28776 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2008–0006; 

92210–1117–0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AV23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Quino 

Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 

editha quino) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating final revised critical habitat 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha quino) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Approximately 62,125 

acres (ac) (25,141 hectares (ha)) of 

habitat in San Diego and Riverside 

Counties, California, are being 

designated as critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. This final 

revised designation constitutes a 

reduction of approximately 109,479 ac 

(44,299 ha) from the 2002 designation of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

July 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final 

economic analysis, and map of critical 

habitat will be available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2008–0006 and http:// 

www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this final rule will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 

92011; telephone 760–431–9440; 

facsimile 760–431–5901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We intend to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly under the 

Endangered Species Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in this final 

revised critical habitat designation. For 

more information on the taxonomy, 

biology, and ecology of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, refer to the final 

listing rule published in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 

2313), the original final critical habitat 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356); the 

Recovery Plan for the Quino 

Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas 

editha quino) (Service 2003a); and the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 

3328). 

New Information on Subspecies’ 

Description, Life History, Ecology, 

Habitat, and Range 

We received little new information 

pertaining to the description, life 

history, distribution, ecology, or habitat 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

following the 2008 proposed rule to 

revise critical habitat for this 

subspecies. The following paragraphs 

discuss the new information that we 

received, including recent information 

about another host plant species brought 

to our attention, and clarification 

regarding the subspecies’ likely 

expanded range and larval diapause. 

Please refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

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

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on January 17, 2008 (72 FR 

3328), for an in-depth discussion of the 

subspecies’ biology. 

In 2008, oviposition and larval 

development of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly were recorded for the first time 

on a native host plant, Collinsia 

concolor (Chinese houses). The Quino 

checkerspot butterfly was observed 

using numerous individual C. concolor 

plants at multiple locations in Riverside 

County (Pratt 2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 1; 

2008c, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. 

concolor commonly occurs in habitats 

with Plantago erecta (erect plantain), P. 

patagonica (Patagonian plantain), and 

Anterrhinum coulterianum (Coulter’s 

snapdragon) (Pratt 2001, pp. 42–43; 

Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this plant is 

typically found on north-facing slopes 

in cooler and moister microclimates 

than where the other host plant species 

occur (Pratt 2001, p. 40: Pratt 2008b, p. 

1). Quino checkerspot butterflies readily 

oviposit on C. concolor in captivity 

(Pratt 2001, p. 40). Relatively heavy but 

previously undocumented use of C. 

concolor at multiple high-elevation 

locations suggests that this host plant 

may become increasingly important for 

maintaining the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly population resilience as habitat 

conditions become warmer and drier 

(see below and the ‘‘Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations’’ 

section for additional discussion 

regarding climate change). If C. concolor 

is a novel host plant important for 

maintaining the resilience of established 

populations, it should also facilitate the 

subspecies’ adaptation to environmental 

change that may result from climate 

change, including range shift (Pimm et 

al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas et al. 2001, pp. 

577–581; Parmesan 2006, pp. 644, 645, 

647). For example, increased preference 

for a novel host plant allowed the brown 

argus butterfly (Aricia agestis) to use 

habitats that were too cool for the host 

plants it already used, thus permitting 

the butterfly species to cross previously 

large geographic gaps in its distribution 

that lacked its formerly preferred host 

plant (Pimm et al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas 

et al. 2001, pp. 577–581). 

Next, we did not discuss repeated 

diapause (the low-metabolic rate resting 

stage of the life cycle) in our January 17, 

2008 (72 FR 3328) proposed revision to 

critical habitat. One peer reviewer 

suggested this was an important aspect 

of the subspecies’ biology (see comment 

9 below); therefore, we are adding 

discussion here. Diapause occurs during 

the larval stage, primarily during 

summer and fall (Service 2003a, pp. 7– 

8). Captive rearing and observation of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae 

indicate repeated diapause is relatively 

common (over 50 percent likelihood for 

the first year; Pratt 2006, p. 10) and 

larvae can re-enter diapause up to three 

times (four diapause periods), but more 

than three diapause periods during an 

individual’s life span is unusual (Pratt 

2007a, pp. 10–13). 

Finally, the discussion of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 

editha; the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

is a subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot) 

range shift in our January 17, 2008 (72 

FR 33808), proposed revision to critical 

habitat requires clarification. Although 

locally adapted subspecies may shift 

their distribution within the middle of 

a greater species distribution (which 

appears to be occurring with the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly’s elevation range), 

the northward latitudinal range 

expansion of subspecies of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly implied by 

Parmesan’s (1996) study does not apply 

to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Because the subspecies’ current 

northern range edge is approximately 26 

miles (mi) (42 kilometers (km)) south of 

the historical range edge, any northward 

expansion of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly’s current range would 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28777 

constitute recolonization within the 

subspecies’ historical latitudinal range 

(San Bernardino and Ventura counties; 

see Service 2003a, pp. 1–3). 

Behavior and Population Structure 

The best available scientific data 

indicate that most Quino checkerspot 

butterfly populations have some degree 

of metapopulation structure (Service 

2003a, p. 22) and display 

metapopulation dynamics characterized 

by highly variable habitat occupancy 

patterns and detectability, similar to 

most subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; 

Service 2003a, pp. 21–27). Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly metapopulation 

structure is described by Ehrlich and 

Murphy (1987, p. 123) as the 

subdivision of a population into 

subpopulations that occupy clusters of 

habitat patches and interact extensively. 

Harrison et al. (1988, p. 360) described 

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly 

metapopulation structure as: ‘‘a set of 

[subpopulations] that are 

interdependent over ecological time.’’ 

Although subpopulations within a 

metapopulation may change in size 

independently, the probability of a 

subpopulation existing at a given time is 

not independent, because they are 

linked by an extirpation and mutual 

recolonization process that occurs every 

10 to 100 generations (Harrison et al. 

1988, p. 360). 

Rare high-density events and 

dispersal behavior are thought to be key 

elements of Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly population dynamics that 

structure populations. Harrison (1989, 

p. 1241) found that although dispersal 

direction from habitat patches seemed 

to be random in the bay checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), 

dispersing butterflies were most likely 

to move into habitat patches when they 

passed within approximately 163 feet 

(ft) (50 meters (m)) of those habitat 

patches. Dispersing bay checkerspot 

butterflies tended to remain in habitat 

patches where existing butterfly density 

was low (Harrison 1989, p. 1241). Bay 

checkerspot butterfly occupancy 

patterns also suggested that unoccupied 

habitat separated from occupied habitat 

by hilly terrain was less likely to be 

colonized than habitat separated by flat 

ground (Harrison 1989, p. 1241). 

Harrison (1989, pp. 1241, 1242) 

concluded that the long-term habitat 

recolonization pattern of her study 

population was likely due to relatively 

large numbers of bay checkerspot 

butterflies having dispersed from 

persistent ‘‘source’’ subpopulations. 

Harrison (1989, p. 1239) found bay 

checkerspot butterfly habitat within 0.6 

mi (1 km) of a source subpopulation is 

100 percent likely to be colonized by 

immigrants from the source 

subpopulation. Harrison (1989, p. 1239) 

also recaptured a significant number of 

individuals in habitat 0.6 mi (1 km) 

from their release point. Over a 5–day 

period, 5 percent of butterflies released 

at a single location were recaptured in 

an isolated ‘‘target habitat patch’’ 0.6 mi 

(1 km) away (Harrison 1989, p. 1239). 

Assuming mostly random initial 

movement direction from the release 

location at such a great release distance 

from the recapture site (Harrison 1989, 

p. 1241), many individuals likely 

traveled similar or further distances 

outside the study area. 

High habitat colonization rates 

probably only occur during rare 

outbreak years, when relatively high 

local densities combine with favorable 

establishment conditions in unoccupied 

habitat (Harrison 1989, p. 1242). These 

rare outbreak events are also thought to 

play a crucial role in Quino checkerspot 

butterfly metapopulation resilience and 

the subspecies’ survival (Murphy and 

White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich and Murphy 

1987, p. 127). Therefore, protection and 

management of source subpopulations 

likely to provide immigrants to 

unoccupied habitat are required for 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly (Service 2003a, pp. 22, 25–26, 

35, 94). 

Long-distance dispersal has been 

documented in the Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly, and dispersal propensity is 

affected by local environmental 

conditions and subspecies’ adaptation. 

White and Levin (1981, pp. 348–357) 

conducted the only mark-recapture 

movement study that included the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. White and 

Levin (1981, pp. 348–357) studied 

within-habitat patch movement of the 

Quino and bay checkerspot butterfly 

subspecies in southern San Diego 

County (male bay checkerspots were 

released into Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat late in the flight season 

when offspring survival was not 

considered possible). They concluded 

that patterns of dispersal changed 

‘‘dramatically’’ from year to year (White 

and Levin 1981, p. 348), and the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly was less sedentary 

than the more heavily studied bay 

checkerspot butterfly (White and Levin 

1981, p. 105). Although the average 

mark-recapture distance traveled by a 

Quino checkerspot butterfly in White 

and Levin’s (1981, p. 349) study was 

only 305 ft (93 m), movement records 

were limited to the local study area. 

White and Levin (1981, p. 349) stated, 

‘‘It seems likely from the lower rate of 

return in 1972 and from the observed 

pattern of out-dispersal that many 

marked animals dispersed beyond the 

area covered by our efforts that year. 

This out-dispersal might make the value 

for average distance [traveled] in 1972 

an underestimate of significant 

magnitude.’’ Long-distance movement 

in the bay checkerspot butterfly has 

been documented as far as 4 mi (6.4 km) 

(Murphy and Ehrlich 1980, p. 319) and 

3.5 mi (5.6 km) (Harrison 1989, p. 1239). 

The above information indicates that, 

although Edith’s checkerspot butterflies 

appear to be capable of long-distance 

dispersal, their movement propensity is 

variable and driven by external 

environmental factors. By extension, 

contiguous habitat between two 

butterflies observed 1.2 mi (2 km) from 

each other is within reasonable flight 

distance of both individuals and should 

be considered part of a shared home 

range. Therefore, based on typical longdistance recapture records, we conclude 

that Quino checkerspot butterflies 

observed within approximately 1.2 mi 

(2 km) of each other in contiguous 

habitat belong to the same population, 

and contiguous habitat within at least 

1.2 mi (2 km) of an observed Quino 

checkerspot butterfly is part of that 

individual’s population distribution. 

Delineating Population Distributions 

The best scientific data available to us 

for use in delineating Quino 

checkerspot butterfly population 

distributions consist of geographic 

information system (GIS)-based habitat 

information, subspecies observation 

locations, and subspecies movement 

data from mark-release-recapture 

studies. Population-scale occupancy (a 

population distribution) is defined as all 

areas used by adults during the 

persistence time of a population (years 

to decades; Service 2003a, p. 24). 

Focused distribution studies over 

multiple years are required to quantify 

Quino checkerspot butterfly population 

distributions. Therefore, the Recovery 

Plan described Quino checkerspot 

butterfly population locations in terms 

of ‘‘occurrence complexes’’ (Service 

2003a, p. 35), which were simple nonhabitat-based estimators of population 

distributions (well-mixed or 

metapopulation structure) and 

population membership of observed 

butterflies. Occurrence complexes are 

mapped in the Recovery Plan using a 

0.6-mi (1-km) movement radius from 

each butterfly observation and may be 

based on the observation of a single 

individual. Occurrence locations within 

at least 1.2 mi (2 km) of each other are 

considered to be part of the same 

occurrence complex, as these 

occurrences are proximal enough that 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28778 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the observed butterflies were likely to 

have come from the same population 

(Service 2003a, p. 35). 

Occurrence complexes may expand 

due to new butterfly observations, or 

contract due to habitat loss (for 

example, mapped occurrence complexes 

were limited by development, see 

Service 2003a p. 78). According to 

recorded Edith’s checkerspot butterfly 

movement distances (Gilbert and Singer 

1973, pp. 65, 66; Harrison et al. 1988, 

pp. 367–380; Harrison 1989, pp. 1239, 

1240), occurrence complexes 

appropriately describe the area within 

which a significant proportion of the 

habitat patch associated with individual 

observed butterflies is likely to occur 

(see above discussion and Service 

2003a, p. 35). 

Some occurrence complexes were 

identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a, p. 35) as ‘‘core.’’ Core occurrence 

complexes are those that appear to be 

centers of population density based on 

geographic size, number of reported 

individuals, repeated observations, and 

evidence of reproduction. Such 

population density centers are likely to 

contain ‘‘source’’ subpopulations for a 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

metapopulation (Murphy and White 

1984, p. 353; Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, 

p. 125; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; 

Service 2003a pp. 25–26), or ‘‘source’’ 

populations for megapopulations (a 

group of populations also dependent on 

one another, but on a time scale greater 

than that of subpopulations; Service 

2003a, pp. 21, 24, 25–26). A source 

subpopulation is one in which the 

emigration rate typically exceeds the 

immigration rate, and is thus a source of 

colonists for unoccupied habitat patches 

(Service 2003a, p. 166). Therefore, for 

the purposes of critical habitat 

designation, we defined a core 

occurrence complex as an area where at 

least two of the following criteria apply: 

(1) Surveyors reported 50 or more adults 

during a single survey at least once; (2) 

immature life stages were recorded; or 

(3) the geographic area within the 

occurrence complex (within 0.6 mi (1 

km) of subspecies occurrences) is 

greater than 1,290 ac (522 ha; the size 

of the smallest Core Occurrence 

Complex where reproduction has been 

documented on multiple occasions and 

there are historical collection records 

indicating long-term resilience). 

Status and Local Distribution of 

Populations in Riverside County 

Occurrence data collected in 

Riverside County since publication of 

the Recovery Plan in 2003 resulted in 

expansion of all core occurrence 

complexes and merging of some core 

occurrence complexes with non-core 

occurrence complexes (see discussion 

below). In particular, occurrence data 

collections in Riverside County since 

listing (62 FR 2313; January 16, 1997) 

have continued almost annually to 

expand the known elevation limit of the 

subspecies’ range (Pratt et al. 2001, pp. 

169–171; Service 2003a, p. 44; Goldberg 

2005, pp. 8, 9; Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 

4–5, 11–12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; San 

Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) GIS 

database). The Bautista Road 

Occurrence Complex (described as noncore in the Recovery Plan) is in a 

relatively high-elevation valley east of 

Temecula and north of the community 

of Anza, California. Multiple new 

observations have occurred within and 

around the Bautista Road Occurrence 

Complex (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Mooney 

Jones and Stokes 2005, p. 10). 

Consistent with criteria outlined in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 35) 

and above, we now consider the 

Bautista Road Occurrence Complex to 

be a Core Occurrence Complex. 

From 2004 to 2006, multiple new 

occurrence locations were also reported 

in the community of Anza, and north 

and northwest of the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex, Pine Grove Noncore Occurrence Complex, and Lookout 

Mountain Non-core Occurrence 

Complex. These new Non-core 

Occurrence Complexes are: (1) Cave 

Rocks within the community of Anza, 

just north of the intersection of Bautista 

Road and State Route (SR) 371 (AMEC 

2004, p. 9); (2) Quinn Flat located 

between Fobes Ranch Road and Morris 

Ranch Road northeast of Quinn Flat and 

SR 74 (Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4–5, 

11–12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; SBNF GIS 

database); (3) Horse Creek adjacent to 

Bautista Road, southeast of Bautista 

Spring (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Malisch 2006, 

p. 1); and (4) North Rouse Ridge located 

on Rouse Ridge in the hills east of 

Bautista Canyon, near where Bautista 

Road exits the foothills (Goldberg 2005, 

pp. 8, 9; SBNF GIS database ). None of 

these new observation locations met two 

or more of the criteria needed to 

categorize them as a core occurrence 

complex. However, these new Non-core 

Occurrence Complexes resulted in: (1) 

An increased number of known 

occupied areas near the community of 

Anza; (2) an expansion of the 

subspecies’ known geographic range at 

its northeastern extreme (where it had 

not been previously recorded, but 

within historical latitudinal limits of the 

subspecies’ distribution); and (3) an 

increase in the subspecies’ known 

elevation range (Service Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) database). 

Recent monitoring information 

indicates the Tule Peak and Silverado 

Core Occurrence Complexes described 

in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 

44) are part of a single high-density 

population distribution supporting 

periodic density increases, similar to 

historical outbreak events (Service 

2003a, p. 29), such as the 1977 outbreak 

in San Diego County reported by 

Murphy and White (1984, p. 351) (see 

also Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127; 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

(CFWO) 2004; Pratt 2004, p. 17). 

Occupancy in the Silverado Core 

Occurrence Complex was first 

documented in 1998 (Pratt 2001, p. 17), 

followed by the discovery of hundreds 

of Quino checkerspot adults in 2001 

within the Tule Peak Core Occurrence 

Complex (TeraCor 2002, p. 14). Such 

reports of hundreds of adults in the Tule 

Peak Core Occurrence Complex were 

unprecedented since the 1970s, because, 

typically, five or fewer individuals are 

reported during project-based surveys 

(Service GIS database). 

In 2004, following a year of aboveaverage host plant density in the Anza 

area (CFWO 2004), another Quino 

checkerspot butterfly outbreak event 

occurred with even higher abundance 

than was reported in 2001. An estimated 

500 to 1000 adult Quino checkerspot 

butterflies were reported from the 

Silverado Core Occurrence Complex in 

a single day in 2004 (Anderson 2007, p. 

1; CFWO 2004; Pratt 2004, pp. 16, 17). 

Additionally, more than 30 new 

occurrence locations with high adult 

densities were reported in 2004 in the 

vicinity of Tule Peak Road (92 to more 

than 100 observations in a single day) 

south of the Cahuilla Band of Mission 

Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, 

California (Cahuilla Band of Indians), 

and the community of Anza (Osborne 

2004, pp. 1–6, 8–10; Anderson 2007, p. 

5; CFWO 2004; Osborne 2007, pp. 13– 

16). Based on these new observations, it 

is appropriate to merge the Tule Peak 

(core), Silverado (core), and Southwest 

Cahuilla (non-core) occurrence 

complexes to form a single, expanded 

Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 

Complex. This population contains 

higher densities and likely produces 

more emigrants than any other 

population within the subspecies’ range. 

The best available scientific data 

(including recent outbreaks in the 

closest core occurrence complex) 

suggest the new Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex supports ongoing 

range shift for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly upslope in elevation, and other 

non-core occurrence complexes north of 

the community of Anza may be the 

result of recent colonization events. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28779 

Parmesan (1996, pp. 765–766) 

concluded that the average (not actual) 

position of known Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly populations had shifted north 

and up in elevation, likely due to a 

warming, drying climate (conclusion 

supported by the technical recovery 

team, Service 2003a, pp. 64, 65). 

Parmesan (1996, pp. 765–766) compared 

the distribution of the Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly in the early part of 

the 20th century to its distribution from 

1994 to 1996 using historical records 

and field surveys. This study identified 

a rangewide pattern of local Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly extirpations and 

noted that 80 percent of historically 

recorded populations in the southern 

part of the range were extinct at the time 

of the re-census in the mid-1990s (with 

the majority being Quino checkerspot 

butterfly populations). In contrast, 

historically recorded Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly populations in the 

mid-latitude part of the species’ range 

experienced only 40 percent 

extirpations, and the extirpation rate in 

the northern part was as low as 20 

percent (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765–766). 

Fewer than 15 percent of the Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly extirpations 

occurred in the highest elevation band 

(above 7,874 ft (2,400 m)) (Parmesan 

1996, pp. 765–766). 

Parmesan (1996, pp. 765–766) 

concluded that this pattern of 

extirpation indicates contraction of the 

southern boundary of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly’s overall 

distribution by almost 100 mi (160 km) 

and a shift in the average location of an 

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly occurrence 

northward by 57 mi (92 km). A parallel 

elevation gradient in extirpations 

shifted the mean location of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly populations 

upward by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint 

in the pattern of extirpations occurred at 

approximately 7,874 ft (2,400 m), with 

about 40 percent of all populations 

below the breakpoint recorded as 

extirpated in suitable habitats, while 

less than 15 percent were extirpated 

above the breakpoint. This pattern 

matched trends in snowpack dynamics 

in the Sierra Nevada (where the highelevation populations are found) over 

the same period as the butterfly study, 

with significant trends toward lighter 

snowpack and earlier melt date below 

7,874 ft (2400 m), and heavier snowpack 

and a (non-significant) trend toward 

later melt date above 7,874 ft (2400 m) 

(Johnson et al. 1999, pp. 63–70). This 

range shift closely matched shifts in 

mean yearly temperature (Parmesan 

1996, pp. 765–766; Karl et al. 1996, pp. 

279–292). Parmesan’s study found 

extirpations to be most common at 

lower elevations and latitudes, and the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly’s range 

includes both the lower elevation and 

lower latitude range extremes for Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly may be the 

subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot 

experiencing the greatest effects 

associated with changes in climate. 

Studies have demonstrated a 

correlation of population distribution 

and phenology changes with climate 

change for many other butterfly and 

insect species in California and around 

the world (Parmesan et al. 1999, p. 580; 

Forister and Shapiro 2003, p. 1130; 

Parmesan and Yohe 2003, pp. 38, 39; 

Karban and Strauss 2004, pp. 251–254; 

Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 146–147; 

Osborne and Ballmer 2006, p. 1; 

Parmesan 2006, pp. 646–647; Thomas et 

al. 2006, pp. 415–416). Metapopulation 

viability analyses of other endangered 

nymphalid butterfly species indicate 

that current climate trends pose a major 

threat to butterfly metapopulations by 

reducing butterfly growth rates and 

increasing subpopulation extirpation 

rates (Schtickzelle and Baguette 2004, p. 

277; Schtickzelle et al. 2005, p. 89). 

Most recently, Preston et al. (2008, p. 

2506) incorporated biotic interactions 

into niche models to predict suitable 

habitat for species under the range of 

climate conditions predicted for 

southern California in recent climate 

change models (see also Hayhoe et al. 

2004, pp. 12422–12427; IPCC 2007, p. 

9). 

Preston et al. (2008, p. 2508) found 

that Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 

decreased and became fragmented 

under altered climate conditions based 

on the climate-only model. For 

increasing temperatures and 110 percent 

precipitation, there was a shift in habitat 

to the eastern portion of the currently 

occupied range corresponding with an 

upslope movement of the species to 

higher elevations in adjacent mountains 

(Preston et al. 2008, p. 2508). The 

abiotic–biotic model (better-performing 

model) predicted 98 to 100 percent loss 

of suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly 

habitat when the temperature increased 

1.7 and 2.8 °C (1.5 and 2.5 °F) and when 

the precipitation was 50 percent or 150 

percent of current levels (Preston et al. 

2008, p. 2508). An increase of less than 

1 °C (1.1 °F) with no change in current 

precipitation resulted in no predicted 

habitat shift, although there was an 

eastward (upslope) shift within the 

current distributional footprint at 110 

percent precipitation (Preston et al. 

2008, p. 2508). Similar climate response 

patterns in modeled habitat and related 

and co-occurring insect species further 

support the validity of Parmesan’s 

(1996, pp. 765–766) Quino checkerspot 

butterfly observations and conclusions 

(Preston et al. 2008, pp. 2511, 2512). 

Therefore, the hypothesis of range shift 

driven by changing climate and 

precipitation patterns occurring in the 

foothills north of the community of 

Anza is well supported by the best 

available scientific information. 

Documented environmental changes 

that have already occurred in California 

(Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 124; 

Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Davis 

et al. 2002, p. 820; Breshears et al. 2005, 

p. 15144), future drought predictions for 

the state (such as Field et al. 1999, pp. 

