; 552200, 3636000; 552200, 

3635900; 552300, 3635900; 552300, 

3635500; 552200, 3635500; 552200, 

3635400; 551900, 3635400. 

(ii) Subunit 1B: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 549300, 3642300; 549400, 

3642300; 549400, 3642400; 549600, 

3642400; 549600, 3642300; 549800, 

3642300; 549800, 3642200; 549900, 

3642200; 549900, 3641900; 550000, 

3641900; 550000, 3641400; 550100, 

3641400; 550100, 3640900; 549600, 

3640900; 549600, 3641000; 549300, 

3641000; 549300, 3642300. 

(iii) Subunit 1C: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 553000, 3634400; 553000, 

3634500; 552900, 3634500; 552900, 

3634900; 552800, 3634900; 552800, 

3635600; 553100, 3635600; 553100, 

3635400; 553300, 3635400; 553300, 

3635300; 553400, 3635300; 553400, 

3635200; 553300, 3635200; 553300, 

3635100; 553200, 3635100; 553200, 

3635000; 553300, 3635000; 553300, 

3634900; 553400, 3634900; 553400, 

3634800; 553600, 3634800; 553600, 

3634600; 553700, 3634600; 553700, 

3634200; 553600, 3634200; 553600, 

3634100; 553500, 3634100; 553500, 

3634000; 553400, 3634000; 553400, 

3633800; 553300, 3633800; 553300, 

3633600; 553200, 3633600; 553200, 

3633300; 553300, 3633300; 553300, 

3633200; 553500, 3633200; 553500, 

3633300; 553600, 3633300; 553600, 

3633000; 553700, 3633000; 553700, 

3632300; 553600, 3632300; 553600, 

3632200; 553300, 3632200; 553300, 

3632300; 553200, 3632300; 553200, 

3633000; 553100, 3633000; 553100, 

3633200; 553000, 3633200; 553000, 

3633300; 552900, 3633300; 552900, 

3632800; 552600, 3632800; 552600, 

3633000; 552700, 3633000; 552700, 

3633400; 552800, 3633400; 552800, 

3633800; 552700, 3633800; 552700, 

3634300; 552800, 3634300; 552800, 

3634400; 553000, 3634400. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Map 2, 

Subunits 1A, 1B, and 1C) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74612 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER12DE06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74613 

(7) Unit 2: Palomar Mountain, San 

Diego County, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle maps Boucher Hill 

and Palomar Observatory. 

(i) Subunit 2A: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 511300, 3689300; 511400, 3689300; 

511400, 3689200; 511600, 3689200; 

511600, 3689100; 511700, 3689100; 

511700, 3689000; 511800, 3689000; 

511800, 3688900; 512300, 3688900; 

512300, 3688800; 512400, 3688800; 

512400, 3689000; 512900, 3689000; 

512900, 3688900; 513200, 3688900; 

513200, 3688800; 513400, 3688800; 

513400, 3688700; 513700, 3688700; 

513700, 3688600; 513900, 3688600; 

513900, 3688500; 514000, 3688500; 

514000, 3688400; 514100, 3688400; 

514100, 3688300; 514400, 3688300; 

514400, 3688200; 514500, 3688200; 

514500, 3688100; 515300, 3688100; 

515300, 3688000; 515400, 3688000; 

515400, 3687900; 515500, 3687900; 

515500, 3687800; 515700, 3687800; 

515700, 3687600; 515900, 3687600; 

515900, 3687300; 515800, 3687300; 

515800, 3687200; 515900, 3687200; 

515900, 3687100; 516000, 3687100; 

516000, 3687000; 516300, 3687000; 

516300, 3686900; 516400, 3686900; 

516400, 3686800; 516500, 3686800; 

516500, 3686700; 516600, 3686700; 

516600, 3686600; 517000, 3686600; 

517000, 3686300; 517200, 3686300; 

517200, 3686200; 517300, 3686200; 

517300, 3686000; 517100, 3686000; 

517100, 3685800; 517200, 3685800; 

517200, 3685700; 516700, 3685700; 

516700, 3685800; 516600, 3685800; 