8–10; Brunell and Anderson 2003, p. 21; 

Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et 

al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, 

p. 15144; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) 

and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9), 

and extirpation of Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly populations following extreme 

climatic events (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. 

101–105; Singer and Ehrlich 1979, pp. 

53–60; Singer and Thomas 1996, pp. 9– 

39) model and predict that prolonged 

drought and other environmental 

changes related to changing climate 

patterns will continue into the near 

future, and these changes may affect 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

populations. Thomas et al. (2004, p. 

147) estimated that 29 percent of species 

in scrublands (habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly) face eventual 

extinction, and 7 (with dispersal) to 9 

(without dispersal) percent of butterfly 

species in Mexico will become extinct 

(mid-range climate predictions; Thomas 

et al. 2004, p. 146). During drought 

conditions in 2007, surveyors noted 

that, for the first time since the 

subspecies was listed, no Quino 

checkerspot butterflies were observed 

during Riverside County surveys or core 

occurrence complex monitoring (CFWO 

2007). Therefore, recent subspecies field 

evidence corresponds with the 

hypothesis that changing environmental 

conditions throughout the subspecies’ 

range is resulting in reduced densities at 

lower elevations. 

Maintenance of the Tule Peak/ 

Silverado and Bautista Road core 

occurrence complexes and habitat 

connectivity to higher elevation noncore occurrence complexes is needed to 

prevent an increase in the subspecies’ 

extinction probability and support range 

shift resulting from environmental 

changes due to changing climate 

patterns (Service 2003a, pp. 46, 47; 

Osborne 2007, pp. 9–10). The Anza/ 

Mount San Jacinto foothills area (in and 

adjacent to the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex) is proximal to 

what is likely the highest density 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28780 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

population that produces the most 

emigrants within the subspecies’ range 

(Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 

Complex) and supports the greatest 

elevation gradient within the extant 

range of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. Regardless of range-shift 

dynamics, this area likely supports the 

most resilient populations within the 

subspecies’ current range (see above 

discussion of recent observations in this 

area). As discussed above, evidence of 

range shift resulting from environmental 

changes due to changing climate 

patterns includes the following: (1) 

Parmesan’s (1996) subspecies-specific 

study; (2) Preston et al.’s (2008, pp. 

2501–2505) subspecies-specific habitat 

model predictions; (3) recent 

documented Quino checkerspot 

butterfly outbreak events (discussed 

above); (4) the complete lack of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly observations in 

Riverside County during 2007 

monitoring; (5) documented drought 

conditions and the likelihood that 

recurrent drought conditions will 

persist into the near future (see above 

discussion); and (6) the discovery of 

new non-core occurrence complexes in 

the most northern, highest elevation 

habitat areas (see above discussion of 

recent observations in this area). 

Parmesan’s (1996, pp. 765–766) rangeshift statistics and Preston et al.’s 

habitat models (2008, pp. 2501–2505) 

predict the following Quino checkerspot 

butterfly population changes: (1) 

Declines in, and loss of, the 

southernmost and lowest elevation 

populations (lowest elevation range 

edge already retracted likely due to a 

combination of development and the 

1980s drought), especially in drier areas 

where rainfall is most variable (such as 

southwest Riverside County; Anderson 

2000, pp. 3, 6); (2) increases in the 

density in the highest elevation 

populations, especially in wetter areas 

(such as the Anza area; Service 2003a, 

p. 44); and (3) establishment of new 

populations higher in elevation where 

range shift is least impeded by habitat 

loss due to land-use changes (such as 

the Mount San Jacinto foothills; Service 

GIS database and satellite imagery). 

The highest elevation core occurrence 

complexes (Tule Peak/Silverado and 

Bautista Road) also support the highest 

(co-occurring) diversity of host plant 

species (Plantago patagonica, 

Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia 

concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus (rigid 

bird’s beak), and Castilleja exserta 

(purple owl’s-clover)) within the range 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a 

factor known to increase population 

resilience (Service 2003a, p. 17) and 

mitigate the effects of climate extremes 

on Edith’s checkerspot butterfly 

populations (Hellman 2002, p. 925). 

Therefore, prudent design of reserves 

and other managed habitats near the 

community of Anza, where the 

subspecies’ range is likely expanding 

upslope in elevation, should include 

landscape connectivity to other habitat 

patches and ecological connectivity 

(habitat patches linked by dispersal 

areas; Service 2003a, p. 162) to 

accommodate such range shift (Service 

2003a, p. 64). 

Status and Local Distribution of 

Populations in San Diego County 

New Quino checkerspot butterfly 

observations (Service GIS database) 

between occurrence complexes 

identified in the Recovery Plan have 

resulted in merging of the Otay Valley 

(core), West Otay Mountain (core), Otay 

Lakes (core), Proctor Valley (non-core), 

Dulzura (non-core), and Honey Springs 

(non-core) occurrence complexes into a 

single, expanded Otay Mountain Core 

Occurrence Complex. This merging of 

occurrence complexes in the Otay area 

was anticipated in the Recovery Plan, as 

authors noted that occupied habitat in 

the vicinity of Otay Lakes and Rancho 

Jamul appeared to be an area of key 

landscape connectivity for all 

subpopulations in southwest San Diego 

County (Service 2003a, pp. 53, 54). 

Several widely distributed new 

observation locations have been 

reported since 2002 in central San Diego 

County (Dudek 2005, p. 1; Faulkner 

2005, p. 1; Tierra Environmental 

Services 2005, p. 4), and between 

Interstate 8 and State Route 94 (TRC 

2008, pp. 33–38) resulting in four new 

San Diego County non-core occurrence 

complexes (Fanita Ranch, Sycamore 

Canyon, and Mission Trails Park, and 

Barrett Lake). The proximity of these 

occurrence complexes to historical 

collection locations (compare abovecited documents to Service 2003a, p. 3) 

indicates recent detections may reflect 

short-term increases in population 

densities; however, it is not likely that 

increasing densities will persist, given 

observed and predicted environmental 

shifts associated with changing climate 

patterns (see above discussion), 

increasing nonnative plant invasion, 

and the relative isolation of these noncore occurrence complexes from core 

occurrence complexes. Therefore, the 

best available data indicate that these 

new observation locations may be the 

result of surveys in areas not previously 

searched and likely represent residual, 

relatively low-density populations 

experiencing a long-term trend of 

decreasing abundance. 

Multiple new Quino checkerspot 

butterfly observation locations have 

been reported in south-central San 

Diego County since 2002 east of the 

community of Campo (Dicus 2005a, pp. 

1–2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, 

p. 26; O’Conner 2006, pp. 2–4). This 

cluster of occurrence complexes near 

Campo is over 7 mi (11 km) from the 

closest previously identified core 

occurrence complex near the 

community of Jacumba (Service 2003a, 

p. 52; Service GIS satellite imagery and 

database) and over 12 mi (19 km) from 

the Tecate (non-core) Occurrence 

Complex (Service 2003a, p. 47; Service 

GIS satellite imagery and database). We 

believe the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

distribution east of the community of 

Campo is under-documented because of: 

(1) The small number of surveys 

conducted in this area (Service survey 

report files); (2) the existence of 

contiguous habitat between observation 

locations (Service GIS vegetation 

database and satellite imagery); and (3) 

the presence of relatively high densities 

of Antirrhinum coulterianum and 

Collinsia cocolor host plants in 

occupied habitat (Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 1992, p. c–5; Allen and Kurnow 

2005, pp. 10, 13–16; Dicus 2005a, pp. 1– 

2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 

26; O’Conner 2006, pp. 1–4, Science 

Applications International Corporation 

2006, pp. 33, 34, 37). 

Methods used in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 35) to determine 

membership of occurrence locations in 

an occurrence complex using the sparse 

available occurrence data would likely 

underestimate the population 

distribution associated with this 

obviously independent population near 

the communities of La Posta and 

Campo. Therefore, although not quite 

proximal enough to be considered a 

single occurrence complex based on 

overlapping 0.6-mi (1-km) movement 

distances (Service 2003a, p. 35), we 

consider this cluster of new 

observations near Campo to belong to a 

single new La Posta/Campo Core 

Occurrence Complex. 

Quino checkerspot butterflies were 

recently observed in a new location in 

southeast San Diego County that 

resulted in expansion of the Jacumba 

Occurrence Complex (Essex and 

Osborne 2005, p. 82). Additionally, data 

collected from the Jacumba Occurrence 

Complex since publication of the 

Recovery Plan led us to reclassify the 

Jacumba complex as a core occurrence 

complex. The Jacumba Occurrence 

Complex was not classified as a core 

occurrence complex in the Recovery 

Plan (Service 2003a, p. 52) due to its 

relatively small geographic size. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28781 

However, adult Quino checkerspot 

butterflies are consistently observed in 

the area, even during drought years and 

under difficult survey conditions (high 

winds) (CFWO 2002–2007; Klein 2007, 

p. 1). An estimated 50 individuals were 

observed in a single day near Jacumba 

Peak (Pratt 2007b, p. 1). Furthermore, 

reproduction was documented in the 

Jacumba Occurrence Complex in 1998 

and again in 2004 (Pratt 2007c, p. 1). 

Therefore, given ongoing documentation 

of occupancy (Service 2004, 2005, 

2008), documented reproduction over 

multiple years (Pratt 2007c, p. 1), 

reported observations of large numbers 

of individuals (50; Pratt 2007b, p. 1), 

and an increased occurrence complex 

area (approximately 522 ac (1,290 ha)), 

we now consider the Jacumba 

Occurrence Complex to be a core 

occurrence complex associated with 

what appears to be a relatively resilient 

population. 

The prediction that drought 

conditions are likely to continue into 

the near future (Service 2003a, pp. 63, 

64; see above discussion) highlights the 

importance of conserving populations 

locally adapted to drier climates and 

diverse habitat types (Service 2003a, p. 

76). The La Posta/Campo and Jacumba 

core occurrence complex habitats are 

warmer and drier than the Otay 

Mountain Core Occurrence Complex 

and differ substantially in other habitat 

characteristics (Service 2003a, pp. 36– 

54; O’Conner 2006, p. 4). Therefore, 

maintenance of these core occurrence 

complexes is essential for recovery and 

survival of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly in San Diego County. These 

new core occurrence complexes were 

also the only complexes in the 

subspecies’ southern range not affected 

by the 2003 and 2005 fires. Therefore, 

new information indicates the La Posta/ 

Campo and Jacumba Core Occurrence 

Complexes contribute significantly to 

reducing the subspecies’ extinction 

probability. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Homebuilders Association of 

Northern California, et al., filed suit 

against the Service in March 2005 

challenging the merits of the final 

critical habitat designations for several 

taxonomic entities, including the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. A settlement was 

reached in March 2006 that required the 

Service to re-evaluate five final critical 

habitat designations, including the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

settlement stipulated that proposed 

revisions to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly designation would be 

submitted for publication to the Federal 

Register by December 7, 2007, and final 

revisions would be submitted by 

December 7, 2008. In accordance with a 

court-approved amendment to the 

settlement agreement, dated December 

5, 2007, the proposed revisions were 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). 

Subsequently, a court-approved 

amendment to the settlement agreement 

dated November 6, 2008, stipulated the 

Service deliver the final revised critical 

habitat designation to the Federal 

Register by June 6, 2009. For more 

information on previous Federal actions 

concerning the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly, refer to the proposed revisions 

to critical habitat published in the 

Federal Register on January 17, 2008 

(73 FR 3328). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed rule to revise 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly during two 

comment periods. The first comment 

period opened with the publication of 

the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 

3328), and closed on March 17, 2008. 

The second comment period opened 

with the publication of the notice of 

availability of the Draft Economic 

Analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register 

on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568) 

and closed on January 20, 2009. During 

both public comment periods, we 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule to revise critical 

habitat for this subspecies and the 

associated DEA. During the comment 

periods, we requested all interested 

parties submit comments or information 

related to the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat, including (but not 

limited to) the following: unit 

boundaries; species occurrence 

information and distribution; land use 

designations that may affect critical 

habitat; potential economic effects of the 

proposed designation; benefits 

associated with critical habitat 

designation; areas proposed for 

designation and associated rationale for 

the non-inclusion or considered 

exclusion of these areas; and methods 

used to designate critical habitat. 

During the first comment period, we 

received 17 comment letters (15 letters 

addressing the proposed revision of 

critical habitat, and 2 letters from a 

single commenter that were not related 

to proposed revisions to critical habitat): 

two from peer reviewers, three from 

Federal agencies, six from 

representatives of five Native American 

tribes, and six from public organizations 

or individuals. During the second 

comment period, we received nine 

comments addressing the proposed 

critical habitat designation and the DEA. 

Of these latter comments, two were from 

peer reviewers, two from Federal 

agencies, two from Native American 

tribes, and three from public 

organizations or individuals. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Policy for Peer 

Review in Endangered Species Act 

Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from 10 knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the subspecies, the 

geographic region in which it occurs, 

and conservation biology principles. 

Four peer reviewers submitted 

responses. They provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions that we incorporated into 

the rule to improve the final revised 

critical habitat rule. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the designation of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. All comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer stated 

they had recently communicated with 

residents in and around the community 

of Anza and concluded that residents 

moved to this area based on an 

appreciation of nature and the outdoors. 

The peer reviewer suggested the Service 

should inform residents on how to 

improve Quino checkerspot butterfly 

habitat. The peer reviewer also asserted 

that residents of Anza are suspicious of 

government intervention and value their 

personal freedom more than endangered 

species preservation. The peer reviewer 

expressed willingness to help organize a 

meeting that would provide private 

landowners from Anza with information 

on how to preserve the subspecies. The 

peer reviewer concluded that, because 

of their appreciation for nature, Anza 

residents would be willing to improve 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat on 

their lands, but that willingness would 

be decreased by critical habitat 

designation; therefore, we should 

exclude any lands in the vicinity of 

Anza from our revised critical habitat 

designation. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28782 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: We agree that species 

conservation benefits provided by 

landowner partnerships to conserve 

federally listed species may minimize 

the conservation benefits of designating 

privately owned lands as critical 

habitat, and we appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s interest in participating in 

such an endeavor. We encourage the 

peer reviewer to continue to 

communicate and work with residents 

of Anza (Units 6 and 7) to conserve the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly, within and 

outside of areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat. Should residents of 

Anza or surrounding areas be interested 

in developing a partnership to conserve 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly, Service 

biologists are available to participate 

and provide information on such 

partnership programs as Safe Harbor 

Agreements for private landowners. Safe 

Harbor Agreements provide assurances 

to landowners under the Act that no 

additional future regulatory restrictions 

will be imposed if conservation 

practices on their land attract or 

perpetuate federally listed species. At 

this time, there is no formal partnership 

between the peer reviewer, residents of 

Anza, or the Service to conserve the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly or its 

habitat, other than the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Western 

Riverside County MSHCP; Dudek and 

Associates, Inc. 2003), under which 

some areas south of the community of 

Anza are already excluded (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer 

observed Quino checkerspot butterflies 

‘‘by the 100s’’ near the community of 

Anza during a subspecies ‘‘outbreak.’’ 

The peer reviewer observed several 

unique behaviors in the Anza area in 

2004 (they stated 2006 but our records 

indicate 2004), including a female deep 

within a stand of Adenostoma 

sparsifolium (redshank), likely 

searching for sites to deposit eggs. 

Despite extensive survey efforts prior to 

this 2004 observation, the peer reviewer 

had never observed Quino checkerspot 

butterflies in dense A. sparsifolium, and 

previously assumed the subspecies 

never went into such areas. 

The peer reviewer asserted that Quino 

checkerspot butterflies move many more 

miles during periods of high subspecies 

density than observed during average 

density years. The peer reviewer 

hypothesized that, under certain 

environmental conditions, hormonal 

changes could be responsible for the 

behavioral changes he observed. The 

peer reviewer also noted that, during 

historical ‘‘outbreaks,’’ Quino 

checkerspot butterflies were observed in 

downtown San Diego. The peer 

reviewer hypothesized this movement 

behavior may be unique to the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly among Edith’s 

checkerspot subspecies, and movement 

between populations may be important 

for replacing extirpated populations and 

maintaining gene flow between extant 

populations. Finally, the peer reviewer 

stated a lack of conserved ‘‘intermediate 

habitat’’ between populations may cause 

extirpation of populations and, 

eventually, subspecies extinction. 

Our Response: We were aware of the 

peer reviewers’ observations and had 

incorporated those observations into our 

analysis (for example, inclusion of 

closed-woody canopy areas in Primary 

Constituent Element (PCE) 2; see 

‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’ section 

below). We appreciate the peer 

reviewers’ insights and contributions to 

our knowledge of the subspecies’ 

biology. 

Although we are not aware of any 

recorded long-distance movements for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly, the one 

within-habitat patch movement study 

completed at Otay Lakes (White and 

Levin 1981, pp. 350, 355) concluded 

that Quino checkerspot butterflies were 

‘‘less sedentary’’ than bay checkerspot 

butterflies and may disperse greater 

distances. Plasticity and variability of 

movement behavior is typical among 

Euphydryas spp. (Service 2003a, pp. 

10–13), as demonstrated by the 

historical observations of Quino 

checkerspot butterflies in downtown 

San Diego that were cited by the peer 

reviewer. These observations indicate 

that, when many individuals were 

dispersing during at least one unusually 

high-density historical event, developed 

areas did not prevent such movement. 

Therefore, because the best available 

scientific information supports the need 

for within-population movement areas, 

but does not support the necessity or 

identification of ‘‘intermediate habitat’’ 

for dispersal between populations, we 

included only movement areas within 

habitat-based population distributions 

in our critical habitat designation (see 

‘‘Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section below). 

Comment 3: Based on personal 

experience maintaining captive 

populations, the peer reviewer asserted 

that Quino checkerspot butterfly 

populations are more susceptible to 

inbreeding depression than most other 

butterfly species. The peer reviewer 

stated that, when closely related Quino 

checkerspot butterfly individuals are 

bred ‘‘for some time’’ without outcrossing, they observe greater egg and 

larval mortality than generally observed 

in butterfly species in the family 

Lycaenidae (coppers and blues). The 

peer reviewer concluded the Service 

should consider assisting genetic 

exchange between populations that 

appear to be losing genetic variability, 

such as the small population in Unit 1 

(Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence 

Complex). The peer reviewer stated they 

suspected low genetic diversity was a 

primary cause of the Gavilan Hills/Lake 

Mathews population extirpation. 

Our Response: We recognize that the 

increased mortality observed during 

captive rearing could be indicative of 

inbreeding depression; however, we 

have no basis upon which to determine 

whether or not populations of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly outside of a 

laboratory setting experience inbreeding 

depression. We agree with the 

commenter’s recommendation that an 

evaluation of the population genetics of 

this butterfly could assist its recovery, 

and we discussed the possible effects of 

genetic drift and inbreeding depression 

in the listing rule for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly (Service 1997, pp. 

2319–2320). We appreciate this 

information; however, we do not believe 

it is relevant to our final revised critical 

habitat designation. 

Comment 4: One peer reviewer stated 

that populations in Units 6 and 7 near 

the community of Anza are ‘‘continuous 

and not actually separate.’’ The peer 

reviewer indicated that extensive 

suitable habitat exists between these 

two units (especially in Terwilliger 

Valley), which is probably occupied by 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Additionally, the peer reviewer noted 

there are multiple public land parcels in 

the area and some have extensive stands 

of the food plant Antirrhinum 

coulterianum. 

Our Response: While landscape 

connectivity does exist between Units 6 

and 7 in the Anza area, and some 

occupied habitat exists in the area that 

was not included in our proposed 

revised critical habitat units (Cave 

Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core 

occurrence complexes), habitat within 

the community of Anza is fragmented, 

and large areas of landscape 

connectivity occur outside our mapped 

habitat-based population distributions 

(that is, not occupied). Our habitatbased population distributions are the 

best estimate of population occupancy 

based on the best available scientific 

data. Because the habitat-based 

population distributions are not 

continuous, we must assume the 

Bautista Road and Tule Peak/Silverado 

core occurrence complexes and the Cave 

Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28783 

occurrence complexes are not part of a 

single population. We determined that 

habitat captured by the core occurrence 

complex habitat-based population 

distributions in Units 6 and 7 provide 

the PCEs laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies. Our criteria used to identify 

critical habitat focused on core 

occurrence complex habitat-based 

population distributions designed to 

capture all habitats likely to support 

resilient metapopulations, including 

those likely to support local source or 

mainland populations (also called 

subpopulations) and movement areas 

between habitat patches required for 

metapopulation resilience (see Service 

2003a pp. 163, 165–166 for term 

definitions). Finally, Terwilliger Valley 

is not located between Units 6 and 7, it 

is located east of Unit 6 (Unit 7 is north). 

Please see ‘‘Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat’’ section below for 

further discussion. 

Comment 5: Two peer reviewers 

stated the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex was probably 

occupied at the time of listing, but 

occupancy was not documented because 

that area was not adequately surveyed at 

that time. The second peer reviewer 

asserted that, prior to 1998, butterfly 

experts did not know much about 

habitats near the community of Anza, 

and all high-elevation observations were 

thought to be dispersing individuals 

because the only known primary host 

plant, Plantago erecta, did not occur 

above 3,000 ft (914 m) in elevation. The 

second peer reviewer noted that Dr. 

John Emmel observed a Quino 

checkerspot butterfly [near the 

community of Anza] along Bautista 

Road in the 1970s. The second peer 

reviewer also suggested that surveys be 

conducted in higher elevation areas 

where the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

may eventually colonize to determine if 

the subspecies is absent and to 

document possible establishment of 

new populations in the future. Finally, 

the second peer reviewer asserted that 

movement of this subspecies into new 

areas will not be easy because of 

inbreeding depression (see Comment 3 

above), and suggested the subspecies 

may move by local and gradual 

movements and eventually expand into 

higher elevation sites. 

Our Response: We agree that it is 

possible that the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex was occupied at 

the time of listing; however, we have 

insufficient documentation to support 

that assertion. We received subsequent 

confirmation of Dr. Emmel’s historical 

Quino checkerspot butterfly observation 

referenced by the peer reviewer. Dr. 

Emmel (2008, p. 1) stated that, on March 

26, 1988, he observed what appeared to 

be a single female Quino checkerspot 

butterfly at the intersection of Bautista 

Road and Tripp Flats Road at 3,840 ft 

(1,170 m) elevation. Dr. Emmel (2008, p. 

1) further stated that this historical 

observation within the Bautista Road 

Core Occurrence Complex may have 

been of a dispersing individual from a 

more southern population, and the 

subspecies may have almost exclusively 

used Plantago spp. in the 1970s and 

1980s. Therefore, we are uncertain 

when the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex was initially 

colonized; however (as stated above in 

the ‘‘Background’’ section), we believe 

it currently provides colonists to higher 

elevations and, through this mechanism, 

likely facilitates range shift resulting 

from environmental changes that 

degrade suitable habitat conditions. 

Inbreeding depression may slow 

colonization of new areas. However, 

when gene flow is restricted (for 

example, by mountainous terrain; 

Service 2003a, p. 13), local adaptation 

can occur quickly because peripheral 

populations are not swamped by genes 

adapted to environmental conditions 

specific to the range core (Zakharov and 

Hellman 2008, p. 199). Higher rates of 

local adaptation at a species’ range edge 

may counteract any negative effects of 

inbreeding depression on colonization 

rate. Therefore, we did not base any of 

our conclusions on the hypothesis that 

inbreeding depression slows 

colonization of new areas in this 

subspecies. 

Comment 6: One peer reviewer 

asserted the use of host plant species 

other than Plantago spp. and 

Antirrhinum coulterianum in Riverside 

County should be investigated before 

assuming they are not used. The peer 

reviewer stated that the western San 

Diego County populations may also use 

many undocumented host plants, 

including Castilleja affinis (coast Indian 

paintbrush), Castilleja foliolosa (woolly 

paintbrush), Collinsia heterophylla, and 

Antirrhinum nuttallianum (Nuttall’s 

snapdragon). 

Finally, the peer reviewer expressed 

the opinion that Penstemon 

centranthifolius (scarlet bugler) may 

also be an important Quino checkerspot 

host plant near the community of Anza. 

The peer reviewer stated that they 

observed Quino checkerspot butterflies 

in early spring near the community of 

Anza and that subspecies’ presence 

appears to be positively correlated with 

relatively heavy feeding damage on P. 

centranthifolius by an as-yet-undetected 

herbivore. The peer reviewer 

hypothesized the feeding damage on P. 

centranthifolius could be caused by lateinstar Quino checkerspot butterfly 

larvae because they had difficulty 

detecting Quino checkerspot butterfly 

larvae on host plants other than 

Plantago spp. The peer reviewer 

concluded that P. centranthifolius might 

be important for post-diapause larval 

feeding because it is the only potential 

host plant species available for adult egg 

deposition and post-diapause larval 

feeding during periods of drought. 

Therefore, the peer reviewer believes P. 

centranthifolius may be an important 

food source for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly larvae in high-elevation sites 

during drought. 

Our Response: We agree the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly may use different 

host plant species across its range. We 

provided a list of all host plant species 

where egg deposition has been 

documented in our ‘‘Primary 

Constituent Elements’’ section below, 

including Collinsia concolor, 

documented in 2008 to be used in the 

field by the Quino checkerspot. We 

appreciate information on potential use 

of Penstemon centranthifolius as a host 

plant; however, Quino checkerspot 

butterfly use of this potential hostplant 

species has not been documented, and 

any related changes to this final revised 

critical habitat designation would not be 

appropriate. 

Comment 7: One peer reviewer noted 

that, based on his experience, 

Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), 

Chaenactis glabriuscula (pinchusion 

flower), and Ericameria linearifolia 

(narrowleaf goldenbush) are important 

nectar sources for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly survival. The peer reviewer 

stated some of the nectar sources on 

page 3335 of the proposed revised 

critical habitat rule (73 FR 3328; January 

17, 2008) are not important because they 

are rarely visited by females and, 

therefore, do not contribute to increased 

production of eggs or subspecies 

survival. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information based on the peer 

reviewer’s experience and have revised 

our list of nectar source examples in the 

PCEs to include the species named by 

the peer reviewer. The peer reviewer 

did not specify which nectar sources on 

the existing PCE list they did not believe 

were important. Our list of nectar 

sources is not exhaustive, and nectar 

source importance can be site specific. 

Therefore, we believe our current PCE 

nectar source list is appropriate (see 

‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’ section 

below). 

Comment 8: One peer reviewer stated 

that overcollection did not play a role in 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28784 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the loss of Quino checkerspot butterfly 

populations. 

Our Response: The listing rule (62 FR 

2313; January 16, 1997) identified overcollection as a threat to the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. The Service has 

initiated a 5–year review on this 

subspecies and is re-evaluating the 

magnitude and extent of all threats. We 

appreciate this information; however, 

we do not believe it is relevant to our 

final revised critical habitat designation. 

Comment 9: One peer reviewer stated 

that they believe all areas containing 

low shrubs should be included in the 

PCEs because diapause constitutes the 

majority of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly’s annual life cycle, and larvae 

diapause in low shrubs such as 

Eriogonum fasciculatum (California 

buckwheat). 

Our Response: This critical habitat 

designation includes all habitat-based 

population distributions associated with 

core occurrence complexes (see 

‘‘Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section below), and the PCEs 

include all vegetation with an open 

woody canopy, including shrublands 

(see ‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’ 

section below). Therefore, habitat 

containing low shrubs essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies, such as 

Eriogonum fasciculatum, is included in 

this final revised critical habitat 

designation. 

Comment 10: One peer reviewer 

maintained that the availability of 

prominent hilltops should be ‘‘weighed 

carefully in any decision relating to the 

possible exclusion of critical habitat and 

associated conservation plans’’ because 

the loss of such courtship areas could 

result in the loss of populations even if 

other PCEs are present in designated 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: This peer reviewer is 

apparently concerned that exclusion of 

areas from critical habitat will result in 

the loss of the excluded habitat, 

especially habitat containing hilltops. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary to designate critical habitat 

after taking into consideration the 

economic impacts, national security 

impacts, and any other relevant impacts 

of specifying any particular area as 

critical habitat. An area may be 

excluded from critical habitat if it is 

determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat, unless the failure to designate 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. We believe the exclusions made 

in this final revised rule are legally 

supported under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and scientifically justified. The peer 

reviewer specifically commented on 

exclusions where conservation plans are 

in place. Areas excluded under section 

4(b)(2) based on completed habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) or other 

Service-approved management plans 

receive long-term protection and 

conservation; therefore, areas excluded 

from critical habitat designation should 

not result in the loss of the excluded 

habitat,. As discussed below, we fully 

considered and weighed the benefits to 

the conservation of the subspecies from 

including the specific areas we 

determined contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly (including prominent hilltops 

used for mating) within the habitat 

conservation plan areas, in light of our 

determination that these areas will be 

adequately protected on lands covered 

by the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP and the San Diego County 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP), City of Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) 

– Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below). 

Comment 11: One peer reviewer 

stated, ‘‘Although annual surveys for the 

presence of [Quino checkerspot] 

butterfly adults are important * * * a 

population can be represented for 

several consecutive bad years by 

diapausing larval clusters that have 

been shown to survive for at least 4 

years.’’ The peer reviewer added that 

other butterfly and moth species have 

adapted to drought conditions in the 

western United States and are capable of 

diapausing for up to 30 years. 

Our Response: We are aware Quino 

checkerspot butterflies can diapause for 

multiple years (Service 2003a, pp. 8–9), 

and under extreme drought conditions, 

no larvae in a surveyed area may have 

metamorphosed into adults. We are also 

aware that captive rearing and 

observations of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly larvae indicate that repeated 

diapause is relatively common (over 50 

percent likelihood for the first year; 

Pratt 2006, p. 10). Larvae can re-enter 

diapause up to three times (four 

diapause periods), but more than three 

diapause periods during an individual’s 

lifespan is unusual (Pratt 2007a, pp. 10– 

13). Captive-rearing and field data 

indicate that larvae typically undergo 

extended diapause when environmental 

conditions are not favorable for growth 

(Pratt 2007a, pp. 10–13). Negative 

surveys are not considered credible if 

unfavorable weather, such as drought, 

limits Quino checkerspot butterfly 

detectability (Service 2002, p. 6). 

Therefore, we have confidence in the 

quality of surveys conducted by 

individuals with recovery permits under 

section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Act and the 

relative rarity of spurious results. We 

did not base any of our criteria on 

negative surveys, and included 

contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km) 

of all documented observations within a 

core occurrence complex (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’ 

section below), therefore we believe the 

apparent concerns of this peer reviewer 

have been adequately addressed in this 

rule. 

Comment 12: One peer reviewer 

suggested the analysis of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly nectar resources in 

the proposed revisions to critical habitat 

was not sufficient. The peer reviewer 

maintained that nectar plant availability 

can vary to a large degree among 

occupied areas, and the relative 

importance of nectar plant species will 

change over the flight period of the 

butterfly and from year-to-year. The 

peer reviewer emphasized that it is 

important to consider the contribution 

of nectar to increased female longevity 

and egg production. 

Our Response: We agree that a more 

detailed nectar-resource-needs analysis 

would be desirable. However, we are 

not aware of any quantitative nectar-use 

data specific to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly that would further inform our 

analysis. Consequently, we determined 

that the peer-reviewed scientific 

publications that characterize Quino 

checkerspot butterfly nectar resources 

are the best scientific and commercial 

information available. Furthermore, 

variability in nectar source availability 

is not relevant to this final revised 

critical habitat designation because the 

PCE description relevant to nectar 

resources is not dependent on temporal 

variability (for example, many 

herbaceous plants are not detectable or 

identifiable during the fall or winter 

seasons). 

Comment 13: One peer reviewer (A) 

asserted that, although climate change 

may affect insect distributions globally, 

the hypothesis that it is affecting the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly is not 

supported by ‘‘sound’’ biological 

evidence. Peer reviewer A 

recommended removing the climate 

change discussion to save taxpayer 

dollars, suggesting that this 

modification would not affect the 

proposed or final revised critical habitat 

designation. Peer reviewer A further 

asserted that our suggestion that the 

newly identified colonies of Quino 

checkerspot butterflies (unspecified 

location, presumed north of the 

community of Anza) are a result of 

climate change is speculative. Peer 

reviewer A noted that Parmesan’s (1996) 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28785 

study did not find new northern or 

higher elevation populations. 

Additionally, the peer reviewer claimed 

Parmesan’s (1996) range shift results 

were a ‘‘statistical artifact’’ of the 

apparent loss of low-lying southern 

populations, and that her negative 

occupancy data might have been the 

result of surveys conducted during 

‘‘bad’’ years when all individuals were 

diapausing larvae. 

Conversely, two other peer reviewers 

(B and C) expressed support for use of 

evidence and predictions of range shift 

resulting from environmental changes 

due to changing climate patterns to 

determine what lands meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Peer 

reviewer B noted that Quino 

checkerspot butterfly populations show 

dramatic changes in abundance from 

year to year, including responses to 

yearly patterns of precipitation and 

temperature. Peer reviewers B and C 

noted that, because the Edith’s 

checkerspot species is known to 

respond strongly to climate, the species 

would also be expected to respond to 

climate change. Peer reviewer B further 

stated there is no reason to expect the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly to respond 

to ongoing climate change differently 

from other insects, and every reason to 

expect it to respond similarly to other 

climate-sensitive species. Peer reviewer 

C stated specifically, ‘‘The summary of 

likely impacts of climate change for the 

near and long-term future of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly (largely on page 

3332 [of the proposed revised rule]) is 

well thought out. I fully agree with the 

recommendations outlined for revision 

and expansion of protected areas. The 

recommendations represent a rational 

adaptation plan to allow the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly to persist in the 

face of on-going climate change which 

is affecting habitat suitability in the 

region.’’ Peer reviewer C further stated 

that shifts upslope in elevation are more 

probable than latitudinal shifts because 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly’s 

historical range was bounded on the 

northern and eastern sides by desert 

habitat, and elevation shifts require less 

adaptation than latitudinal shifts. 

Peer reviewer C described two 

possible drivers of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly’s upslope range 

shift: (1) The main host plant species 

may shift upslope; or (2) the subspecies 

could switch to other host plant species 

occurring higher in elevation as that 

habitat becomes more suitable with 

climate change. They noted that rapid 

evolution toward use of novel hosts was 

documented for several subspecies of 

Edith’s checkerspot. Both peer 

reviewers argued that new scientific 

information (citing several sources) has 

further supported Parmesan’s (1996) 

conclusion that the range of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly has retracted at 

lower elevations and more southern 

latitudes, and is likely expanding at 

higher elevations and more northern 

latitudes. 

Our Response: As detailed below, we 

agree with the opinions of peer 

reviewers B and C. We agree with peer 

reviewer A that removing the issue of 

climate change would not affect the 

proposed or final revised critical habitat 

designation; however, we do not agree 

it is not a relevant criterion for inclusion 

in critical habitat (see ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section below). 

Unit 7 is designed to capture the habitat 

occupied by the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly population that is likely one of 

the two most resilient in existence, and 

also most likely to provide colonists to 

higher elevation habitat in the process 

of range shift resulting from 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns (See ‘‘Background’’ 

section above and ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section below). 

Furthermore, in response to Peer 

Reviewer A’s concerns, we acknowledge 

that inherent uncertainty exists in all 

conclusions drawn exclusively from 

correlative ecological field studies and 

qualitative observations (Peet 1991, p. 

605). Nonetheless, case studies in 

complex natural systems are a 

foundation of ecological science, and 

conclusions should be drawn from 

generalizations based on comparison of 

other systems and as much specific 

local information as possible (Peet 1991, 

p. 605). Within the context of this 

critical habitat designation, we 

considered all available data concerning 

the likelihood of elevation range shift in 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

including: (1) Well-documented loss of 

lower-elevation populations occurring 

in this species (Edith’s checkerspot) 

rangewide, and upslope elevation rangeshifts (including new higher-elevation 

populations) in related butterfly species 

around the world (Parmesan et al. 1999 

pp. 579–583; Parmesan and Yohe 2003, 

pp. 37–42; Parmesan 2006, pp. 648– 

649); (2) significantly earlier butterfly 

species emergence times (Parmesan 

2007, p. 1860, 1864); (3) widening 

phenological asynchrony between 

butterfly maturation and host plant 

availability (Parmesan 2007; pp. 1860, 

1864, 1868, 1870); and (4) habitat-based 

model predictions of pronounced future 

upslope subspecies range shift resulting 

from environmental changes due to 

changing climate patterns (Preston et al. 

2008, p. 2508). The best available 

scientific data indicate that the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly is undergoing 

range shift and inclusion of unoccupied 

habitat and non-core occurrence 

complexes in Unit 7 encompasses 

habitat that is essential for the 

conservation of the species in light of 

this documented range shift regardless 

of causation or correlation. However, 

our interpretation of the data 

documenting and supporting apparent 

range shift in the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is associated with 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns. 

We acknowledge that Parmesan’s 

(1996, pp. 765–766) study was restricted 

to known historical occupancy locations 

and, as a result, did not document any 

new higher elevation populations. 

However, we are not aware of any peerreviewed or other data contradicting 

Parmesan’s (1996) upslope range shift 

conclusions, and the conclusions are 

supported by the findings of Preston et 

al. (2008, p. 2512). The peer-reviewed 

scientific publications and original data 

we relied on in this critical habitat 

designation for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly constitute the best available 

scientific or commercial data. 

Recent qualitative field observations 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

further support the reality of range shift 

associated with environmental changes 

due to changing climate patterns. These 

observations include: (1) Multiple 

habitat-occupancy documentations at 

new elevation records; (2) new early 

emergence records indicating an 

extended breeding period at higher 

elevations; (3) higher abundance in 

populations on the edge of the 

subspecies’ upper elevational range 

relative to lower elevations; and (4) use 

of a likely novel host plant species, 

Collinsia concolor, growing in cooler, 

wetter micro-habitats than known 

preferred host plant species (see 

‘‘Background’’ section above). Although 

new occupancy sites have also been 

reported at intermediate elevations, 

these areas were more likely to have 

been extirpated by the 1980s drought 

(and subsequently recolonized) than 

habitats above the subspecies’ known 

elevation range where higher average 

precipitation and cooler temperatures 

would have made habitat more suitable. 

Intermediate elevation sites were also 

already within the subspecies’ known 

range and, therefore, more likely to have 

been occupied in the past. 

Lepidopterists have been searching for 

Quino checkerspot butterflies where C. 

concolor occurs for as long as they have 

been collecting butterflies. C. concolor 

is common in most habitats occupied by 

the butterfly (see ‘‘Background’’ section 

above); however, no lepidopterists had 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28786 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

documented use of this plant by the 

butterfly prior to 2008. Furthermore, Dr. 

Gordon Pratt has been personally 

searching for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly larvae on C. concolor at the 

microhabitat scale for approximately 10 

years, since 1999 or earlier (Pratt 2001; 

pp. 34–43, 60–61), but 2008 was the first 

time he was able to document use by the 

subspecies; therefore, it is likely this 

host plant was not used historically. 

In summary, while acknowledging 

some inherent uncertainty, we believe 

our conclusion—that newly identified 

high-elevation occurrence complexes 

(such as Quinn Flats Non-core 

Occurrence Complex) are likely a result 

of range shift associated with 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns—is based on sound 

scientific information. We agree with 

the opinion of peer reviewers B and C 

that our use of evidence and predictions 

of climate change-driven range shift in 

determining what lands meet the 

definition of critical habitat is valid. The 

data documenting and supporting 

apparent range shift in the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly support our 

inclusion of unoccupied habitat 

adjacent to known occupied habitat and 

non-core occurrence complexes in Unit 

7 as essential for the conservation of this 

subspecies. 

Comment 14: One peer reviewer 

stated that our conclusion that 

observations in central San Diego 

County represent residual low-density 

populations with decreasing abundance 

is speculative. The peer reviewer 

maintained that the importance of these 

populations cannot be assessed without 

knowing the status of possible 

diapausing larval clusters in the area. 

Our Response: We did not conclude 

in the proposed revised rule that Quino 

checkerspot butterfly observations in 

central San Diego County represent 

residual low-density populations with 

decreasing abundance; we stated, ‘‘we 

cannot determine whether these new 

non-core occurrence complexes 

represent: (1) Residual, low-density 

populations decreasing in abundance; 

(2) resilient, low-density populations 

increasing in abundance; or (3) recent 

colonization events.’’ We then specified 

the most likely status is residual, lowdensity populations decreasing in 

abundance. These statements do not 

address apparent short-term abundance 

or presence trends attributable to 

diapausing larvae that cannot be 

detected. Therefore, we edited the 

‘‘Background’’ section of this final rule 

to specify that observations in central 

San Diego County likely represent a 

long-term (not short-term) decreasing 

abundance trend. 

Assessment of populations using 

direct detection of diapausing larvae is 

not possible. Although a preliminary 

study of diapause site preference was 

recently undertaken (Pratt 2006, pp. 1– 

11), field surveys for diapausing larvae 

are not feasible given the current 

biological knowledge of the subspecies. 

Comment 15: One peer reviewer (A) 

expressed concern that heavy use of 

metapopulation terminology in the 

proposed rule may be confusing to 

members of the public. Additionally, 

the peer reviewer said that it would be 

valuable to think of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly populations as actual 

populations with mostly diapausing 

larval clusters waiting for a good year, 

rather than what the peer reviewer 

interprets the Service describing as a 

hypothetical [meta]population model 

involving periodic extirpation of local 

populations. Conversely, two other peer 

reviewers (B and C) expressed support 

for the use of metapopulation ecology as 

a basis for determining what lands meet 

the definition of critical habitat. Peer 

reviewer A pointed out that relatively 

isolated habitat patches have a much 

lower conservation value because 

natural extinctions there are not likely 

to be ‘‘rescued’’ by natural 

recolonization. Peer reviewer A stated 

metapopulation ecology applies to the 

subfamily to which the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly belongs 

(Melitaeine butterflies) and to the 

subspecies, citing numerous peerreviewed, published studies of related 

species. Peer reviewer A emphasized 

that, in the absence of direct studies of 

population structure in this subspecies, 

it would be unwise to assume 

metapopulation ecology does not apply 

to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Peer 

reviewer C agreed that scientific 

evidence supports the conclusions that 

the structure of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat is inherently patchy, 

and the Quino checkerspot butterfly has 

a slightly higher typical dispersal 

distance than its close relative, the bay 

checkerspot (Euphydryas editha 

bayensis); both are indicators of 

metapopulation structure. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s concern that use of scientific 

terminology associated with complex 

population models can be confusing. As 

a result, we tried to minimize the use of 

scientific terminology and simplified 

our explanations of metapopulation 

theory in this final revised critical 

habitat rule, and referred simply to 

‘‘populations’’ wherever 

metapopulation structure was irrelevant 

(the language applied to any population 

structure). We did not receive any 

additional comments indicating that our 

use of metapopulation terminology was 

confusing or that a reader could not 

understand the basic model concepts. 

We agree with the peer reviewers who 

supported the use of metapopulation 

dynamics in our population structure 

analysis. Our critical habitat units are 

core occurrence complex habitat-based 

population distributions designed to 

capture networks of habitat patches 

occupied by metapopulations. These 

units would also protect the next mostlikely type of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly population—diffuse but wellmixed populations that may also have 

shifting densities and population 

‘‘footprints’’ (see ‘‘Background’’ section 

above). Because at least some elements 

of metapopulation dynamics models 

apply to Quino checkerspot butterfly 

populations, the technical recovery 

team authors of the Recovery Plan 

agreed that metapopulation models 

should be a foundation of the recovery 

strategy (Service 2003a, pp. 21–31). 

Nevertheless, the concepts of shifting 

population distributions and the need to 

protect areas of temporarily unoccupied 

habitat that apply to metapopulations 

also apply to any large population and, 

therefore, also support critical habitat 

units based on habitat-based population 

distributions regardless of specific 

population dynamics (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’ 

section below). The best available 

scientific data (Service 2003a, pp. 21– 

31) indicate that local populations 

within a metapopulation or similar 

geographically defined sections of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly populations 

are periodically extirpated, and these 

habitats within population distributions 

are generally recolonized at some future 

time. Therefore, our consideration of 

metapopulation dynamics in this 

critical habitat revision is appropriate. 

Peer reviewer A seems to conclude 

that very few Quino checkerspot 

butterfly individuals in a population 

mature to adulthood during any given 

‘‘flight season.’’ Available captiverearing data on the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly’s repeated diapause indicate 

that, in a typical year, approximately 50 

percent of a given population does not 

return to diapause (Pratt 2006, p. 10). 

The best available scientific data 

(laboratory observations) indicate that, 

in a presumably a typical or average 

growth year, approximately half the 

post-diapause larvae in a Quino 

checkerspot butterfly population will 

mature to adulthood. We are not aware 

of any other data that contradict our 

conclusions regarding Quino 

checkerspot butterfly population 

dynamics. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28787 

Comment 16: One peer reviewer 

stated that fritillaries (various butterflies 

of the family Nymphalidae, especially of 

the genera Speyeria and Boloria, having 

brownish wings marked with black or 

silvery spots on the underside) are no 

longer included in the subfamily 

Melitaeinae and that most recent 

publications place fritillaries in the 

subfamily Heliconiinae. 

Our Response: In the proposed 

revised critical habitat rule, we 

mentioned that fritillaries were one type 

of butterfly belonging to the same 

subfamily as the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. While the information 

provided by the peer reviewer is 

appreciated, such a taxonomic change 

does not affect Quino checkerspot 

butterfly taxonomy and, therefore, does 

not need to be addressed in this final 

rule. 

Comment 17: One peer reviewer 

offered several technical editorial 

suggestions with regard to our 

discussion of Parmesan’s (1996) study 

and climate change-driven range shift. 

The peer reviewer stated that the 

methods used by Parmesan (1996) were 

slightly different than described in the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule 

and suggested the following specific 

corrections. The first year of the field 

census was actually 1992, not 1994 as 

stated in the proposed revised rule. The 

historical records ranged from 1860 to 

1982, with most dating from 1930-1975. 

The re-census of these records began in 

mid-season 1992 and continued through 

the April field season of 1996 (thus 1996 

included the southern populations, but 

not those in the high-latitude and highelevation sites in the Sierra Nevada and 

Canada that don’t fly until July and 

August). The peer reviewer stated that 

none of Parmesan’s (1996) re-censusing 

included wet El Nin ̃ o or drought years; 

therefore, the skewed patterns of 

extirpations are not attributable to 

climatic or geographic bias across 

census years. 

The peer reviewer stated that the 

phrase ‘‘experienced 80 percent of all 

recorded local extirpations’’ on page 

3331 of the proposed revised rule is not 

accurate. The peer reviewer suggested 

replacing this phrase with: ‘‘* * * and 

noted that 80 percent of historically 

recorded populations in the southern 

part of the range were currently extinct 

at the time of the re-census in the mid1990s, while other areas of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly further north 

experienced only 40 percent in the midlatitudes to as low as 20 percent 

extirpations along the northern range 

boundary, and with fewer than 15 

percent extirpations in the highest 

elevation band (above 2,400 m).’’ 