516600, 3686000; 516500, 3686000; 

516500, 3686100; 516400, 3686100; 

516400, 3686200; 516300, 3686200; 

516300, 3686300; 516200, 3686300; 

516200, 3686400; 516000, 3686400; 

516000, 3686600; 515900, 3686600; 

515900, 3686700; 515800, 3686700; 

515800, 3686800; 515700, 3686800; 

515700, 3686900; 515500, 3686900; 

515500, 3687000; 515200, 3687000; 

515200, 3687100; 514900, 3687100; 

514900, 3687200; 514800, 3687200; 

514800, 3687300; 514500, 3687300; 

514500, 3687500; 514400, 3687500; 

514400, 3687600; 514300, 3687600; 

514300, 3687700; 514200, 3687700; 

514200, 3687800; 514100, 3687800; 

514100, 3687900; 514000, 3687900; 

514000, 3688000; 513700, 3688000; 

513700, 3688100; 513500, 3688100; 

513500, 3688000; 513400, 3688000; 

513400, 3687700; 513300, 3687700; 

513300, 3687400; 513200, 3687400; 

513200, 3687300; 513000, 3687300; 

513000, 3687600; 512900, 3687600; 

512900, 3688000; 512800, 3688000; 

512800, 3688100; 512500, 3688100; 

512500, 3688200; 512400, 3688200; 

512400, 3688400; 512300, 3688400; 

512300, 3688500; 512000, 3688500; 

512000, 3688600; 511900, 3688600; 

511900, 3688500; 511700, 3688500; 

511700, 3688800; 511500, 3688800; 

511500, 3688900; 511400, 3688900; 

511400, 3689000; 511300, 3689000; 

511300, 3689100; 511200, 3689100; 

511200, 3689200; 511300, 3689200; 

511300, 3689300. 

(ii) Subunit 2B: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 513000, 3690900; 513000, 