The peer reviewer recommended 

adding the documentation of upward 

elevational shift in Edith’s checkerspot 

butterfly from Parmesan (1996) to the 

description of the northward shift in 

population distributions on page 3331 

of the proposed revised rule. The peer 

reviewer suggested the following text to 

be inserted after the statement, ‘‘This 

shift in range closely matched shifts in 

mean yearly temperature (Parmesan 

1996, pp. 765–766): A parallel 

elevational gradient in extirpations 

shifted the mean location of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly populations 

upward by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint 

in the pattern of extirpations occurred at 

7,874 ft (2,400 m), with about 40 percent 

of all populations below 7,874 ft (2,400 

m) recorded as extirpated in otherwise 

suitable habitats, while less than 15 

percent were extirpated above 7,874 ft 

(2,400 m; up to the highest known 

population at 11,319 ft (3,450 m)). This 

pattern matched trends in snowpack 

dynamics in the Sierra Nevada (where 

the high-elevation populations are 

found) over the same time period as the 

butterfly study, with significant trends 

toward lighter snowpack and earlier 

melt date below 7,874 ft (2,400 m), and 

heavier snowpack and a (nonsignificant) trend toward later melt date 

above 7,874 ft (2,400 m; Johnson et al. 

1999).’’ Furthermore, the peer reviewer 

stated that Karl et al. 1996 should be 

added to the latter statement as a 

citation for the temperature shift over 

the 20th century across the Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly’s range. 

The peer reviewer suggested we add 

Ehrlich et al. 1980; Singer and Ehrlich 

1979; and Singer and Thomas 1996 to 

the list of citations on page 3332 

supporting the statement 

‘‘Documentation of climate-related 

changes that have already occurred in 

California’’ as examples of Edith’s 

checkerspot butterfly population 

extirpations following extreme climatic 

events. 

The peer reviewer stated that, on page 

3331 of the proposed revised rule, 

‘‘Thomas, et al. 2006, pp. 146–147’’ 

should be the year 2004, and this paper 

is properly cited as discussing projected 

population extinctions and species 

range shifts, not observed shifts as all 

the other cited papers. 

Our Response: We edited the above 

‘‘Background’’ section to reflect these 

technical corrections. 

Comment 18: One peer reviewer 

noted the statement ‘‘The hundreds of 

adults observed during surveys in the 

Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex in 

2001 were unprecedented’’ (p. 3331 of 

the proposed revised rule) is not 

accurate and cited historical precedents. 

Our Response: We agree this 

statement was in error. We are aware of 

greater magnitude historical Quino 

checkerspot butterfly ‘‘outbreaks’’ than 

those observed in the Tule Peak Core 

Occurrence Complex (see 

‘‘Background’’ section above). We 

meant that such outbreaks were 

unprecedented since the 1970s, starting 

with the 1980s drought and subsequent 

subspecies decline. The paper we 

intended to cite was Thomas, et al. 

2006, pp. 146–147 (not 2004). We have 

edited the above ‘‘Background’’ section 

to accurately characterize this 

information. 

Public Comments 

Comments Related To Primary 

Constituent Elements and Criteria Used 

To Identify Critical Habitat 

Comment 19: One commenter 

requested that we designate Wright’s 

Field in the community of Alpine as 

revised critical habitat because: (1) 

Adult Quino checkerspot butterflies 

were observed for 3 years at a site 

within approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) of 

Wright’s Field; (2) habitat at Wright’s 

field appears to be ‘‘ideal;’’ (3) Wright’s 

Field provides ‘‘connectivity’’ for core 

Quino checkerspot butterfly populations 

to the south (populations not otherwise 

identified by commenter); (4) 

designation of Wright’s Field would 

facilitate recovery; and (5) the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly (not currently 

known from this location) could be 

discovered at Wright’s Field. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

some areas not included in this final 

revised critical habitat designation may 

contain suitable habitat and be proximal 

to occupied areas. We also acknowledge 

that management of some habitat areas 

not designated or proposed as revisions 

to critical habitat would likely 

contribute to the conservation (recovery) 

of this subspecies. However, the Act 

defines critical habitat as: (1) The 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed on which are found those 

physical and biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and (b) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection, and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination by the Secretary that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. Not all areas that may 

contribute to a species’ recovery are 

necessarily essential for conservation of 

the species. The best available data 

(including the information provided by 

the commenter) do not demonstrate that 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28788 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the Wright’s Field area is essential for 

the conservation of the subspecies. 

We delineated proposed revised 

critical habitat using criteria based on 

the conservation and biological needs of 

the subspecies according to the best 

available science. Areas proposed as 

critical habitat are: (1) Currently 

occupied, core occurrence complex 

habitat-based population distributions 

(contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km) 

of Quino checkerspot butterfly 

occurrence records); (2) consistent with 

recommendations in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, pp. 35, 165); and (3) 

designed to include additional habitat 

contiguous with the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex habitat-based 

population distribution needed to 

support core occurrence complex 

resiliency and range shift resulting from 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns. These criteria 

determine the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

this subspecies, as identified by the 

PCEs in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement, and capture the 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly at the time of listing that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies (see the ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section below). 

Therefore, we believe our proposed 

designation and this final designation 

accurately describe all specific areas 

meeting the definition of critical habitat 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

we did not propose Wright’s Field for 

designation as revised critical habitat. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

requested increasing the extent of the 

proposed critical habitat designation to 

include all recovery units, all 

occurrence complexes outside of 

recovery units, and sufficient habitat for 

dispersal (Service 2003a, pp. 31, 34, 35, 

71, 73–76). 

Our Response: The Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 75) states ‘‘Recovery 

units include lands both essential and 

not essential to the long-term 

conservation of the butterfly, and 

comprise a variety of habitat types.’’ 

Therefore, designation of all land within 

all recovery units, and all occurrence 

complexes as revised critical habitat is 

not appropriate. Moreover, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside of the designation is 

unimportant or may not contribute to 

recovery (see response to Comment 19 

above). Occupied habitat outside the 

final revised critical habitat designation 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and 

the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. 

According to 50 CFR 424.12(e), the 

Secretary shall designate as critical 

habitat areas outside the geographical 

area presently occupied by a species 

only when a designation limited to its 

present range would be inadequate to 

ensure conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, when the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicate 

that limiting designation of critical 

habitat to areas within the geographical 

area presently occupied by the species 

is adequate to ensure the conservation 

of the species, we will not designate 

critical habitat outside those areas. In 

this designation, we did include habitat 

in Unit 7 that is outside the 

geographical area currently known to be 

occupied by the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly because available data support 

a determination that this habitat is 

essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies. However, we are not aware 

of any data supporting the commenter’s 

request to include all recovery units, all 

occurrence complexes outside of 

recovery units, and unoccupied habitat 

as critical habitat. For discussions of 

areas for movement and dispersal that 

meet the definition of critical habitat, 

see responses to comments 2 and 4 

above. 

Comment 21: One commenter stated 

that the proposed revised rule did not 

consider inclusion of the higherelevation habitat needed to 

accommodate the subspecies ability to 

respond to a changing climate in any 

units except Unit 7, and requested 

expansion of the critical habitat 

designation to include all ‘‘stepping 

stone’’ habitat patches that would 

facilitate dispersal into unoccupied 

habitat patches at higher elevations 

(cited Service 2003a, p. 65). 

Our Response: We believe our criteria 

capture all areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat. Vegetation and host 

plant distribution data and new 

distribution information (see response 

to Comment 20 above) indicate the 

Bautista Road Core Occurrence complex 

is part of a greater population 

distribution, which also shows evidence 

of supporting range expansion to areas 

outside of this unit resulting from 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns in this area. Hence, we 

are designating areas between 

occurrence complexes in Unit 7 where 

occupancy is expected but has not been 

documented, but not as stepping-stone 

habitat patches to facilitate dispersal 

into unoccupied habitat patches at 

higher elevations. 

We are not aware of any specific data 

supporting the commenter’s request to 

expand critical habitat to include all 

possible ‘‘stepping stone’’ habitat 

patches that would facilitate dispersal 

into unoccupied habitat patches at 

higher elevations. The recovery plan 

describes ‘‘stepping stone’’ movement 

areas in reference to landscape 

connectivity between local habitat 

patches within a metapopulation 

distribution (Service 2003a, pp. 13, 

162); these movement areas were 

captured by proposed revised critical 

habitat units (see also the discussion of 

movement and dispersal areas in 

response to comments 2 and 4 above). 

Comment 22: One commenter 

asserted the specificity of PCEs were 

over-restrictive. The commenter 

maintained having host plant species as 

required PCEs creates the risk that 

critical habitat will not be identified 

when plants do not germinate under dry 

environmental conditions. 

Our Response: The PCEs include 

known nutritional and physiological 

requirements and sites for breeding, 

reproduction, and rearing of offspring. 

Presence of a host plant is an 

appropriate PCE because the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly requires host 

plants for reproduction and rearing of 

offspring. We list all known host plants 

within PCE 1(B) and 1(C). Designation 

of critical habitat is a regulatory process 

that results in hard-line boundaries, so 

the only lands ‘‘excluded’’ by text are 

small, developed areas such as roads 

and single-family homes. Regardless of 

regulatory implications, large numbers 

of host plants (usually more than one 

species) are required during most years 

to support continued occupancy. 

Therefore, some host plants should 

always be detectible in habitat 

supporting a core occurrence complex, 

even in drought years when a majority 

of seeds fail to germinate and most 

larvae return to diapause. Furthermore, 

areas can be determined to support PCE 

1 by the presence of nectar sources 

alone within open woody canopy 

vegetation (see ‘‘Primary Constituent 

Elements for the Quino Checkerspot 

Butterfly’’ section below). Therefore, 

suitable habitat within critical habitat 

units should be identifiable, no matter 

how low densities of germinating host 

plants are. 

Comment 23: One commenter 

requested that we amend PCE 2 to 

include areas beyond 656 ft (200 m) of 

a habitat patch to facilitate movement 

within and among habitat patches in a 

metapopulation distribution. The 

commenter asserted that PCE 2 

describes features that only allow for 

within-habitat patch movement of 

Quino checkerspot butterflies, not 

among-patch movement. In support of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28789 

their request, the commenter cited 

White and Levin’s (1981, pp. 350–351) 

findings that adult Quino checkerspot 

butterfly within-patch movement often 

exceeded 656 ft (200 m). 

Our Response: The term ‘‘habitat 

patch’’ within the context of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly population 

dynamics and movement refers to a set 

of host plant ‘‘micro-patches’’ within 

the typical flight range of adult 

butterflies (about 160 to 660 ft (50 to 200 

m)) (Service 2003a, p. 22), and all nectar 

sources within the same distance of 

these host plant ‘‘micro-patches’’ 

(Service 2003a, p. 19) in areas of 

contiguous, open woody canopy 

vegetation (Service 2003a, pp. 10–11). A 

habitat patch defines either the entire 

distribution of a ‘‘well-mixed’’ (nonmetapopulation or typical) population, 

or the distribution of a subpopulation 

(also called a local population) within a 

metapopulation (Service 2003a, p. 27). 

We did not map habitat patches because 

no such detailed measurements were 

conducted for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. The critical habitat units in 

this designation were designed using 

the best available scientific or 

commercial data to capture populationscale distributions for either a 

metapopulation or a well-mixed 

population. 

Areas between habitat patches 

occupied by subpopulations of a 

metapopulation within a critical habitat 

unit should be connected to other 

habitat patches by open-woody canopy 

areas with at least one PCE. Movement 

areas within population distributions 

are already captured by PCEs 1, 2 and 

3; therefore, PCE 2 need not be amended 

to capture movement within habitat 

patches or between habitat patches 

occupied by subpopulations of a 

metapopulation (see also the discussion 

of movement and dispersal areas in 

response to comments 2 and 4 above). 

The purpose of PCE 2 is to capture 

closed-woody canopy vegetation on the 

periphery of a habitat patch that is used 

by adults and is also likely to deter 

adult dispersal out of the habitat patch 

under typical environmental conditions 

(Service 2003a, p. 10). All movements 

recorded during White and Levin’s 

(1981, p. 349) study occurred in 

contiguous, open-woody canopy areas 

containing host plants and nectar 

sources already captured by PCE 1. 

Therefore, areas where movement 

distances greater than 656 ft (200 m) 

were recorded by White and Levin 

(1981, p. 349) near Otay Lakes occurred 

at locations that do not need to be 

captured by PCE 2. Furthermore, 

although White and Levin (1981, pp. 

350–352) did record a number of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly within-habitat 

patch movement distances greater than 

656 ft (200 m), it is not appropriate to 

apply a study of within-habitat 

movement to a determination of areas 

required for between-patch movement. 

Comment 24: A commenter owns 

10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of land near Vail 

Lake in Riverside County (much of 

which falls within proposed revised 

critical habitat). The commenter 

asserted that the proposed revisions are 

not valid based on a study conducted by 

Helix Environmental Planning that the 

commenter claimed showed no 

evidence of Quino occupancy on the 

commenter’s land. 

Our Response: We did not receive a 

copy of the cited study from the 

commenter. However, we have a survey 

report in our files submitted by Helix 

Environmental Planning, Inc. in 2003 

documenting the occurrence of adult 

Quino checkerspot butterfly on the 

commenter’s Vail Lake property. 

Surveyors made only three visits (a 

protocol-level survey requires at least 5) 

to areas distributed over a 7,500 ac 

(3,035 ha) area completely surrounding 

Vail Lake (Helix Environmental 

Planning 2003, p. 1). Surveyors reported 

over 145 adult Quino checkerspot 

butterfly observations from 16 sites 

broadly distributed across the property 

(Helix Environmental Planning 2003, 

pp. 1–2). Surveyors also described large 

populations of host plants and abundant 

nectar sources (Helix Environmental 

Planning 2003, pp. 1–2). Furthermore, 

all areas proposed as revised critical 

habitat within Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak 

Mountain) are also within our core 

occurrence complex habitat-based 

population distribution (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’ 

section below). Therefore, we believe 

the inclusion of the property in question 

in the proposed revised critical habitat 

unit is valid. 

Comments Related To Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) Exclusions 

Comment 25: One commenter stated 

that the designation of critical habitat on 

lands within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP is inappropriate 

because these lands do not require 

special management considerations or 

protection; management and protection 

are already provided by the regional 

HCP. A second commenter asserted that 

all lands within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP area boundary should 

be excluded because this regional HCP 

adequately conserves the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Conversely, a 

third commenter claimed that lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP should not be excluded from 

critical habitat because habitat within 

the HCP boundaries meets the definition 

of critical habitat per Center for 

Biological Diversity et al. v. Norton (CV 

01–409, District of Arizona, January 13, 

2002), where Judge David C. Bury 

stated, ‘‘The fact that a habitat is already 

under some sort of management for its 

conservation is absolute proof that 

habitat is ‘critical.’’’ 

Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) 

provides requirements for identifying 

(defining) critical habitat, in part, as 

areas that require special management 

considerations or protection, while 

section 4(b)(2) directs the Secretary to 

consider the impacts of designating 

such areas as critical habitat and 

provides the Secretary with discretion 

to exclude particular areas if the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. In this rule, we do 

not state that areas do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act because they 

are being adequately managed. Rather, 

we considered the management of 

particular areas that do meet the 

definition of critical habitat in our 

exclusion analyses under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

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

the Secretary shall designate critical 

habitat, and make revisions thereto, 

under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of 

the best scientific data available and 

after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact to national 

security, and any other relevant impact, 

of specifying any particular area as 

critical habitat. In accordance with 50 

CFR 424.19, in conducting an impact 

analysis of critical habitat, the Secretary 

shall identify any significant activities 

that would either affect an area 

considered for designation as critical 

habitat or be likely to be affected by the 

designation, and shall, after proposing 

designation of such an area, consider 

the probable economic and other 

impacts of the designation on proposed 

or ongoing activities. The Secretary may 

exclude any area from critical habitat if 

he determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless he determines, 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. Therefore, 

consistent with the Act and our 

implementing regulations, we must 

consider the relevant impacts of 

designating areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat prior to 

finalizing a critical habitat designation. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28790 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

After determining which areas met 

the definition of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we took into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and other 

relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. In this 

final designation, we recognize that 

designating critical habitat in areas 

where we have partnerships with 

landowners that have led to 

conservation or management of listed 

species on non-Federal lands has a 

relevant, perceived impact to 

landowners and a relevant impact to 

future partnerships and conservation 

efforts on non-Federal lands. These 

impacts are described in detail in the 

‘‘Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands’’ section below. Based on 

these impacts, we evaluated the benefits 

of designating areas as critical habitat 

against the benefits of excluding these 

areas from the critical habitat 

designation. Please see the ‘‘Exclusions 

under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section 

of this final rule for a detailed 

discussion of the benefits of excluding 

lands covered by management plans 

versus the benefits of including these 

areas in a critical habitat designation. 

Upon weighing the benefits of inclusion 

against benefits of exclusion, we 

determined the benefits of excluding all 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 

through 6 outweigh the benefits of 

including these areas in the final revised 

critical habitat designation. Further, we 

determined exclusion of these areas will 

not result in extinction of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we 

excluded all lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

HCP in Units 1 through 6 from this final 

revised critical habitat designation (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). 

At the time the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permit was issued, 

Units 1 through 6 were known to 

contain core occurrence complexes, and 

over 90 percent of the total area of these 

units was already designated critical 

habitat; therefore, the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly populations 

within these units are addressed by this 

regional HCP. However, the new 

information regarding Quino 

checkerspot butterfly distribution in 

Unit 7 was not known at the time the 

HCP was developed and the permit was 

issued; therefore, we agree the 

importance of habitat in this area to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is not addressed by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. This 

area was not designated as critical 

habitat in 2002. We now have much 

additional distribution information in 

this area and determined that 

designation of Unit 7 is warranted to: (1) 

Maintain core population resilience, (2) 

support subspecies range shift to higher 

elevation habitats due to changing 

climate patterns that affect the 

environment, and (3) educate the public 

about this new distributional data. 

Therefore, land within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP plan area in 

Unit 7 is included in our final revised 

designation of critical habitat because 

the conservation benefits to the 

subspecies of inclusion of this unique 

unit outweigh the conservation 

partnership-related benefits of exclusion 

(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – 

Other Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below for more 

information). 

Comment 26: One commenter 

expressed concern that Federal lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP plan area were not being 

considered for exclusion. The 

commenter further stated that any 

designation of critical habitat within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

boundary would be a violation of the 

plan’s associated Implementing 

Agreement (IA), citing language in 

section 6.9 of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP (Dudek and Associated 

Inc. 2003) and section 14.10 of the IA. 

Our Response: Contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, section 14.10 of 

the IA does not preclude critical habitat 

designation within the plan area (Dudek 

and Associated Inc. 2003). Consistent 

with our commitment under the IA, and 

after public review and comment on the 

proposed revision to critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly, we 

determined through our analysis under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act that the 

maximum extent of allowable 

exclusions under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP was limited to the 

exclusion of lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Units 1 through 6. 

With regard to the Federal lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP plan area, we determined that 

National Forest lands contain the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

therefore, meet the definition of critical 

habitat (see ‘‘Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat’’ section below). We 

acknowledge that the San Bernardino 

National Forest (Forest Service) has a 

Land Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) that will benefit the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat. 

The LRMP contains general provisions 

for species conservation and suggests 

specific management and conservation 

actions that will benefit this species and 

the physical and biological features 

essential to its conservation. 

Implementation of the LRMP should 

address known threats to this species on 

Forest Service lands. We appreciate and 

commend the efforts of the Forest 

Service to conserve federally listed 

species on its lands. 

We considered the request from the 

commenter that we exclude Forest 

Service lands from the designation 

because it would unnecessarily add 

work in the future to determine the 

effect regarding critical habitat for 

actions on its lands and the fact that it 

had already completed consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act on an 

LRMP. Based on the record before us, 

we decided not to exclude these lands 

and are designating National Forest 

lands that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. We will continue to consider 

on a case-by-case basis in future critical 

habitat rules whether to exclude 

particular Federal lands from such 

designation when we determine that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of their inclusion. 

Comment 27: One commenter claimed 

that lands within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP should not be excluded 

from critical habitat because this 

regional HCP does not adequately 

protect the subspecies and, therefore, 

the benefits of inclusion outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion. The commenter 

provided specific examples of how they 

believe the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP does not adequately protect the 

subspecies, including: (1) 

Approximately 10 percent of critical 

habitat in the proposed revised critical 

habitat rule falls entirely outside any 

targeted reserve system (outside criteria 

cells); (2) conservation is not likely 

(‘‘only optional’’) for the 14 percent of 

proposed revised critical habitat that is 

within criteria cells but not the 

conceptual reserve design; (3) the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is 

not being properly implemented; (4) the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP does 

not have adequate funding for 

implementation; and (5) effects of global 

warming on covered species was never 

reviewed or addressed by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. 

Our Response: When we issued the 

permit for the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, we determined that it provides 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28791 

adequate protection for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 

within the plan area boundary. We are 

monitoring the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP implementation and the 

subspecies’ status and have not altered 

this determination. Additionally, we 

have not determined the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP to be 

improperly implemented or 

inadequately funded. We will evaluate 

the information submitted by the 

commenter and consider it in our 

ongoing assessments of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, and continue 

to work with permittees to make sure 

the HCP is adequately funded. If during 

our ongoing assessments of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP we determine 

the HCP does not adequately protect the 

subspecies, is not being properly 

implemented, or does not have adequate 

funding based on all available 

information, we will take appropriate 

action with regard to the HCP permit, 

and may again revise designated critical 

habitat, subject to available funding and 

other conservation priorities. 

Given specific Western Riverside 

County MSHCP conservation actions 

(for example, conservation of habitat in 

a reserve system, maintenance of core 

populations, enhancement of habitat), 

avoidance and minimization measures, 

and management for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat, the 

additional conservation value that may 

be afforded through a critical habitat 

designation in Units 1 through 6 is 

minimal. Furthermore, as demonstrated 

by comments received from Western 

Riverside County MSHCP partners, 

designation of critical habitat would 

negatively impact our existing working 

relationships and partnerships that we 

have developed. The information 

provided by the commenter does not 

change our determination that the 

benefits of excluding lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of permittees of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

in Units 1 through 6 from revised 

critical habitat outweigh the minimal 

benefits of including these lands (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below for a 

complete discussion of this exclusion). 

It is true that approximately 15 

percent of critical habitat in the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP occurs entirely outside 

of land targeted for reserve assembly 

(4,020 ac (1,627 ha), only 4 percent of 

entire area proposed), and effects of 

climate change on covered species were 

not specifically reviewed or addressed 

by the HCP. The majority of proposed 

revised critical habitat that is outside of 

criteria cells occurs in large contiguous 

areas within Unit 7 (approximately 

3,701 ac (1,498 ha)), the remainder is in 

small land parcels on the periphery of 

Unit 2 (approximately 319 ac (129 ha)). 

The inclusion of Unit 7 in revised 

critical habitat is in part to protect 

habitat needed to support range shift 

resulting from environmental changes 

due to changing climate patterns. In 

areas outside lands targeted for reserve 

assembly by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, the additional 

conservation benefits of critical habitat 

designation are not minimized by the 

HCP in Unit 7, so the benefits of 

inclusion are greater than those in Units 

1 through 6. Therefore, we determined 

the benefits of exclusion do not 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion in 

Unit 7 and did not exclude lands owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in that unit from this 

revised critical habitat designation (see 

additional discussion in the 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). 

Comment 28: One commenter 

requested that lands within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP not be 

excluded from critical habitat based on 

conservation benefits. The commenter 

stated the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP permittees opposition to the 

designation of critical habitat suggests 

they believe the designation would 

result in a greater conservation burden 

on them, and therefore would result in 

a higher level of conservation for the 

subspecies than will occur under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

stakeholder and permittee comment 

letters indicate opposition to 

designation of lands covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; 

however, these opinions are based on 

perception, and as such should not be 

the basis for determining the 

conservation value of critical habitat 

designation (benefits of inclusion). Our 

analysis of the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion provides a more informed 

measure of the benefits of critical 

habitat designation than permittee and 

stakeholder opposition. Conversely, 

comments received from Western 

Riverside County MSHCP partners do 

indicate designation of critical habitat 

would negatively affect our existing 

positive working relationships and 

partnerships, thereby discouraging 

future HCP participation. See response 

to Comment 27 above for a discussion 

of the benefits of inclusion of lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP plan area in the revised critical 

habitat designation (see additional 

discussion in the ‘‘Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) – Other Relevant 

Impacts – Conservation Partnerships’’ 

section). 

Comment 29: One commenter 

believes that we should not exclude 

lands covered by HCPs because HCPs do 

not provide as much protection as 

critical habitat. The commenter cited 

Taylor et al. (2005) as having found that 

species with critical habitat are less 

likely to decline, and over twice as 

likely to recover as those without 

critical habitat. The commenter also 

cited Kareiva et al. (1999) as finding that 

most HCPs fail to adequately protect 

species. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that HCPs provide less 

protection than critical habitat 

designation. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan incorporate on-going 

management and protection for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly that will 

benefit the long-term conservation of the 

subspecies. The protection and longterm management provided by these 

HCPs to Quino checkerspot butterfly 

habitat extend to private lands that 

otherwise lack a Federal nexus under 

which consultation could be triggered. 

These two regional HCPs provide for 

proactive monitoring and management 

of conserved lands important to the 

survival and recovery of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Such 

conservation needs are typically not 

addressed through application of the 

statutory prohibition on destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

We also note that exclusions are not 

based on the difference between 

protection measures provided by critical 

habitat designation or HCPs in isolation, 

but how the redundancy of protections 

provided by an HCP with those 

provided by critical habitat designation 

minimizes the overall conservation 

value of designation, and how the 

remaining benefits of designation are 

negated by the benefits of exclusion 

(maintaining partnerships and fostering 

future HCPs). Conservation benefits 

provided by existing HCPs are not 

considered a benefit of exclusion 

because they would remain in place 

regardless of critical habitat designation; 

however, they do minimize the benefits 

of inclusion to the extent they are 

redundant with protection measures 

that would be provided by critical 

habitat designation. 

The primary benefit of a critical 

habitat designation is the requirement 

that Federal agencies do not fund, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28792 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

authorize, or carry out actions on 

designated lands that adversely modify 

or destroy critical habitat. Therefore, 

where there is a Federal nexus, Federal 

agencies consult with the Service under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

conservation benefits provided by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP (in 

proposed Units 1 through 6) and the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan, we believe 

the additional protection provided to 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by 

critical habitat designation would be 

minimal. Therefore, we are excluding 

most lands within the plan areas of 

these HCPs based on the benefits of 

maintaining our conservation 

partnerships. 

We also disagree with the commenter 

that the cited studies are applicable to 

the exclusion of lands under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP regarding Quino checkerspot 

butterfly conservation. The results of 

Taylor et al. (2005, pp. 360–367) do 

indicate a significant conservation 

benefit of critical habitat designation; 

however, that study did not analyze or 

discuss the effects of HCP-based 

exclusions. The benefits of exclusion for 

any particular HCP must be analyzed 

independently and balanced against the 

benefits of inclusion because HCPs: (1) 

Are variable in scope; (2) contain 

variable conservation and management 

planning efforts; and (3) document 

effects of conservation measures on 

species abundance trends that may not 

be apparent for many years. Many HCPs 

analyzed by Kareiva et al. (1999, pp. 10, 

21, 22, 89) were not geographically 

comparable to the large, regional multispecies plans such as Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan under the MSCP, and only 

4 percent were habitat-based like these 

large regional HCPs (Kareiva et al. 1999, 

pp. 21, 22). Also, the stated purpose of 

Kareiva et al.’s (1999, p. 9) study was to 

evaluate the extent to which scientific 

data and methods were used in 

development and justification of HCP 

agreements, not to evaluate what effects 

plans have on biological systems or 

species. Kareiva et al. (1999, p. 9) stated, 

‘‘Because the vast majority of HCPs have 

been initiated since 1994, it is simply 

too early to evaluate whether the plans 

are working.’’ Therefore, general 

conclusions in the literature cited by the 

commenter do not justify including 

lands covered by these HCPs. 

Comments Related To Legal and 

Procedural Issues 

Comment 30: One commenter stated 

designation of critical habitat on lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is arbitrary and capricious 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.), given the 

Service frequently excludes MSHCP 

lands from critical habitat designations, 

and the County of Riverside Regional 

Conservation Authority has 

demonstrated good faith in assembling 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by 

purchasing the Winchester 700 property 

‘‘for a very high price,’’ and by 

purchasing other Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat parcels in Riverside 

County. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Service frequently excludes MSHCP 

lands from critical habitat designations 

and the County of Riverside Regional 

Conservation Authority has 

demonstrated good faith in assembling 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by 

purchasing the ‘‘Winchester 700’’ 

property and other habitat parcels in 

Riverside County. We do not agree that 

designating critical habitat on lands in 

Unit 7 is arbitrary and capricious under 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

because we had a reasoned basis for our 

decision (see comment 25 and 

associated response above for further 

discussion). 

Comment 31: One commenter 

believes that final revised critical 

habitat boundaries should not include 

any additional lands that were not 

specifically described in the 2008 

proposed revised rule (73 FR 3328; 

January 17, 2008), unless these changes 

are first noticed to the public and there 

is opportunity for public comment. 

Our Response: No additional lands 

are included within the boundaries of 

this final revised critical habitat 

designation that were not described in 

the proposed revised critical habitat rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). We did 

remove some lands from our revised 

critical habitat proposal, and this 

change was described in the notice of 

availability of the DEA, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568). 

Tribal Comments 

Comment 32: One representative of 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians of California (Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians) supported exclusion 

of all lands within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP area boundary 

because they believe the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP adequately 

conserves the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. This commenter further stated 

that designation of critical habitat 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP boundary would be a violation 

of the IA, stating they believe language 

in section 6.9 of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 

2003) and section 14.10 of the IA means 

no critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly should be 

designated in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Plan Area. 

Our Response: Please see our 

responses to comments 25 and 26 above, 

and see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) 

– Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below for more information regarding 

the exclusion process and why we did 

not exclude lands in Unit 7 that are 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. 

Comment 33: The Campo Band of 

Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo 

Reservation, California (Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians), requested that the 

Service clearly state which subsection of 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act is being relied 

upon for each unit meeting the 

definition of critical habitat. If land is 

defined as critical habitat under 

subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) because it was not 

occupied at the time of listing, the tribe 

suggests including an explanation for 

why those lands are considered 

essential. The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians specifically 

requested that if tribal lands are 

included in Unit 9, the Service should 

explain why this habitat that was ‘‘not 

occupied at the time of listing’’ is in 

need of special management and 

essential to the subspecies’ 

conservation. 

Our Response: Table 1 of the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule 

identifies which critical habitat units 

were occupied at the time of listing, 

and, therefore, what subsection of 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act applies to 

lands in each unit. Units 7 (Bautista) 

and 9 (La Posta/Campo) are designated 

under subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) and are 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied by the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly at the time it was listed. 

We made a determination that lands 

in Unit 9 are essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies because 

it is contains unique habitat, is distant 

from other units (indicating occupancy 

by a unique and independent 

population), and because ensuring 

persistence of populations associated 

with core occurrence complexes is 

essential for conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. In identifying 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, we recognize the importance of 

including all lands necessary to support 

resilient core populations. We are not 

aware of any data that contradict our 

determination that tribal lands included 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28793 

in proposed revised critical habitat are 

essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies. With regard to special 

management, section 3(5)(A)(i) of the 

Act only requires a determination that 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that are found in areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Therefore, because lands in 

Unit 9 are outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, we did not provide a 

determination of special management 

needs for Unit 9 in the proposed revised 

rule or this final revised rule. 

Comment 34: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians believes the benefits 

of critical habitat designation are 

minimal for La Posta/Campo Unit 9, 

given the likelihood habitat is occupied 

and consultation would be required 

regardless of critical habitat designation. 

They support exclusion of the entire 

unit based on insufficient conservation 

benefits. 

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

Act directs the Secretary to designate 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

scientific data available and after taking 

into consideration the economic 

impacts, national security impacts, and 

any other relevant impacts of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

Although we do not agree with the 

tribe’s assertion that all lands within the 

La Posta/Campo Unit 9 should be 

excluded based on ‘‘insufficient’’ 

conservation benefits, our analyses 

revealed that tribally owned portions of 

the unit should be excluded based on 

impacts to national security, 

government-to-government relations, 

and economics. We excluded all tribally 

owned lands because we determined 

that the impacts to government-togovernment relationships and 

economics outweighed the benefits of 

including those areas as critical habitat, 

and that the exclusion would not result 

in the extinction of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. We also excluded 

lands owned or controlled by the Navy 

in Unit 9 due to impacts to national 

security. No private lands in Unit 9 are 

covered by an HCP or other 

management plan that addresses 

subspecies conservation (see response to 

comments 10 and 25–29 above, and the 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)— 

Impacts To Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

And Economics,’’ and ‘‘Application of 

Section 4(b)(2)—Impacts to National 

Security’’ sections below for more 

details on our exclusion analyses). 

Comment 35: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians stated that the 

proposed rule does not explain any 

progress toward understanding 

subspecies population dynamics, 

habitat requirements, and population 

distributions made since the Recovery 

Plan was published in 2003. They 

requested detailed documentation of 

any new information and how it 

supports the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: The Service received 

significantly more survey data 

documenting population distributions 

(which inform our understanding of 

population dynamics) than were 

available at the time the Recovery Plan 

published. The ‘‘Status and Local 

Distribution of Populations’’ sections 

(for Riverside and San Diego counties) 

of the proposed revised critical habitat 

rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008) 

provided detailed documentation of 

new distribution information. Several 

relatively isolated occurrences were 

recently discovered despite previously 

negative survey results prior to 

publication of the Recovery Plan (such 

as Mission Trails Park, Sycamore 

Canyon Open Space Preserve). 

Discovery of new non-core and core 

occurrence complexes (including La 

Posta/Campo) indicate Quino 

checkerspot butterfly core populations 

may have larger distributions and are 

more resilient than believed at the time 

the Recovery Plan published. Therefore, 

the new non-core occurrence 

complexes, and new occurrences that 

expanded existing occurrence 

complexes, support our focus on 

designating population distributions 

associated with core occurrence 

complexes (see ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Designate Critical Habitat’’ section 

below). 

We have also acquired considerable 

additional information regarding the 

types of habitat used by the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly since the Recovery 

Plan published in 2003. Knowledge 

regarding the physical and biological 

features essential to conservation of the 

species is required for habitat 

delineation and descriptions (PCEs). 

New habitat information acquired since 

Recovery Plan publication includes: (1) 

Subspecies use of unique redshank 

chaparral habitat, where no species of 

Plantago host plant occur (La Posta/ 

Campo Unit 9, the new high-elevation 

Quinn Flat Occurrence Complex in 

Riverside County); (2) heavy use of 

Antirrhinum coulterianum host plants 

that can occur following fire at lower 

elevations adjacent to where Plantago 

erecta occurs (Skinner/Johnson Unit 2; 

CFWO 2004); (3) A. coulterianum and 

possibly Collinsia concolor supports 

occupancy in habitat patches where 

Plantago host plant species are absent 

(La Posta/Campo Unit 9); and (4) Quino 

checkerspot butterflies inhabit areas 

above 5,000 ft (1,524 m) in elevation 

(Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4–5, 11–12; 

Pratt 2005, p.1; SBNF GIS database). 

Since publication of the proposed 

revised critical habitat rule, we also 

learned another species of host plant 

previously suspected of supporting 

reproduction is used and important to 

conservation of the subspecies near the 

community of Anza (see ‘‘Summary of 

Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule 

To Revise Critical Habitat’’ section 

below). Therefore, our conclusion that 

proposed revised units meet the 

definition of critical habitat is supported 

by geographically specific habitat 

information, and the new host plant 

information supports the addition of a 

new biological feature to our list of 

PCEs. 

Comment 36: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians requested we clarify 

the criteria for designating critical 

habitat by defining the term ‘‘occupied 

habitat,’’ and define the geographic size 

and number of adults (or adults and 

larvae) required for an occurrence 

complex to qualify as ‘‘core.’’ The tribe 

specifically expressed concern that the 

proposed rule described core occurrence 

complexes as likely to contain source 

subpopulations for a metapopulation 

without providing sufficient data to 

support this conclusion. 

Our Response: Occupancy within a 

critical habitat unit is defined by the 

habitat-based population distribution of 

an occurrence complex. A habitat-based 

population distribution includes all 

contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km) 

of a Quino checkerspot butterfly 

occurrence (see ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Designate Critical Habitat’’ section 

below). Habitat-based population 

distributions are used to define 

population-scale occupancy because 

observation locations are onedimensional and static, and expanded 

areas based solely on recorded 

movement distances of a species may 

include non-habitat. The proposed 

revised critical habitat units are the 

habitat-based population distributions 

associated with core occurrence 

complexes. Therefore, the term 

‘‘occupied habitat’’ in this rule refers to 

areas at the spatial and temporal scales 

of a population distribution described 

using the best available scientific data. 

We define core occurrence complexes 

using several criteria. Population 

attributes such as subspecies 

abundance, total area occupied, and 

evidence of reproduction are all 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28794 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

indicators of population resilience. To 

clarify, a ‘‘core occurrence complex’’ is 

defined as an area where at least two of 

the following criteria apply: (1) 50 or 

more adults were ever observed during 

a single survey; (2) immature life stages 

have been recorded; and (3) the 

geographic area of an occurrence 

complex (within 0.6 mi (1 km) of 

subspecies occurrences) is greater than 

1,290 ac (522 ha) (see ‘‘Background’’ 

section above). Therefore, all proposed 

revised critical habitat units contain 

occurrence complexes that qualify as 

‘‘core.’’ 

We based our conclusion that core 

occurrence complexes are likely to 

contain source populations on sound 

scientific theory and information. Quino 

checkerspot butterfly populations are 

likely to be metapopulations (Service 

2003a, pp. 21–31), and core occurrence 

complex habitat-based population 

distributions are large enough to capture 

most of a metapopulation distribution 

(Service 2003a, p. 24; see also Comment 

15 and associated response above). The 

size of proposed revised critical habitat 

units are proportional to documented 

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly population 

distributions that have longer predicted 

persistence times (Service 2003a, p. 24). 

Therefore, the final revised critical 

habitat units are likely to contain source 

subpopulations. 

Comment 37: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians requested the Service 

explain how it can ‘‘violate’’ its own 

methods for determining occurrence 

complex boundaries by including 

geographic areas beyond the habitatbased population distribution within 

Unit 9. 

Our Response: Although occurrence 

complexes are geographically defined in 

part by overlapping 0.6 mi (1 km) 

movement distances, we did not map 

occurrence complex ‘‘boundaries’’ as 

described in the comment. Our methods 

for determining occurrence complex 

status did not include geographic 

boundary determination for the La 

Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex. 

The only boundaries associated with 

occurrence complexes we established in 

the proposed revised critical habitat rule 

are habitat-based population 

distributions used to map proposed 

revised critical habitat units (see 

response to comment 36 above and 

‘‘Criteria Used to Designate Critical 

Habitat’’ section below). Unit 9 was 

limited to lands within the habitatbased population distribution of the La 

Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex, 

and did not include any areas outside 

that geographic delineation. We revised 

our discussion in the ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section below 

to clarify our methods. 

Comment 38: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians; two representatives 

of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; 

the Barona Group of Capitan Grande 

Band of Mission Indians of the Barona 

Reservation, California (Barona Band of 

Mission Indians); the Pauma Band of 

Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma 

and Yuima Reservation, California 

(Pauma Band of Mission Indians); and 

the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission 

Indians of the Pala Reservation, 

California (Pala Band of Mission 

Indians), all believe there is insufficient 

evidence that tribal lands included in 

proposed revisions to critical habitat are 

essential to conservation of the 

subspecies. These tribal representatives 

also stated that designation of tribal 

lands as critical habitat will constitute 

a significant burden to the affected 

tribes, and per Secretarial Order 3206, 

the Service should demonstrate that 

conservation needs of the subspecies 

cannot be met by limiting critical 

habitat designation to nontribal lands. 

The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

specifically requested its lands be 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation for economic reasons based 

on the findings of the DEA. 

Our Response: We believe our 

proposed revisions to critical habitat 

were supported by sufficient scientific 

data. Section 4(b) of the Act requires we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure our decisions are 

based on the best scientific data 

available. We used primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

our recommendations to designate 

revised critical habitat. 

Ensuring persistence of populations 

associated with core occurrence 

complexes is critical to the conservation 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In 

identifying areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat, we 

recognize the importance of including 

all lands necessary to support resilient 

core populations. The best available 

scientific data indicate management of 

those portions of tribally owned lands 

(see response to comment 37 above for 

more information) that were proposed 

as revised critical habitat is essential to 

conserving the affected core 

populations. We utilized GIS data to 

limit the proposed designation to only 

those lands necessary for the 

conservation of the identified core 

populations. Therefore, we believe our 

proposed revisions to critical habitat are 

well supported by the best available 

scientific data. 

During our process of identifying 

lands that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, we identified several tribes 

whose reservations include portions of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitatbased population distributions 

associated with populations needed for 

conservation of the subspecies, 

including the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of 

Cahuilla Indians (California), and the 

Cahuilla Band of Indians. Section 

3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial 

Order 3206 states, ‘‘In designating 

critical habitat, the Services shall 

evaluate and document the extent to 

which the conservation needs of the 

listed species can be achieved by 

limiting the designation to other lands,’’ 

indicating proposed critical habitat 

should be limited to nontribal lands if 

conservation needs can still be met by 

doing so. We determined that, without 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ land 

and Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 

Indians’ land, the remaining habitat in 

Unit 7 still contained sufficient PCEs in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the subspecies’ 

conservation needs. Therefore, we did 

not propose as revised critical habitat 

any tribal reservation lands in Unit 7. 

In our exclusion analyses, we 

evaluated the burden of critical habitat 

designation on affected tribes. Section 

3(B)(3) of the Appendix to Secretarial 

Order 3206 states, ‘‘[the Service shall] * 

* * Recognize the [conservation] 

contribution to be made by affected 

Indian tribes * * * and evaluate 

economic impacts of such proposals 

with implications for tribal trust 

resources or the exercise of tribal 

rights.’’ Sections 3(B)(3) and 3(B)(4) (see 

above quote) of the Appendix to 

Secretarial Order 3206 indicate tribal 

lands should be excluded from critical 

habitat designation if the burden is 

significant and the ability to meet 

species’ conservation needs are not 

precluded by exclusion. The final 

economic analysis (FEA), and new land 

ownership information indicating that 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal 

fee-lands outside the reservation lands 

were included in proposed revised 

critical habitat in Unit 7, indicated the 

proposed designation may impose a 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28795 

significant economic burden on the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and 

the Cahuilla Band of Indians. Based on 

the economic impact and Federal 

policies, including Secretarial Order 

3206, that mandate maintenance of good 

working relationships with tribes and 

deference to tribal management 

authority, we determined the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’, Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians’, and Cahuilla Band of Indians’ 

lands, and determined the exclusions of 

lands in Units 6, 7, and 9 will not lead 

to the extinction of the subspecies. 

Therefore, we excluded all tribal lands 

proposed for revised designation from 

critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Please see the ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Economic Impact’’ section 

below for a discussion of these tribal 

exclusions. 

Comment 39: One representative of 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

believes that, according to Secretarial 

Order 3206, Principle 3(C), the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation on 

property adjacent to or near Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians lands should 

have triggered consultation and written 

notice of proposed conservation 

restrictions. The Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians also stated that land 

proposed as revised critical habitat is 

adjacent to the only road that allows 

access to and from the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ Reservation. The road 

is critical to the health and safety of the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and 

designating critical habitat adjacent to 

the tribes only access to and from the 

Ramona Indian Reservation could 

potentially affect a proposed project to 

pave the existing dirt road, which 

would make it more usable for tribal 

members and health and safety service 

responders (Riverside County Sherriff 

and local and regional fire departments). 

The tribe stated that a delay in the 

project or denial of permits to pave the 

road as a result of designating lands 

adjacent to the road as revised critical 

habitat could cost the tribe more than $1 

million already allocated to this project. 

The tribe believes it would have to 

spend hundreds of thousands more 

dollars to maintain the existing unpaved 

road. 

Our Response: We considered the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ 

assertion described above. Section 5, 

Principle 3(C) of Secretarial Order 3206 

states, ‘‘At the earliest indication that 

the need for Federal conservation 

restrictions is being considered for any 

species, the Departments, acting in their 

trustee capacities, shall promptly notify 

all potentially affected tribes, and 

provide such technical, financial, or 

other assistance as may be appropriate, 

thereby assisting Indian tribes in 

identifying and implementing tribal 

conservation and other measures 

necessary to protect such species. In the 

event that the Departments determine 

that conservation restrictions are 

necessary in order to protect listed 

species, the Departments, in keeping 

with the trust responsibility and 

government-to-government 

relationships, shall consult with 

affected tribes and provide written 

notice to them of the intended 

restriction as far in advance as 

practicable.’’ Section 3(B)(4) of the 

Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 

specifically states ‘‘In keeping with the 

trust responsibility, [the Service] shall 

consult with the affected Indian Tribe(s) 

when considering the designation of 

critical habitat in an area that may 

impact Tribal trust resources, triballyowned fee lands, or the exercise of 

Tribal rights.’’ 

We do not anticipate any additional 

burden to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians due to the designation of Forest 

Service lands adjacent to tribal lands. 

All referenced Forest Service lands are 

occupied, and we were engaged in 

active Section 7 consultation with the 

Forest Service on the road widening and 

paving project prior to proposing 

revisions to critical habitat (73 FR 3328; 

January 17, 2008). Identifiable potential 

economic impacts in occupied Quino 

checkerspot butterfly habitat that may 

result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat are likely limited to 

administrative costs. Therefore, we do 

not expect any additional regulatory 

actions or measures will be required 

solely due to designation of the 

referenced U.S. Forest Service lands as 

critical habitat and we did not initiate 

consultation under the Secretarial Order 

with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians with regard to these lands based 

on proposed revisions to critical habitat. 

Following receipt of the Ramona Band 

of Cahuilla Indians’ first comment letter, 

we met with the tribe on October 16, 

2008, to consult regarding any economic 

and social impacts the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat would 

have on the tribe. After publication of 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

rule, we learned that Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians tribal fee lands had 

been included in the proposal. These 

particular lands are surrounded by 

nontribal lands that meet the definition 

of critical habitat and were properly 

proposed as critical habitat. We 

evaluated these tribal lands for 

exclusion and determined the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians’ tribal fee lands. Therefore, we 

excluded these lands from critical 

habitat under 4(b)(2) of the Act. See the 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act – Impacts to Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

and Economics’’ section below and for 

further discussion of this exclusion. We 

will continue to work cooperatively 

with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians to conserve federally listed 

species on its lands. 