3690800; 513200, 3690800; 513200, 

3690600; 513100, 3690600; 513100, 

3690400; 513200, 3690400; 513200, 

3690300; 513300, 3690300; 513300, 

3690000; 513200, 3690000; 513200, 

3689900; 513300, 3689900; 513300, 

3689600; 512900, 3689600; 512900, 

3689400; 512700, 3689400; 512700, 

3689500; 512600, 3689500; 512600, 

3689300; 512300, 3689300; 512300, 

3689400; 512200, 3689400; 512200, 

3689500; 512000, 3689500; 512000, 

3689700; 511900, 3689700; 511900, 

3689900; 511800, 3689900; 511800, 

3690200; 511700, 3690200; 511700, 

3690300; 511600, 3690300; 511600, 

3690500; 511500, 3690500; 511500, 

3690600; 511200, 3690600; 511200, 

3690700; 511100, 3690700; 511100, 

3690800; 510800, 3690800; 510800, 

3690900; 510700, 3690900; 510700, 

3690800; 510600, 3690800; 510600, 

3690900; 510500, 3690900; 510500, 

3691000; 510200, 3691000; 510200, 

3690900; 510300, 3690900; 510300, 

3690600; 510400, 3690600; 510400, 

3690300; 510200, 3690300; 510200, 

3690400; 509800, 3690400; 509800, 

3690500; 509700, 3690500; 509700, 

3690600; 509500, 3690600; 509500, 

3690700; 509400, 3690700; 509400, 

3690800; 509300, 3690800; 509300, 

3690900; 509100, 3690900; 509100, 

3691000; 509000, 3691000; 509000, 

3691200; 509200, 3691200; 509200, 

3691100; 509400, 3691100; 509400, 

3691300; 509300, 3691300; 509300, 

3691500; 509500, 3691500; 509500, 

3691400; 510000, 3691400; 510000, 

3691500; 510100, 3691500; 510100, 

3691600; 510200, 3691600; 510200, 

3691700; 510700, 3691700; 510700, 

3691600; 511000, 3691600; 511000, 

3691500; 511100, 3691500; 511100, 

3691400; 511400, 3691400; 511400, 

3691200; 511600, 3691200; 511600, 

3691100; 511700, 3691100; 511700, 

3691000; 511900, 3691000; 511900, 

3690900; 512000, 3690900; 512000, 

3690700; 511800, 3690700; 511800, 

3690600; 511900, 3690600; 511900, 

3690500; 512000, 3690500; 512000, 

3690400; 512100, 3690400; 512100, 

3690300; 512200, 3690300; 512200, 

3690200; 512500, 3690200; 512500, 

3690300; 512700, 3690300; 512700, 

3690400; 512600, 3690400; 512600, 

3690600; 512500, 3690600; 512500, 

3690700; 512400, 3690700; 512400, 

3690800; 512300, 3690800; 512300, 

3691100; 512500, 3691100; 512500, 

3691200; 513100, 3691200; 513100, 

3691300; 513200, 3691300; 513200, 

3691200; 513300, 3691200; 513300, 

3690900; 513000, 3690900; excluding 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD27 coordinates (E,N): 509900, 

3691000; 510100, 3691000; 510100, 

3690900; 510000, 3690900; 510000, 

3690800; 509900, 3690800; 509900, 

3691000; and 512800, 3691000; 513000, 

3691000; 513000, 3690900; 512800, 

3690900; 512800, 3691000. 

(iii) Subunit 2C: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 509200, 3689100; 509400, 3689100; 

509400, 3689000; 509700, 3689000; 

509700, 3688700; 509800, 3688700; 

509800, 3688600; 510200, 3688600; 

510200, 3688900; 510800, 3688900; 

510800, 3688800; 511100, 3688800; 

511100, 3688600; 511200, 3688600; 

511200, 3688500; 511300, 3688500; 

511300, 3688400; 511200, 3688400; 

511200, 3688300; 511500, 3688300; 

511500, 3688200; 511600, 3688200; 

511600, 3687900; 511300, 3687900; 

511300, 3687600; 511200, 3687600; 

511200, 3687500; 511100, 3687500; 

511100, 3687400; 511200, 3687400; 

511200, 3687100; 511000, 3687100; 

511000, 3687200; 510900, 3687200; 

510900, 3687300; 510600, 3687300; 

510600, 3687500; 510500, 3687500; 

510500, 3687400; 510400, 3687400; 

510400, 3687500; 510300, 3687500; 

510300, 3687600; 510400, 3687600; 

510400, 3687700; 510500, 3687700; 

510500, 3687800; 510400, 3687800; 

510400, 3687900; 510300, 3687900; 

510300, 3687800; 510100, 3687800; 

510100, 3687900; 509900, 3687900; 

509900, 3688200; 509800, 3688200; 

509800, 3688300; 509700, 3688300; 

509700, 3688400; 509500, 3688400; 

509500, 3688500; 509300, 3688500; 

509300, 3688600; 509200, 3688600; 

509200, 3689100. 

(iv) Subunit 2D: lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 507700, 3690800; 508000, 

3690800; 508000, 3690700; 508100, 

3690700; 508100, 3690800; 508300, 

3690800; 508300, 3690600; 508400, 

3690600; 508400, 3690500; 508500, 

3690500; 508500, 3690300; 508400, 

3690300; 508400, 3690100; 508500, 

3690100; 508500, 3690000; 508600, 

3690000; 508600, 3689900; 508700, 

3689900; 508700, 3689700; 508800, 

3689700; 508800, 3689600; 508900, 

3689600; 508900, 3689100; 508700, 

3689100; 508700, 3689200; 508600, 

3689200; 508600, 3689300; 508400, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
74614 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3689300; 508400, 3689400; 508200, 

3689400; 508200, 3689800; 508000, 

3689800; 508000, 3690000; 507900, 

3690000; 507900, 3690200; 507800, 

3690200; 507800, 3690400; 507500, 

3690400; 507500, 3690300; 507400, 

3690300; 507400, 3690500; 507500, 

3690500; 507500, 3690700; 507700, 

3690700; 507700, 3690800. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 3, 

Subunits 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER12DE06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 74615 

* * * * * Dated: November 21, 2006. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–9498 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2