Comment 40: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians requested its land be 

excluded unless the Service 

demonstrates the benefits of inclusion 

outweigh the benefits of ‘‘repairing the 

Service’s working relationship with 

them.’’ Specifically, the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians cited Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Norton (240 

Supp. 2d 1090, 1105; D. Ariz. 2003) 

where the Service’s decision to exclude 

tribal lands was upheld by the court 

because ‘‘the benefit of maintaining a 

good working relationship with the 

Tribe outweighed the benefit * * * [of 

designating tribal lands] as [critical 

habitat].’’ 

Our Response: We evaluated the 

benefits of exclusion of all tribal lands 

from this revised critical habitat 

designation. Maintaining and fostering 

partnerships and good working 

relationships are benefits of exclusion 

and are mandated by Secretarial Order 

3206. Consistent with Secretarial Order 

3206 and Executive Order 13175, we 

also believe tribal lands are better 

managed under tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Consistent with the Act 

and Secretarial Order 3206, we also 

evaluated the economic impact of 

critical habitat designation on tribes. 

The final economic analysis (FEA) 

indicated the proposed designation may 

impose a significant economic burden 

on the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians, and the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians. We determined the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’, Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians’, and Cahuilla Band of Indians’ 

lands, and determined the exclusions 

will not lead to the extinction of the 

subspecies (see response to Comment 38 

above and ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2)—Impacts to Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

and Economics’’ section of this rule). 

Therefore, we excluded all tribal lands 

proposed for revised designation from 

critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of the Act. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28796 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

We recognize and value our good 

working relationship with the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will 

continue to work cooperatively with the 

tribe to conserve federally listed species 

on its lands. 

Comment 41: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe 

the Service did not fulfill the mandate 

of Secretarial Order 3206 by initiating 

consultation with them the moment it 

considered taking action that would 

affect tribal trust resources (critical 

habitat designation). The Campo Band 

of Kumeyaay Indians stated that the 

Service only informed them it was 

considering inclusion of its land at a 

meeting in November 2007, requested 

by the Service, and that the Service’s 

position at that meeting was that it was 

‘‘considering’’ inclusion of tribal lands, 

not intending to do so. 

Our Response: We believe we have 

fulfilled our responsibilities to the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

under Secretarial Order 3206. As 

mandated by Section 5, and Principle 

3(C) of Secretarial Order 3206, as well 

as Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to 

Secretarial Order 3206 (see response to 

Comment 39 above), we initiated tribal 

coordination regarding possible 

proposed revised critical habitat on 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

lands through the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Regional Endangered Species 

Coordinator in August of 2007. We 

initiated direct contact with the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians in a letter 

dated September 11, 2007, requesting 

the opportunity to discuss our findings 

prior to publication of proposed 

revisions to critical habitat. At a meeting 

on November 7, 2007, we explained 

why we believed some tribal lands met 

the definition of critical habitat and 

requested they submit any data we had 

not considered. At this meeting we 

mentioned that no agency decision had 

yet been made and explained that any 

final recommendation on the proposal 

we submitted for signature and 

publication in the Federal Register 

would address any data submitted by 

the tribe. We continued to meet and 

correspond with the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians regularly during the 

decision-making process. Therefore, we 

believe we fulfilled the mandate of 

Secretarial Order 3206 with regard to 

the proposal of revised critical habitat 

and this final designation of revised 

critical habitat. 

Comment 42: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe 

the Service did not fulfill its duty to 

assist them in pursuing its own efforts 

to protect the subspecies, including 

assisting in crafting a tribal management 

plan. 

Our Response: Principle 3(A) of 

Secretarial Order 3206 states, ‘‘The 

Departments shall offer and provide 

such scientific and technical assistance 

and information as may be available for 

the development of tribal conservation 

and management plans to promote the 

maintenance, restoration, enhancement 

and health of the ecosystems upon 

which [listed] species * * * depend, 

including the cooperative identification 

of appropriate management measures to 

address concerns for such species and 

their habitats.’’ Furthermore, Principle 

3(D) of Secretarial Order 3206 states, ‘‘In 

their roles as trustees, the Services shall 

offer and provide technical assistance 

and information for the development of 

tribal conservation and management 

plans to promote the maintenance, 

restoration, and enhancement of the 

ecosystems on which [listed] species * 

* * depend.’’ We provided the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians with a draft 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

management plan specific to its lands, 

as well as example management plans 

for other species on other tribal lands, 

prior to our meeting November 7, 2007 

(see response to Comment 41 above). At 

that meeting, we discussed these 

documents and management options for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly on 

tribal lands and offered to assist with 

further management planning. We 

continued to correspond and meet with 

the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

and provide training and technical 

assistance to tribal staff during 

development of the proposed revised 

critical habitat proposal, the DEA, and 

this final revised rule. Therefore, we 

believe we fulfilled our responsibility as 

trustees by assisting the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians to the full extent 

possible. 

Comment 43: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians requested exclusion 

of its lands from any final revised 

critical habitat designation because the 

educational benefits associated with a 

Quino checkerspot butterfly critical 

habitat designation are less than those 

already provided by its conservation 

program, and the tribe believes it 

already provides adequate conservation 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

through a long-established 

environmental protection program (the 

Campo Environmental Protection 

Agency). The tribe believes the program 

demonstrates the Campo Environmental 

Protection Agency’s ability to manage 

its own land base by providing 

knowledgeable, trained personnel and 

engaging in conservation activities. The 

tribe cited the successful completion of 

riparian habitat restoration projects in 

degraded watersheds on the Campo 

Reservation as an example of tribal 

habitat management. 

Our Response: In our exclusion 

analysis, we considered how the 

educational benefits associated with a 

Quino checkerspot butterfly revised 

critical habitat designation may already 

have been provided by Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians’ conservation 

program. Educational benefits are a 

benefit of inclusion, and a 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, along with a determination 

that exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the subspecies, must be 

made before we can exclude lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

from a final revised critical habitat 

designation. In our analysis, we did find 

that the educational benefits of revised 

critical habitat designation may have 

already been realized by the revised 

critical habitat proposal process and 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

conservation program. 

In our exclusion analysis, we 

evaluated the conservation measures 

provided by Campo Environmental 

Protection Agency activities. Existing 

conservation measures minimize the 

benefits of inclusion, but, as stated 

above, the benefits of exclusion must 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and 

a determination that exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

subspecies must be made before we can 

exclude lands from a final revised 

critical habitat designation. Per 

Secretarial Order 3206 and other 

published policies on Native American 

natural resource management, we are 

aware of our mandate to minimize 

intrusion on its sovereign abilities to 

manage natural resources in accordance 

with its own policies, customs and laws. 

We agree that the Campo Environmental 

Protection Agency has demonstrated an 

ability to manage its own land base by 

providing knowledgeable, trained 

personnel and engaging in conservation 

activities. Per the FEA, we also 

acknowledge that critical habitat 

designation may result in use of tribal 

resources for administrative 

(consultation) purposes that might 

otherwise be used for conservation. 

Therefore, we found the benefits of 

inclusion due to conservation achieved 

through section 7 consultation 

associated with designated critical 

habitat were minimized by existing 

tribal conservation activities. However, 

we did not exclude Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians’ land from revised 

critical habitat designation based solely 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28797 

on the Campo Environmental Protection 

Agency conservation activities. 

We appreciate information on the 

education and conservation program 

provided by the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians. Per Secretarial 

Order 3206 and other published policies 

on Native American natural resource 

management, we considered all benefits 

of exclusion including: (1) The need to 

minimize economic impacts projected 

in the DEA; (2) the need to minimizing 

intrusion on the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians’ sovereign abilities to 

manage natural resources in accordance 

with its own policies, customs and laws; 

and (3) the need to maintain our good 

working relationships with the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians. We further 

determined the benefits of excluding 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

lands outweigh the benefits of 

designating these lands, and these 

exclusions will not result in the 

extinction of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Impacts to Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

and Economics’’ section below for more 

information). Therefore, we excluded all 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

lands from this final revised critical 

habitat designation. We value our good 

working relationship with the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will 

continue to work cooperatively with the 

tribe to conserve federally listed species 

on its lands. 

Comment 44: The Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians commented that the 

draft economic analysis does not reflect 

the potential exclusion of its lands from 

critical habitat designation, which is 

highlighted in the Federal Register 

notice re-opening the public comment 

period published on December 19, 2008. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

has been revised to reflect this potential 

exclusion. Throughout the analysis, 

costs associated with areas explicitly 

identified by the Service as under 

consideration for exclusion are 

presented and discussed separately from 

areas that were not explicitly identified 

as being considered for exclusion. 

Comment 45: Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians’ suggested several 

editorial changes for the FEA based on 

its review of the DEA: (1) There should 

be a discussion of the role of Secretarial 

Order No. 3206 in regards to tribal lands 

proposed for critical habitat designation; 

(2) an exhibit presenting cost 

information for a proposed landfill 

project on its lands should be included 

in Chapter 6; (3) the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) should be included under 

the discussion of government agencies 

overseeing habitat management 

activities in Chapter 7, titled ‘‘Potential 

Impacts to Habitat Management;’’ and 

(4) several exhibits mislabeling Unit 9, 

La Posta—Campo as ‘‘Campo–La Posta’’ 

should be corrected. 

Our Response: The following 

corrections were made to the FEA: (1) 

Explanatory text regarding Secretarial 

Order No. 3206 and its role in the 

decision-making process of the Service 

has been integrated into Chapter 3; (2) 

Exhibit 6–5 presenting the potential 

costs to the tribe for the proposed 

landfill project has been added; and (3) 

we corrected the labeling of Unit 9 

throughout. We are unaware of habitat 

management activities for the 

subspecies undertaken or planned by 

BIA. The FEA authors contacted a 

representative of BIA, and he was also 

unaware of any such activity by BIA. 

Furthermore, our efforts to contact 

parties who submitted public comments 

on behalf of the BIA were unsuccessful. 

Consequently, the FEA was not 

modified to include BIA in the 

discussion of government agencies 

overseeing habitat management 

activities in Chapter 7. 

Comments From Other Federal Agencies 

Comment 46: BIA believes that there 

is insufficient evidence that tribal lands 

included in the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat are essential to 

conservation of the subspecies. BIA also 

stated that, per Secretarial Order 3206, 

the designation of portions of the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ and 

Cahuilla Band of Indians’ reservations 

would constitute a significant burden to 

those tribes. The BIA also requested that 

the Service: (1) Withdraw all tribal 

lands from those identified for the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat; (2) consult with the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians and other 

tribal nations to address the economic 

and social impacts the proposed 

designation of critical habitat would 

have on tribal lands, tribal 

infrastructure, tribal health and safety, 

and proposed projects that would 

further the tribe’s health, welfare, and 

self-reliance; (3) consult with 

potentially affected tribal nations per 

Secretarial Order 3206; and (4) issue a 

revised proposal based on mandated 

government-to-government consultation 

with affected tribes and tribal nations. 

Our Response: We used the best 

available scientific data to determine 

whether certain tribal lands are essential 

to the conservation of the subspecies 

(see also responses to comments 35 and 

36 above), and we are not aware of any 

data that contradict our determination. 

Therefore, we included some tribal 

lands in the proposed revision to critical 

habitat. See the ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Designate Critical Habitat’’ section 

below for further discussion. 

We believe we fulfilled our 

responsibilities to the tribes under 

Secretarial Order 3206 throughout the 

designation process. Please see our 

responses to comments 39–42 above 

regarding our consultations with the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. 

Additionally, we met informally with 

the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians’ 

Environmental Officer to discuss our 

proposed designation and answer any 

questions the tribe had regarding our 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat. 

We evaluated tribal lands for 

exclusion and determined the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’, Cahuilla Band of Indians’, and 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ 

lands. Therefore, we excluded these 

lands from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. See responses to tribal 

comments above and the ‘‘Application 

of Section 4(b)(2) – Impacts to 

Government-To-Government 

Relationships With Tribes and 

Economics’’ section below for further 

discussion of these exclusions. 

Comment 47: The BIA stated that land 

proposed as revised critical habitat is 

adjacent to the only road that allows 

access to and from the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ Reservation. The road 

is critical to the health and safety of the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and 

designating critical habitat adjacent to 

the tribe’s only access to and from the 

Ramona Indian Reservation could 

potentially affect a proposed project to 

pave the existing dirt road, thus making 

it more usable for tribal members and 

health and safety service responders 

(such as Riverside County Sheriff and 

local and regional fire departments). 

They stated a delay in the project or 

denial of permits to build the project as 

a result of designating lands adjacent to 

the road as revised critical habitat could 

cost the tribe more than $1 million 

already allocated to build the project. 

Over the life of the road, the tribe 

believes they would have to spend 

hundreds of thousands more dollars to 

maintain the road if it is not paved. 

Our Response: We do not anticipate 

any additional burden to the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians due to the 

designation of Forest Service lands 

adjacent to tribal lands (see response to 

comment 39 above). 

Comment 48: With regard to the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the 

BIA specifically stated that designating 

lands adjacent to or near Ramona and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28798 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Cahuilla tribal lands within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP plan area 

would violate the MSHCP because the 

HCP has already delineated critical 

habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and adequately provides for 

the survival and recovery of the 

subspecies. The BIA believes that 

language in section 6.9 of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and 

Associates 2003) and section 14.10 of 

the IA means no critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly should be 

designated in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP plan area. 

Our Response: The delineation of 

critical habitat is outside the scope of 

the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting 

process under the Act, and the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP did not 

delineate critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. In addition, 

contrary to BIA’s assertion, the IA does 

not preclude the designation of critical 

habitat within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP plan area. In our section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis for lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP plan area, we fully considered 

the conservation benefits provided by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

to the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

we excluded all the lands in Units 1 

through 6 owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP from 

this critical habitat designation (see 

response to comment 26 above for 

further discussion). 

Comment 49: The Department of the 

Navy (Navy) believes that designation of 

critical habitat at the La Posta Mountain 

Warfare Training Facility (La Posta 

Facility) would result in unacceptable 

delays in construction of facilities 

needed to support mission critical 

training and other missions related to 

national security. The Navy requested 

exclusion of 2,573 ac (1,041 ha) of land 

associated with the La Posta Facility 

under the Act based on the impact to 

national security should these lands be 

designated (‘‘FY04 NDAA Section 318, 

National Security Exclusion from 

Critical Habitat Designation’’). 

Our Response: We evaluated the 

impacts of revised critical habitat 

designation to national security. As 

explained in our response to comment 

25 above, 50 CFR 424.19 states the 

Secretary may exclude any portion of 

such an area from the critical habitat if 

the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of specifying the area as 

part of the critical habitat. The Secretary 

shall not exclude any such area if, based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available, he determines that the 

failure to designate that area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. We determined 

the benefits of excluding the La Posta 

Facility lands outweigh the benefits of 

including these lands in this final 

revised critical habitat designation. 

Further, we determined this exclusion 

will not result in extinction of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. See the 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – 

Impacts to National Security’’ section 

below for a more detailed discussion. 

Comment 50: The Navy stated it was 

opposed to critical habitat designation 

at the La Posta Facility because the 

Navy is actively conserving the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly to fulfill its 

obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536. Resource 

conservation efforts include the recently 

revised and updated Naval Base 

Coronado Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP), developing 

a comprehensive Habitat Enhancement 

Plan, and purchasing land that 

conserves contiguous Quino 

checkerspot butterfly habitat (including 

approximately 138 ac (55.8 ha) of 

proposed revised critical habitat). 

Our Response: In our exclusion 

analysis, we evaluated the conservation 

measures provided by the Navy. 

Existing conservation measures 

minimize the benefits of inclusion, but 

the benefits of exclusion must outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and a 

determination that exclusion would not 

result in the extinction of the subspecies 

must be made before we can exclude 

lands from a final revised critical habitat 

designation. Although the Navy is 

implementing conservation measures 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

the updated INRMP is finalized (Navy 

2008, pp. 1–2), the Service has not yet 

approved the updated INRMP. However, 

as stated above in response to comment 

49, we excluded all lands associated 

with the La Posta Facility from this final 

revised critical habitat designation 

based on impacts to national security 

(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)— 

Impacts to National Security’’ section 

below). We appreciate all of the Navy’s 

efforts to conserve the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on 

Navy lands and will continue to work 

cooperatively with the Navy for 

resource conservation. 

Comment 51: The Department of the 

Air Force (Air Force) requested the San 

Diego Air Force Space Surveillance 

Station (Surveillance Station) be 

excluded from critical habitat for three 

reasons. First, the Air Force believes 

that conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly will be assured 

because an INRMP is currently being 

prepared in coordination with the 

Service and the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG). The Air Force 

stated that it must implement the 

INRMP in accordance with the Sikes 

Act 16 USC 670(a), and must comply 

with the Act to minimize modification 

of potentially suitable habitat. Second, 

the Air Force requested the Surveillance 

Station be excluded from critical habitat 

because the station is within currently 

designated critical habitat, and the 

Service has already consulted with the 

Air Force regarding all current and 

foreseen activities, including issuance of 

a biological opinion concluding that the 

Air Force is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Finally, the Air Force believes critical 

habitat designation would limit the 

amount of natural infrastructure 

available for ongoing and future mission 

execution and training needed for 

national security. The Air Force stated 

that short-notice mission-critical 

activities not previously analyzed may 

be delayed in order to conduct 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act. 

Our Response: In our exclusion 

analysis, we evaluated the conservation 

measures provided by the Air Force. 

Existing conservation measures can 

minimize the benefits of inclusion, but 

the benefits of exclusion must outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion and a 

determination that exclusion would not 

result in the extinction of the subspecies 

must be made before we can exclude 

lands from a final critical habitat 

designation. 

Although conservation measures are 

being implemented for Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, the Surveillance 

Station INRMP is not yet finalized, and 

implementation of the identified 

conservation measures does not 

significantly minimize the conservation 

benefits of including these lands in the 

critical habitat designation. However, 

we excluded all lands associated with 

the Surveillance Station from this final 

revised critical habitat designation 

based on impacts to national security 

(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)— 

Impacts to National Security’’ section 

below). We appreciate all of the Air 

Force’s efforts to conserve the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on 

its lands and will continue to work 

cooperatively with them in the future 

for resource conservation. 

Summary of Changes From Previously 

Designated and Proposed Revised 

Critical Habitat 

We designated approximately 171,605 

ac (69,440 ha) of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly in 4 units 

on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356). We 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28799 

proposed to revise this designation to 

approximately 98,487 ac (39,857 ha) in 

10 units on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 

3328). This final revised critical habitat 

designation includes approximately 

62,125 ac (25,141 ha) in 10 units, after 

excluding Unit 1 and portions of Units 

2 through 9 (approximately 36,270 ac 

(14,678 ha)) based on consideration of 

economic, national security, and other 

relevant impacts. All land designated as 

critical habitat in this final revised rule 

was proposed in the 2008 proposed 

revised rule. Changes between this 

designation and the 2002 designation, as 

well as from the 2008 proposed 

revisions, are described below. 

The areas identified in this final 

revised rule constitute revisions of areas 

designated as critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly on April 

15, 2002 (67 FR 18356; Figure 1). This 

final revised critical habitat designation 

includes approximately 62,125 ac 

(25,141 ha) of land in Riverside and San 

Diego Counties, California. Table 1 and 

Figures 1a and 1b below outline 

differences between the 2002 final 

critical habitat rule, the 2008 proposed 

revisions to the critical habitat 

designation, and this final revised 

critical habitat designation for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Summary of Changes From the 2002 

Designation 

Of the 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) of land 

included in the 2002 final critical 

habitat rule, approximately 62,125 ac 

(25,141 ha) are included in this final 

revised critical habitat designation 

(Figures 1a and 1b). For a detailed 

discussion of the changes between the 

2002 final critical habitat rule and the 

2008 proposed revision, please refer to 

the ‘‘Summary of Changes From 

Previously Designated Critical Habitat’’ 

section in the proposed rule (73 FR 

3328; January 17, 2008). The most 

significant changes from the 2002 final 

rule to the 2008 proposed revision are 

illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b and 

Table 1 below and include: 

(1) In the 2002 critical habitat 

designation (67 FR 18356; April 15, 

2002), we based our criteria on the 

reasoning in the recovery plan (Service 

2003a, p. v) that habitat areas 

supporting all occurrence complexes 

and habitat areas that facilitate 

landscape connectivity or otherwise 

play a significant role in maintaining 

population resilience are essential to the 

long-term conservation of the 

subspecies. In this revision to the 

critical habitat designation, our 

underlying reasoning has not changed; 

however, our revised Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat are based on 

new scientific data not available when 

critical habitat was designated on April 

15, 2002 (67 FR 18356) or when the 

recovery plan was published (Service 

2003a). Application of new data and 

updated occurrence information 

described in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above resulted in the identification of 

different, and in most cases more 

specific, habitat areas meeting the 

definition of critical habitat than were 

identified in the 2002 final critical 

habitat rule. This resulted in a reduced 

total acreage of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for this 

subspecies. The large amount of new 

habitat and distribution information 

resulted in refined population 

distribution knowledge and 

identification of three new core 

occurrence complexes (one new 

occurrence complex, two status 

changes; see ‘‘Background’’ section 

above). These revisions capture habitat 

areas adequate to ensure the long-term 

conservation of this subspecies based on 

our current knowledge of its life history 

and ecological needs as described in the 

‘‘Background’’ section above, and 

‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’ section 

below. The new criteria capture areas on 

the periphery of the subspecies’ range 

and in atypical environments 

considered important to this subspecies 

for adaptation to changing climatic and 

environmental conditions different than 

those identified in the 2002 critical 

habitat designation. For example, the 

Bautista Unit (including 3 non-core 

occurrence complexes and habitat not 

known to be occupied) adequately 

incorporates habitat in the San Jacinto 

foothills at the northern edge of the 

subspecies’ range. Consistent with the 

recovery strategy outlined in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 71– 

86), the new criteria focused on core 

occurrence complex habitat-based 

population distributions designed to 

capture all habitats likely to support 

resilient metapopulations, including 

those likely to support local source or 

mainland populations (also called 

subpopulations) and movement areas 

between habitat patches required for 

metapopulation resilience (see Service 

2003a pp. 163, 165–166 for term 

definitions). We believe the proposed 

revised critical habitat units, based on 

the best scientific data currently 

available regarding core occurrence 

complexes and associated habitat 

distributions, are adequate to ensure the 

long-term conservation of the 

subspecies and accurately capture the 

areas meeting the definition of critical 

habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. Please see the ‘‘Criteria Used 

to Identify Critical Habitat’’ section 

below for a detailed discussion. 

(2) Data collected since 2002 indicates 

that Unit 7 (Bautista) provide the 

function that the more isolated Brown 

Canyon subunit of formerly designated 

Unit 2 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002; 50 

CFR 17.95(i)) previously was thought to 

provide. In 2002, the Brown Canyon 

non-core occurrence complex was 

believed to represent the primary venue 

for range expansion of the species 

resulting from environmental changes 

due to changing climate patterns. 

Further, the resiliency of this 

population was believed to have been 

preserved by the insulation provided by 

surrounding hilly terrain and publicly 

owned lands. Information obtained 

since 2002 indicates the population 

serving these functions is represented 

by the Bautista Road Core Occurrence 

Complex, and the Brown Canyon 

occurrence complex does not have the 

characteristics of a resilient core 

population. Therefore, the Brown 

Canyon subunit is no longer considered 

essential. 

(3) The 2002 critical habitat 

designation (FR 18356; April 15, 2002) 

in Riverside County consisted of two 

units that included almost all known 

non-core occurrence complexes, areas 

connecting those occurrence complexes, 

and habitat within the Lake Mathews/ 

Estelle Mountain Reserve associated 

with the ‘‘Lake Mathews Population 

Site’’ described in the recovery plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 77). We considered, 

but did not include any of the 5,765 ha 

(14,250 ac) of habitat in northwest 

Riverside County corresponding with 

current Unit 1 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 

2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) associated with 

the Harford Springs (non-core) 

Occurrence Complex and the Lake 

Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve. 

Data collected since we designated 

critical habitat on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 

18356), indicate this area is no longer 

likely to support the features essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies, and 

that it is not essential for conservation 

of the subspecies. Most of the habitat 

associated with the Harford Springs 

(non-core) Occurrence Complex 

(designated as Unit 1 in 2002) is 

functionally isolated from occupied 

areas or has subsequently been 

developed, and this non-core 

occurrence complex has been 

extirpated. We considered but did not 

include portions of habitat within 

currently designated Unit 2 (67 FR 

18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) 

associated with the Domenigoni Valley 

(Service 2003a, p. 39), Brown Canyon, 

Rocky Ridge, Billygoat Mountain, 

Dameron Valley, Oak Grove (Service 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28800 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2003a, p. 41), and Spring Canyon noncore occurrence complexes in Riverside 

County identified in the recovery plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 44; current Unit 2). 

Consistent with the recovery strategy 

outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a, pp. 71–86), we believe habitat 

captured by the expanded core 

occurrence complexes and the criteria 

that included additional habitat within 

0.6 mi (1 km) of the mapped core 

occurrence complex areas (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

Section’’ below) provides adequate 

landscape connectivity for conservation 

of the subspecies, and adequately 

captures areas that otherwise play a 

significant role in maintaining 

metapopulation viability. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28801 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

TABLE 1. CHANGES BETWEEN THE APRIL 15, 2002, QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; 

THE JANUARY 17, 2008, PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED FINAL DESIGNATION. ACREAGE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE. 

Critical Habitat Unit in 

this Final Rule County Recovery Plan occurrence complexes 1 (place names) 

2002 Designation of 

Critical Habitat and ac 

(ha) 2

2008 Proposed Revisions to the Critical 

Habitat Designation 

and ac (ha) 3

2009 Final Revised 

Critical Habitat Designation and ac (ha) 

1. Warm Springs Riverside Warm Springs Creek and 

Warm Springs Creek 

North 

Majority designated in 

Unit 2; 0 (0) 

Included as Unit 1; 

2,684 (1,086) 

Entire unit excluded 

2. Skinner/ Johnson Riverside (Lake) Skinner/ Johnson 

(Ranch) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 2; 4,705 

(1,904) 

Included as Unit 2; 

12,030 (4,869) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 2; 5,443 

(2,203), partially excluded, 6,560 

(2,655) 

3. Sage Riverside (Community of) Sage and 

San Ignacio (Ridge) 

Majority designated in 

Unit 2; 123 (50) 

Included as Unit 3; 

2,692 (1,090) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 3; 123 ac (50 

ha), partially excluded, 2,569 ac 

(1,040 ha) 

4. Wilson Valley Wilson Valley Designated in Unit 2 

463 (187) 

Included as Unit 4; 

4,813 (1,948) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 4; 463 (187), 

partially excluded, 

4,350 (1,760 ha) 

5. Vail Lake/Oak 

Mountain 

Riverside Vail Lake, Pauba Valley, 

and (Communities of) 

Butterfield/ Radec 

Majority designated in 

Unit 2; 819 (332) 

Included as Unit 5; 

8,187 (3,313) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 5; 1,788 (724), 

partially excluded, 

6,398 (2,589) 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.000</GPH>
28802 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1. CHANGES BETWEEN THE APRIL 15, 2002, QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; 

THE JANUARY 17, 2008, PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED FINAL DESIGNATION. ACREAGE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE.—Continued 

Critical Habitat Unit in 

this Final Rule County Recovery Plan occurrence complexes 1 (place names) 

2002 Designation of 

Critical Habitat and ac 

(ha) 2

2008 Proposed Revisions to the Critical 

Habitat Designation 

and ac (ha) 3

2009 Final Revised 

Critical Habitat Designation and ac (ha) 

6. Tule Peak Riverside Tule Peak (Road), Southwest Cahuilla (Reservation), and Silverado 

(Ranch) 

Majority designated in 

Unit 2; 15 (6) 

Included as Unit 6; 

6,433 (2,603) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 6; 326 (132), 

partially excluded, 

6,106 (2,471) 

7. Bautista Riverside Bautista Road, Pine Meadow, Lookout Mountain, 

and 3Horse Creek 

Not essential Included as Unit 7; 

14,014 (5,671) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 7; 13,880 

(5,617), partially excluded, 79 (32) 

8. Otay San Diego Otay Valley, West Otay 

Mountain, Otay Lakes/ 

Rancho Jamul, Proctor 

Valley, Marron Valley, 

(Community of) Dulzura, 

and Honey Springs 

Majority designated in 

Unit 3; 25,325 

(10,249) 

Included as Unit 8; 

36,726 (14,863) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 8; 34,941 

(14,140), partially 

excluded, 1,782 

(721) 

9. La Posta/Campo San Diego 3(Communities of) La 

Posta/ Campo 

Not essential Included as Unit 9; 

8,393 (3,397) 

Partially designated in 

Unit 9; 2,647 

(1,071), partially excluded, 5,740 

(2,323) 

10. Jacumba San Diego Jacumba Designated as part of 

Unit 4; 2,514 

(1,017) 

Included as Unit 10; 

2,514 (1,017) 

Designated as Unit 

10; 2,514 (1,017) 

4Brown Canyon 

Subunit 

Riverside Brown Canyon Designated subunit of 

Unit 2; 0 (0) 

Not essential; not proposed Determined not to be 

essential 

5Lake Matthews Riverside Harford Springs (Park), 6Lake Matthews Population Site 

Unit 1; 0(0) Not essential; not proposed Determined not to be 

essential 

7Otay San Diego (National Wildlife Refuge) 

NWR Rancho Jamul, 

NWR Los Montanas, Hidden Valley, (Community 

of) Jamul, West Otay 

Mesa, Barret Junction, 

(City of) Tecate (border 

area) 

Designated in Unit 3; 

0 (0) 

Not essential; not proposed Determined not to be 

essential 

Totals 33,964 (13,745) 98,487 (39,857) 62,125 (25,141) designated 36,270 

(14,678) excluded 

1 All occurrence complexes in proposed revisions to critical habitat are now part of a core occurrence complex, except Pine Meadow, Lookout 

Mountain, and Horse Creek. The geographic analysis of occurrence complexes in this table is based on habitat-based population distributions 

described in this final revised critical habitat rule. 

2 Area designated in this rule that was also included in 2002 designated critical habitat units (67 FR 18356). 

3 New occurrence complexes described in the 2008 proposed revised designation (73 FR 3328) that were not described in the Recovery Plan. 

4The Brown Canyon subunit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat. 

5 The Lake Matthews Unit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat. 

6 A ‘‘historically occupied population site’’ described in the Recovery Plan (not an occurrence complex). 

7 The Otay Unit was Unit 3 in the 2002 final critical habitat rule (67 FR 18356). This row describes Recovery Plan occurrence complexes not 

included in Unit 8 of the proposed revisions to critical habitat. 

Summary of Changes From the 2008 

Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 

Habitat 

The most significant changes from the 

2008 proposed revision to this final 

revised rule are illustrated in Table 1 

above and include: 

(1) In the proposed revised rule, we 

considered lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

covered by the HCP for exclusion under 

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

revised rule, we determined the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion of lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Units 1 through 6, and determined 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in extinction of the species. Therefore, 

we excluded approximately 27,465 ac 

(11,115 ha) of these lands under section 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28803 

4(b)(2) of the Act. We determined that 

the benefits of inclusion outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion for Unit 7. 

Therefore, we included all lands owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Unit 7 in this final 

designation. For a complete discussion 

of the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion see ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section 

below. 

(2) In the proposed revised rule, we 

considered all lands covered by the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan for exclusion 

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

determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion of 

these lands and exclusion will not result 

in extinction of the species. Therefore, 

we excluded approximately 1,673 ac 

(677 ha) of land covered by the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below). 

(3) In the notice of availability for the 

DEA published in the Federal Register 

on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), 

we announced we were considering 

exclusion of the San Diego Air Force 

Space Surveillance Station (SD 

Surveillance Station; approximately 109 

ac (44 ha) within Unit 8) and the La 

Posta Mountain Warfare Training 

Facility (La Posta Facility; 2,463 ac (997 

ha) within Unit 9) from critical habitat 

designation for reasons of national 

security. We determined the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for these lands and exclusion 

of these lands will not result in 

extinction of the species. Therefore, we 

excluded approximately 2,572 ac (1041 

ha) of Department of Defense lands in 

Units 8 and 9 for reasons of national 

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

(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – 

Impacts to National Security’’ section 

below). 

(4) In the notice of availability for the 

DEA published in the Federal Register 

on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), 

we announced we were considering 

exclusion of approximately 1,203 ac 

(487 ha) of the Cahuilla Band of Indians’ 

land within Unit 6, approximately 79 ac 

(32 ha) of Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians’ land within Unit 7, and 

approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ land 

within Unit 9 for economic reasons. We 

determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion of 

these tribal lands and exclusion will not 

result in extinction of the species. 

Therefore, we excluded approximately 

1,203 ac (487 ha) of tribal lands in Unit 

6, approximately 79 ac (32 ha) in Unit 

7, and approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) 

in Unit 9 for economic reasons under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – 

Impacts to Government-To-Government 

Relationships With Tribes and 

Economics ‘‘ section below). 

(5) In 2008, one expert documented 

Quino checkerspot butterfly oviposition 

(egg laying) and larval feeding on a new 

species of host plant at several locations 

in Unit 6 (Pratt 2008a, p. 1). Please see 

‘‘Background’’ section above for a 

complete discussion of this new 

information. As a result of these 

documented observations, we added 

Collinsia concolor to the list of host 

plants considered as a PCE (see 

‘‘Background’’ section for additional 

details). 

(6) When final critical habitat maps 

are being prepared with exclusions 

based on ownership data, this exercise 

often leaves small linear polygons of 

designated critical habitat that in-and-of 

themselves serve no logical regulatory 

or biological purpose. Initial maps are 

based on habitat features only; however, 

exclusions are based on artificial 

boundaries created by humans, 

therefore resulting in narrow ‘‘sliver’’ 

artifacts or very small polygons of nonexcluded area once excluded areas are 

removed. Therefore, the sum of the total 

areas designated and excluded is 

slightly reduced in this final revised 

critical habitat designation compared to 

the size of the total proposed revised 

designation area estimate due to 

removal of small linear ownership 

artifacts. 

(7) A number of comments we 

received suggested editorial changes 

and technical corrections to sections of 

the rule pertaining to the Background 

and Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat sections of our proposed revised 

rule. These changes were recommended 

to improve clarity, include additional 

information, and correct minor errors. 

They were incorporated into this final 

revised rule where appropriate. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features 

(a) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided under the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing must 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and be 

included only if those features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the PCEs laid 

out in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement essential to the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation of the species). Under the 

Act, we can designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed only when we determine that 

those areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the Recovery Plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that we 

may eventually determine are necessary 

for the recovery of the species. For these 

reasons, a critical habitat designation 

does not signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not promote the recovery of the species. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions we and other 

Federal agencies implement under 

section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also 

subject to the regulatory protections 

afforded by section 9 of the Act and the 

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

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

HCPs, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if information available 

at the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) 

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

of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We consider the physical 

and biological features to be the PCEs 

laid out in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species. The PCEs 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the PCEs for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly from its biological 

needs as described below and in 

proposed revisions to critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is characterized by patchy 

shrub or small tree landscapes with 

openings of several meters between 

large plants, or a landscape of open 

swales alternating with dense patches of 

shrubs (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 112); 

such habitats are often collectively 

termed ‘‘scrublands.’’ Quino 

checkerspot butterflies will frequently 

perch on vegetation or other substrates 

to mate or bask, and require open areas 

to facilitate movement (Service 2003a, 

pp. 10–11). 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Quino checkerspot butterflies are 

exothermic (cold-blooded) and therefore 

require an external heat source to 

increase their metabolic rate to levels 

needed for normal growth and behavior. 

Within open, woody-canopy 

communities, larvae seek microclimates 

with high solar exposure for basking to 

speed their growth rate (Weiss et al. 

1987, p. 161; Weiss et al. 1988, p. 1487; 

Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113; 

Service 2003a, p. 20). Like most 

butterflies, adult Quino checkerspot 

butterflies frequently bask and remain 

in open-canopy areas, using air 

temperature and sunshine to increase 

their body temperature to the level 

required for normal active behavior 

(Service 2003a, p. 18). 

Adult butterflies will only lay eggs on 

species they recognize as host plants. 

Quino checkerspot butterfly oviposition 

(egg deposition) has been most often 

documented on Plantago erecta, 

Plantago patagonica, and Anterrhinum 

coulterianum (Service 2003a, pp. 14– 

18). In 2008, oviposition and larval 

development were recorded for the first 

time on Collinsia concolor; on 

numerous individual plants and at 

multiple locations in Riverside County 

(Pratt 2008a p. 1; 2008b p. 1; 2008c p. 

1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. concolor 

commonly occurs in habitats with P. 

erecta, P. patagonica, and A. 

coulterianum, (Pratt 2001, pp. 42–43; 

Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this plant 

species is typically found in cooler and 

moister micro-habitats on north-facing 

slopes and in the shade compared to 

where the other host plant species grow 

(Pratt 2001, p. 40; Pratt 2008b, p. 1). 

Please see ‘‘Background’’ section above 

for a complete discussion of this new 

information. 

Newly hatched pre-diapause larvae 

cannot move more than a few 

centimeters during the first two instars 

(development stages), restricting their 

development during this stage to the 

individual host plant on which their 

mother deposited eggs (the primary host 

plant species). Older pre-diapause 

larvae usually wander independently in 

search of food and may switch to 

feeding on a secondary host plant 

(Service 2003a, p. 7). All known species 

of host plant (see species listed above) 

may serve as primary or secondary host 

plants, depending on location and 

environmental conditions (Service 

2003a, p. 17). Quino checkerspot 

butterfly egg clusters or pre-diapause 

larval clusters are also documented in 

the field on Cordylanthus rigidus 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28805 

(thread-leaved bird’s beak) and 

Castilleja exserta (purple owl’s-clover) 

(Service 2003a, pp. 14–18). However, 

use of C. rigidus and C. exserta is rare, 

and these species alone are not believed 

to be sufficient to support Quino 

checkerspot butterfly breeding; 

therefore, other species of host plant 

must co-exist with these species for 

habitat to support breeding (Service 

2003a, pp. 16–17). 

It is not possible to determine habitat 

suitability based on standing host plant 

densities. Estimates exist for densities of 

Plantago erecta required for larval 

development (Service 2003a, pp. 22– 

23); however, it is not always possible 

in a given year to determine typical host 

plant densities because germinating host 

plants may be entirely consumed by 

larvae; or because seeds may not 

germinate and larvae may return to 

diapause when precipitation levels are 

below-average (Service 2003a, p. 23). 

These principles apply to all host plant 

species to some extent; therefore, any 

host plants detected in habitat 

appearing otherwise suitable should be 

considered an indication of habitat 

suitability. 

The physical structure of flowers is 

the primary factor that determines 

nectar source use. Adult checkerspot 

butterflies of the genus Euphydryas 

have a short tongue, approximately 0.43 

inch (in) (11 millimeters (mm)) in length 

(Pratt 2007a, p. 1), and typically cannot 

feed on flowers that have deep corolla 

tubes or flowers evolved to open by bees 

(Service 2003a, p. 19). Adults may 

nectar on flowers with a corolla length 

nearly a centimeter longer than their 

proboscis (0.59 to 1.10 in (15 to 28 

mm)), like Linanthus androsaceus 

(Murphy 1984, p. 114; Hickman 1993, p. 

842), but they are not likely to prefer 

such species (Murphy 1984, p. 114). 

Edith’s checkerspot butterflies prefer 

flowers with a platform-like surface on 

which they can remain upright while 

feeding (Service 2003a, p. 19). Examples 

of flowers Quino checkerspot butterflies 

frequently take nectar from include 

Lomatium spp. (lomatium), Muilla spp. 

(goldenstar), Amsinckia spp. 

(fiddleneck), Lasthenia spp. (goldfields), 

Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), 

Chaenactis glabriuscula (yellow 

pincushion), Ericameria linearifolia 

(interior goldenbush), and Plagiobothrys 

and Cryptantha spp. (popcorn flowers) 

(Service 2003a, p. 19; see Comment 7 

and our response in the ‘‘Peer Reviewer 

Comments’’ section above). Therefore, 

flowers with a corolla tube greater than 

0.43 in (11 mm) are not likely to be used 

as nectar sources by the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. 

White and Levin (1981, pp. 350, 351) 

found that the average distance adult 

Quino checkerspot butterflies moved 

within habitat patches ranged from 173 

ft (53 m) to 305 ft (93 m) in 1973 and 

1972, respectively. Although butterflies 

were observed moving from larval host 

plants at distances greater than 656 ft 

(200 m) (1981, p. 349), it is unlikely that 

nectar sources greater than this distance 

would regularly be used by the 

subspecies because 656 ft (200 m) is 

more than double the average recapture 

distance in 1972, and almost 4 times the 

average distance in 1973 recorded by 

White and Levin (1981, p. 349). 

Cover or Shelter 

Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae 

require sheltered sites for diapause 

(Service 2003a, p. 8), and adults 

typically roost in or below shrubs 

overnight and during adverse weather 

conditions (Service 2003a, p. 10). A 

pilot laboratory study (Pratt 2006, p. 9) 

and larval distribution observations 

(Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113) 

indicate the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

larvae prefer to diapause in or near the 

base of native shrubs, such as 

Eriogonum fasciculatum. Larvae can 

repeat diapause for multiple years 

(Service 2003a, p. 8); therefore, surveys 

for adults during drought years may not 

detect occupancy where it exists in 

areas containing diapause sites. Captive 

rearing and observation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly larvae indicate 

that repeated diapause is relatively 

common (over 50 percent likelihood for 

the first year) (Pratt 2006, p. 10), and 

larvae can re-enter diapause (Pratt 

2007a, pp. 10–13). Therefore, suitable 

habitat requires low-lying shrubs, such 

as E. fasciculatum, that provide shelter 

for adults and larvae. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Development of Offspring 

In Edith’s checkerspot butterflies, the 

tendencies of females to move uphill 

and males to defend hilltops 

(‘‘hilltopping behavior’’) increase the 

likelihood of male and female butterflies 

finding each other to mate during years 

of low adult density (Baughman and 

Murphy 1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and 

Wheye 1988, pp. 460–461). Males 

defend hilltops because they are likely 

to encounter virgin females at these 

locations (Baughman and Murphy 1988, 

p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988, pp. 

460–461; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 109). As 

a result, higher ground serves as a 

‘‘visual beacon’’ to enhance mating 

success. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

For the geographical areas occupied 

by the Quino checkerspot butterfly at 

the time of listing, we must identify the 

essential physical or biological features 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection. Based on 

the above needs and our current 

knowledge of the life history, biology, 

and ecology of the subspecies, we 

determined the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly’s PCEs are: 

(1) Open areas within scrublands at 

least 21.5 square feet (ft2) (2 square 

meters (m2)) in size that: 

(A) Contain no woody canopy cover; 

and 

(B) Contain one or more of the host 

plants Plantago erecta, Plantago 

patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, 

or Collinsia concolor used for Quino 

checkerspot butterfly growth, 

reproduction, and feeding; or 

(C) Contain one or more of the host 

plants Cordylanthus rigidus or Castilleja 

exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of 

the host plants listed in (B) above; or 

(D) Contain flowering plants with a 

corolla tube less than or equal to 0.43 

in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly feeding; 

(2) Open scrubland areas and 

vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of the 

open canopy areas (PCE 1) used for 

movement and basking; and 

(3) Hilltops or ridges within 

scrublands that contain an open, 

woody-canopy area at least 21.5 ft2 (2 

m2) in size used for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) 

and are contiguous with (but not 

otherwise included in) open areas and 

natural vegetation described in PCEs 1 

and 2 above. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing contain features essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

When the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

was listed on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 

2313), the primary threats to the 

subspecies were: 

(1) Reduction and fragmentation of 

habitat by urban and agricultural 

development and recreational activities, 

(2) over-collection, 

(3) vandalism, 

(4) fire, and 

(5) drought. 

Additional threats to this subspecies 

identified in the April 15, 2002, final 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

designation of critical habitat (67 FR 

18356) include: 

(1) Trash dumping, 

(2) nitrogen deposition, 

(3) elevated atmospheric carbon 

dioxide concentrations, and 

(4) climate change. 

Current threats to the subspecies and 

management needs were described in 

detail in the Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a, pp. 55–65); including: 

(1) Loss and fragmentation of habitat 

and landscape connectivity due to 

development, 

(2) invasion by nonnative plants, 

(3) off-road vehicle activity, 

(4) grazing, 

(5) fire, 

(6) enhanced soil nitrogen, 

(7) increasing atmospheric carbon 

dioxide concentration, and 

(8) climate change. 

Scientific research indicates all 

threats individually and interactively 

cause loss or reduced availability of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly host plants, 

nectar sources, and suitable areas for 

necessary behaviors (e.g., mating, 

basking, hilltopping) (Service 2003a, pp. 

55–65). For example, increased 

atmospheric carbon dioxide 

concentration resulted in approximately 

30 percent loss in seed production of 

Plantago lanceolata (Jablonski et al. 

2002, p. 14), and increased temperatures 

caused approximately 5 percent shorter 

reproductive duration (Sherry et al. 

2007, p. 200). These results indicate 

density and phenological availability of 

Plantago spp. to herbivores under 

current and predicted climate and 

atmospheric conditions are, or will be, 

reduced relative to historical conditions 

(Service 2003a, pp. 62–65). Host plant 

densities and availability are also 

reduced by nonnative plant invasion, 

which is further exacerbated by loss and 

fragmentation of habitat, off-road 

vehicle activity, enhanced soil nitrogen, 

and other sources of habitatdisturbance. 

Management needs and actions 

recommended in the Recovery Plan that 

may be required to protect and maintain 

the PCEs for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly include: 

(1) Reestablishment and maintenance 

of habitat and landscape connectivity 

within and between populations 

(Service 2003a, pp. 57, 96–101); 

(2) habitat restoration and control of 

invasive nonnative species (Service 

2003, pp. 58, 96–101, 146–159); 

(3) monitoring of ongoing habitat loss 

and nonnative plant invasion (Service 

2003a, p. 106); 

(4) phased replacement of grazing 

with nonnative invasive plant control 

(Service 2003, pp. 60, 101–102); 

(5) carefully controlled burn 

experiments to assess effectiveness for 

control of nonnative plant invasion and 

protection of PCEs from wildfire 

destruction (Service 2003, p. 61); 

(6) reduction of local nitrogen 

emissions from sources such as hightraffic roads (Service 2003a, p. 62); 

(7) management of off-road vehicle 

activity (Service 2003a, pp. 59, 146– 

159), including outreach and 

partnerships with local off-road vehicle 

clubs and organizations (Service 2003a, 

p. 105); 

(8) reduction of trash dumping in 

habitat (Service 2003a, p. 109); and 

(9) prudent design of managed 

habitats to include landscape 

connectivity (suitable habitat 

connectivity) and ecological 

connectivity (connectivity of wildlands 

that may not currently include habitat) 

(Service 2003a, pp. 65, 96). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As discussed in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, pp. 71–86), the recovery 

strategy for Quino checkerspot butterfly 

focuses on conserving, managing, and 

monitoring resilient populations. 

Therefore, criteria for determining 

habitat required to support a population 

should consider long-term occupancy 

needs as well as movement distances to 

include all habitat necessary to support 

a population. We based our critical 

habitat criteria on the intent of recovery 

criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5 (Service 2003a, p. 

v) that habitat areas supporting all 

occurrence complexes and that facilitate 

landscape connectivity or otherwise 

play a significant role in maintaining 

population resilience are essential to the 

long-term conservation of the 

subspecies. Our revised ‘‘Criteria Used 

to Identify Critical Habitat’’ are based on 

new scientific information not available 

when the recovery plan was published 

(Service 2003a). The large amount of 

new habitat and distribution 

information resulted in refined 

population distribution knowledge and 

identification of three new core 

occurrence complexes (one new 

occurrence complex, two status 

changes; see ‘‘Background’’ section 

above). The new criteria capture areas 

on the periphery of the subspecies’ 

range and in atypical environments 

considered important to this subspecies 

for adaptation to changing climatic and 

environmental conditions different than 

those identified in the 2002 critical 

habitat designation. The new criteria 

focused on core occurrence complex 

habitat-based population distributions 

designed to capture all habitats likely to 

support resilient metapopulations, 

including those likely to support local 

source or mainland populations (also 

called subpopulations) and movement 

areas between habitat patches required 

for metapopulation resilience (see 

Service 2003a pp. 163, 165–166 for term 

definitions). 

In order to include all habitat 

necessary to support populations and 

accommodate population distributions 

that may shift annually or over a greater 

period of time, our criteria started with 

Quino occurrence locations considered 

to be extant, and expanded habitat to 

include all habitat we estimated was 

necessary to support the core 

occurrence complexes (populations) 

associated with the observed 

individuals. The process we used is 

described below. 

(1) We determined occupancy within 

the extant range of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Current 

occupancy was determined using 

occurrence data from the Service GIS 

database and associated survey reports. 

Areas of extant habitat containing 

occurrence records from 1999 or later 

were considered currently occupied. 

Since 1997, the number of known 

occupied sites has increased in most 

areas, indicating resilient populations in 

areas where development pressure is 

relatively low. Ten years is the 

minimum time between historical 

subspecies’ population density highs 

and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29); 

therefore, naturally fluctuating 

populations documented since 1999 are 

not likely to have experienced a density 

minimum, during which they are most 

vulnerable to extirpation. 

(2) We determined which areas were 

occupied at the time of listing by 

comparing survey and collection 

information to descriptions of occupied 

areas in the final listing rule published 

on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). Core 

occurrence complexes considered to be 

occupied at the time of listing were: (1) 

Recorded within 4 years of listing; (2) 

contained repeated observations of a 

large number of individuals (relative to 

all known occupied locations); and (3) 

if occupancy was documented postlisting, occurred not more than 4 mi (6.4 

km) from other occurrence complexes 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing. Four years is less than half the 

minimum time between historical 

subspecies’ population density highs 

and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29) and, as 

stated above, where development 

pressure is relatively low, populations 

appear to be resilient. Additionally, 4 

mi (6.4 km) is the maximum recorded 

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly dispersal 

distance (Service 2003a, p. 12). 

Therefore, these parameters captured: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28807 

(1) The time required for natural 

population fluctuations to increase 

subspecies’ density and occupancy 

detectability; (2) repeated observations 

indicating habitat has been occupied for 

several years; and (3) populations in 

close proximity to areas known to be 

occupied at the time of listing, as well 

as those areas likely to have been 

occupied (already colonized) at the time 

of listing. 

(3) Once we determined the 

occupancy status of all occurrence 

complexes, we used the following rule 

set to identify areas that met the 

definition of critical habitat. As 

described in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, we defined core occurrence 

complexes as population density 

centers, specifically occurrence 

complexes where at least two of the 

following criteria apply: (a) 50 or more 

adults have been observed during a 

single survey; (b) immature life stages 

have been recorded; and (c) the area 

within 0.6 mi (1 km) of butterfly 

observation locations (occurrence 

complex area) was greater than 1,290 ac 

(522 ha). The best available scientific 

data indicate that focusing on protection 

and management of populations 

associated with occurrence complexes 

meeting these criteria can provide for 

the conservation of the subspecies 

because they are more likely to persist 

into the future and provide emigrants to 

other populations than populations 

associated with occurrence complexes 

that do not meet these criteria. We 

identified seven core occurrence 

complexes that meet the definition of 

critical habitat that were identified in 

the Recovery Plan (Warm Springs Creek, 

Skinner/ Johnson, Vail Lake, Sage, 

Wilson Valley, Tule Peak/Silverado, 

Otay Mountain), as well as three new 

core occurrence complexes (Bautista 

Road, La Posta/Campo, and Jacumba) 

(see ‘‘Background’’ section above). 

(4) We determined lands necessary to 

support each of the populations 

associated with the 10 identified core 

occurrence complexes. We first 

delineated areas within 0.6 mi (1 km; 

movement radius) of occurrence records 

to capture habitat within reasonable 

flight range of each recorded adult 

sighting. This first criterion is the 

geographic area-based component of the 

definition of an occurrence complex 

described further in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 35) and the 

‘‘Background’’ section above. We 

subsequently included any contiguous 

habitat containing the PCEs within an 

occurrence complex (described in first 

criterion above) and within an 

additional 0.6 mi (1 km) of an 

occurrence complex. This second 

criterion used biological and geographic 

information (primarily Service GIS host 

plant occurrence data, vegetation layers, 

and satellite imagery) to capture the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the subspecies in 

this area. We removed any areas within 

the occurrence complex that we 

determined did not contain the PCEs, 

based on the best available scientific 

data. In mapping all habitat within 

reasonable flight range of each recorded 

observation, combined with any 

additional habitat belonging to the 

observed individuals’ population, we 

believe we captured habitat necessary to 

support each population associated with 

identified core occurrence complexes 

(the PCEs laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies). This process resulted in the 

identification of habitat-based 

population distributions for each core 

occurrence complex that are occupied at 

a population distribution scale, but 

where detectability may vary annually. 

(5) Finally, we closely examined the 

new Bautista Road Core Occurrence 

Complex and determined habitat 

associated with this complex is likely 

undersurveyed and supports a larger 

population distribution than is currently 

delineated by the habitat-based 

population distribution. Furthermore, 

we determined this core occurrence 

complex is at the leading edge of an 

ongoing upward shift in the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly’s elevation range 

(see ‘‘Background’’ section above). 

Recognizing the predictions by 

Parmesan (1996, p. 765; 2006, pp. 647– 

648), Preston et al. (2008, pp. 2501– 

2505), and Seager et al. (2007, pp. 1181, 

1183, 1184), we expect loss of lower 

elevation and lower latitude 

populations will continue in this 

subspecies’ range as the incidence of 

above-average temperatures, drought 

conditions, and extreme weather events 

continue to increase (see ‘‘Background’’ 

section above; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 2007). 

Qualitative natural history and 

abundance observations and 

documented adult and larval 

observations for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly indicate this species has begun 

to colonize higher elevation habitats 

(see ‘‘Background’’ section above). 

Therefore, consistent with 

recommendations in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 65), we delineated 

habitat containing the PCEs that is 

contiguous with the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex habitat-based 

population distribution to connect it to 

the habitat-based population 

distributions of three non-core 

occurrence complexes that are higher in 

elevation (Pine Grove, Lookout 

Mountain, and Horse Creek). 

These three non-core occurrence 

complexes were all identified over the 

past 5 years, and we expect they will 

become increasingly important to Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation in 

the future. Therefore, inclusion of all 

areas into Unit 7 within the habitatbased population distributions of the 

Bautista Road Core Occurrence 

Complex, the Pine Grove, Lookout 

Mountain, and Horse Creek non-core 

occurrence complexes, and contiguous 

suitable habitat between these 

complexes, captured habitat essential 

for the conservation of the subspecies. 

This will ensure persistence of 

populations associated with core 

occurrence complexes that we believe is 

critical to the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. In identifying 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, we recognize the importance of 

including all lands necessary to support 

resilient core populations. As described 

above, we delineated habitat where 

occupancy is expected, but has not been 

documented, that connects the Bautista 

Road Core Occurrence Complex with 

three higher elevation non-core 

occurrence complexes. Therefore, 

consistent with 50 CFR 424.12(e), we 

included areas contiguous with the 

Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex 

that are outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the subspecies 

(outside of habitat-based population 

distributions as described above) in Unit 

7 (Bautista). 

When determining revisions to 

critical habitat boundaries for this final 

rule, we made every effort to avoid 

including developed areas, such as 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other structures, because such lands 

lack PCEs for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. The scale of maps prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed lands. Any such structures 

and land under them inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries shown 

on the maps of this revised critical 

habitat rule are excluded by text in this 

final rule. Therefore, Federal action 

involving such lands would not trigger 

section 7 consultations with respect to 

critical habitat and the requirement of 

no adverse modification unless the 

specific action may affect adjacent 

critical habitat. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28808 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Final Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

We are designating approximately 

62,125 ac (25,141 ha) as critical habitat 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

within 9 units, identified as Units 2 

through 10 (proposed critical habitat 

Unit 1 is excluded in its entirety as 

described in the ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of 

this rule). Table 2 outlines the areas 

included and excluded from this final 

revised critical habitat by land 

ownership. Units designated as critical 

habitat are discussed in detail below. 

The areas we describe below constitute 

our current best assessment of areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

TABLE 2. CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY DEPICTING THE AREAS DESIGNATED AND

EXCLUDED FROM THE CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY LAND OWNERSHIP. 

Critical Habitat Unit Land Ownership2 Total area proposed ac 

(ha) 

Total area excluded ac 

(ha) 

Total area designated ac 

(ha) 

1. Warm Springs Local 369 (149) 369 (149) 

Private 2,315 (937) 2,315 (937) 0 

2. Skinner/Johnson Federal 131 (53) 0 131 (53) 

Local 8,674 (3,510) 3,361 (1,360) 5,313 (2,150) 

State 734 (297) 734 (297) 0 

Private 2465 (990) 2,465 (990) 0 

3. Sage Federal 123 (50) 0 123 (50) 

Local 89 (36) 89 (36) 0 

Private 2,480 (1,004) 2,480 (1,004) 0 

4. Wilson Valley Federal 463 (187) 0 463 (187) 

Local 1,072 (434) 1,072 (434) 0 

Private 3,278 (1,327) 3,278 (1,327) 0 

5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Federal 1,788 (724) 0 1,788 (724) 

State 22 (9) 22 (9) 0 

Local 97 (39) 97 (39) 0 

Private 6,279 (2,541) 6,279 (2,541) 0 

6. Tule Peak Federal 326 (132) 0 326 (132) 

Cahuilla Tribe 1,203 (487) 1,203 (487) 0 

Local 953 (386) 953 (386) 0 

Private 3,950 (1,599) 3,950 (1,599) 0 

7. Bautista Federal 9,720 (3,934) 0 9,720 (3,934) 

Ramona Tribe 79 (32) 79 (32) 0 

State 102 (41) 0 102 (41) 

Local 46 (19) 0 46 (19) 

Private 4,012 (1,624) 0 4,012 (1,624) 

8. Otay Federal 8,763 (3,546) 109 (44) 8,654 (3,502) 

State 9,674 (3,915) 35 (14) 9,639 (3,901) 

Local 5,238 (2,120) 834 (338) 4,404 (1,782) 

Private 13,048 (5,280) 804 (325) 12,244 (4,955) 

9. La Posta/Campo Federal 2,927 (1,184) 2,572 (1,040) 355 (144) 

Campo Tribe 3,167 (1,282) 3,167 (1,282) 0 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28809 

TABLE 2. CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY DEPICTING THE AREAS DESIGNATED AND

EXCLUDED FROM THE CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY LAND OWNERSHIP.—Continued 

Critical Habitat Unit Land Ownership2 Total area proposed ac 

(ha) 

Total area excluded ac 

(ha) 

Total area designated ac 

(ha) 

State 0 0 6 (2) 

Private 2,286 (925) 0 2,286 (925) 

10. Jacumba State 351 (142) 0 351 (142) 

Private 2,163 (875) 0 2,163 (875) 

Total 98,395 (39,819) 1 36,270 (14,678) 62,125 (25,141) 

1Unit totals are reduced in this final revised critical habitat designation due to removal of small linear ownership artifacts originally included in 

proposed revised critical habitat designation area estimates. The total area value in the proposed revised critical habitat designation was 98,487 

ac (39,857 ha). 

2Private = private ownership, including conserved lands managed for subspecies’ recovery; Local = City- or County-owned land; Federal = 

Federally owned land; Cahuilla Tribe = Cahuilla Band of Indians; Ramona Tribe = Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; Campo Tribe = Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Numbers may not sum due to rounding, and ownership totals may have changed from those reported in the proposed rule due to updated ownership data. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly below. For 

more information about the areas 

excluded from critical habitat, please 

see the ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

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

rule. 

Unit 1: Warm Springs 

We excluded all lands in Unit 1 

(approximately 2,684 ac (1,086 ha)) that 

we proposed as revised critical habitat 

that are owned by or are under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of this area will not result in 

extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below for a 

detailed discussion). 

Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson 

Unit 2 consists of approximately 

5,444 ac (2,203 ha) of habitat that was 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing and is currently occupied. 

This unit contains all of the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including 

the following: Plantago erecta, 

Antirrhinum coulterianum, 

Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 

exserta host plants; nectar sources; open 

woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops 

(Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41; Service GIS 

database). Unit 2 is located in Riverside 

County, north of the City of Temecula, 

in the vicinity of Lake Skinner. This 

unit includes land associated with the 

Skinner/Johnson Core Occurrence 

Complex as described in the Recovery 

Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). The 

physical and biological features found 

in Unit 2 may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

maintenance and recreational activities, 

invasion by nonnative plants, fire, 

enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate 

change. 

We excluded approximately 6,560 ac 

(2,655 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit that are 

owned by or are under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion and that 

exclusion of these areas will not result 

in extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below for a 

detailed discussion). 

Unit 3: Sage 

Unit 3 consists of approximately 123 

ac (50 ha) of habitat that was occupied 

by the subspecies at the time of listing 

and is currently occupied. This unit 

contains all of the features essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 

1, 2, and 3), including the following: 

Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, 

and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar 

sources; open woody-canopy 

scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, 

pp. 41, 43; Service GIS database). Unit 

3 is located in Riverside County, 

northeast of Temecula, in the vicinity of 

the community of Sage. This unit 

includes land associated with the Sage 

Core and San Ignacio Non-core 

Occurrence Complexes described in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). 

New occurrence information indicates 

the San Ignacio Non-core Occurrence 

Complex should be considered part of 

the Sage Core Occurrence Complex (see 

‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ sections 

above). The physical and biological 

features found in Unit 3 may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

recreational activities, trash dumping, 

invasion by nonnative plants, fire, 

enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate 

change. 

We excluded approximately 2,569 ac 

(1,040 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit that are 

owned by or are under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion was based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion and that exclusion of this area 

will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below). 

Unit 4: Wilson Valley 

Unit 4 consists of approximately 463 

ac (187 ha) of habitat that was occupied 

by the subspecies at the time of listing 

and is currently occupied. This unit 

contains all of the features essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 

1, 2, and 3), including the following: 

Plantago erecta, P. patagonica, 

Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia 

concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and 

Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar 

sources; open woody-canopy 

scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, 

pp. 41, 43; Pratt 2008b pp. 1–2; 2008e, 

p. 1; Service GIS database). Unit 4 is 

located in Riverside County, north of SR 

79, east of Oak Mountain and the City 

of Temecula in the vicinity of Wilson 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Valley. This unit includes land 

associated with the Wilson Valley Core 

Occurrence Complex described in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). 

The physical and biological features 

found in Unit 4 may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

recreational activities, trash dumping, 

invasion by nonnative plants, fire, 

enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate 

change. 

We excluded approximately 4,350 ac 

(1,760 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit that are 

owned by or are under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion was based on our 

determination the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and 

that exclusion of this area will not result 

in extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). 

Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain 

Unit 5 consists of approximately 

1,788 ac (724 ha) of habitat that was 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing and is currently occupied. 

This unit contains all of the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including 

the following: Plantago erecta, 

Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 

exserta host plants; nectar sources; open 

woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops 

(Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Service GIS 

database). Unit 5 is located in Riverside 

County, north and south of SR 79, and 

east of Temecula within the vicinity of 

Oak Mountain and Vail Lake. This unit 

includes land associated with the Vail 

Lake Core Occurrence Complex and 

Butterfield/Radec Non-core Occurrence 

Complex described in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence 

information indicates the Butterfield/ 

Radec Non-core Occurrence Complex 

should be considered part of the Vail 

Lake Core Occurrence Complex (see the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule, 73 

FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The 

physical and biological features found 

in Unit 5 may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

recreational activities, trash dumping, 

invasion by nonnative plants, fire, 

enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate 

change. 

We excluded approximately 6,398 ac 

(2589 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit that are 

owned by or are under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of these areas will not result 

in extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). 

Unit 6: Tule Peak 

Unit 6 consists of approximately 326 

ac (132 ha) of habitat that was occupied 

by the subspecies at the time of listing 

and is currently occupied. This unit 

contains all of the features essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 

1, 2, and 3), including the following: 

Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum 

coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, 

Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 

exserta host plants; nectar sources; 

open, woody canopy scrublands; and 

hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 44–47; 

Service GIS satellite imagery; Pratt 

2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 1; 2008c, p. 1; 

2008d, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Unit 6 is 

located in Riverside County, south of SR 

371 and the community of Anza, in the 

vicinity of Tule Peak Road and the 

southern boundary of the Cahuilla Band 

of Indians’ lands. This unit includes 

land associated with the Tule Peak/ 

Silverado Core Occurrence Complex 

(see ‘‘Background’’ section above). The 

physical and biological features found 

in Unit 6 may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

recreational activities, primarily 

unauthorized off-road vehicle activity 

(Service 2003b, p. 79), trash dumping, 

invasion by nonnative plants, fire, and 

climate change. 

We excluded approximately 4,903 ac 

(1,984 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit that are 

owned by or are under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. This 

exclusion is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of this area will not result in 

extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)—Other 

Relevant Impacts – Conservation 

Partnerships’’ section below). We also 

excluded approximately 1,203 ac (487 

ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians’ land 

from this final revised critical habitat 

designation based our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of this area will not result in 

extinction of the subspecies (see 

‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) – 

Impacts to Government-To-Government 

Relationships With Tribes and 

Economics ‘‘ section below). 

Unit 7: Bautista 

Unit 7 consists of approximately 

13,880 ac (5,617 ha) of habitat that was 

not within the geographical area 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing (although this area falls within 

the historical range of the species). 

Currently this unit contains habitat that 

may be unoccupied by individuals in a 

given year, but lands within this unit 

are considered occupied at the 

population level. This unit contains the 

Bautista Road Core, Pine Meadow Noncore, Lookout Mountain Non-core and 

Horse Creek Non-core Occurrence 

Complexes (see ‘‘Background’’ and 

‘‘Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ sections above). As further 

discussed in the ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section, we 

determined habitat connectivity to 

higher elevation occurrence complexes 

is essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies, and, therefore, that the area 

in Unit 7 is essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies. 

Additionally, this unit contains all of 

the features essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), 

including the following: Plantago 

patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, 

Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus 

rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host 

plants; nectar sources; open woodycanopy scrublands; and hilltops 

(Service 2003a, pp. 44–47; Service GIS 

database; Anderson 2008, pp. 1–5). Unit 

7 is located in Riverside County north 

of SR 371 and the community of Anza. 

We did not exclude the lands in this 

unit proposed as revised critical habitat 

that are owned by or are under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

because we determined that the benefits 

of including those lands outweighed the 

benefits of excluding them from the 

designation (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below). We did exclude approximately 

79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ land in this unit that 

we proposed as revised critical habitat. 

This exclusion is based our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of this 

area will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Impacts to Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

and Economics’’ section below). 

Unit 8: Otay 

Unit 8 consists of approximately 

34,941 ac (14,140 ha) of habitat that was 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28811 

of listing and is currently occupied. 

This unit contains all of the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including 

the following: Plantago erecta, 

Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 

exserta host plants; nectar sources; open 

woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops 

(Service 2003a, pp. 50, 51; Service GIS 

database). Unit 8 is located in San Diego 

County, from the Mexican border to 

north of SR 94 in the vicinity of Otay 

Mountain and Otay Lakes. This unit 

includes land associated with the Otay 

Mountain Core Occurrence Complex 

(see ‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Summary of 

Changes From Previously Designated 

and Proposed Revised Critical Habitat’’ 

sections above). The physical and 

biological features found in Unit 8 may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to 

minimize impacts from loss and 

fragmentation of habitat and landscape 

connectivity due to development, 

maintenance and recreational activities, 

trash dumping, invasion by nonnative 

plants, fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and 

climate change. 

We excluded approximately 1,673 ac 

(677 ha) that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit covered by 

the Chula Vista Subarea Plan based on 

our determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of these 

areas will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Other Relevant Impacts – 

Conservation Partnerships’’ section 

below). We also excluded 

approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air 

Force land we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of these 

areas will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Impacts to National Security’’ 

section below). 

Unit 9: La Posta–Campo 

Unit 9 consists of approximately 

2,647 ac (1,071 ha) of habitat that was 

not within the geographical area 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing. However, this unit is 

currently occupied and contains the La 

Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex 

(see ‘‘Status and Distribution of 

Populations in San Diego County’’ 

section of the proposed rule published 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), and 

‘‘Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section above). We determined 

that the area supporting the La Posta/ 

Campo Core Occurrence Complex is 

essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies because it is likely to contain 

a resilient core population including 

one or more subpopulations that are a 

source of immigrants to other habitat 

(see ‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Criteria Used 

To Identify Critical Habitat’’ sections 

above). Additionally, this unit contains 

all the features essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 

2, and 3), including the following: 

Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia 

concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and 

Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar 

sources; open woody-canopy 

scrublands; and hilltops (Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 1992, p. C–5; Allen and 

Kurnow 2005, pp. 10, 13–16; Dicus 

2005a, p.1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 

26; O’Conner 2006, pp. 1–4, Science 

Applications International Corporation 

2006 pp. 33, 34, 37; Alfaro and Alfaro 

2007, pp. 6–8; Service GIS database). 

We excluded approximately 3,167 ac 

(1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’ land that we proposed as 

revised critical habitat in this unit based 

on our determination the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of these 

areas will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2)—Impacts to Government-ToGovernment Relationships With Tribes 

and Economics’’ section below). We 

also excluded approximately 2,572 ac 

(1,040 ha) of Navy-owned or controlled 

land associated with the La Posta 

Facility that we proposed as revised 

critical habitat in this unit based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of these 

areas will not result in extinction of the 

subspecies (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) – Impacts to National Security’’ 

section below). 

Unit 10: Jacumba 

Unit 10 consists of approximately 

2,514 ac (1,017 ha) of habitat that was 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing and is currently occupied. 

This unit contains all the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including 

the following: Plantago erecta and P. 

patagonica host plants; nectar sources; 

open woody-canopy scrublands; and 

hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 52, 54; 

Service GIS database). Unit 10 is located 

in San Diego County south of Interstate 

8 and north of the community of 

Jacumba. This unit includes land 

associated with the Jacumba Core 

Occurrence Complex (see 

‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ sections 

above). The physical and biological 

features found in Unit 10 may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to minimize impacts from 

loss and fragmentation of habitat and 

landscape connectivity due to 

development, recreational activities, 

trash dumping, invasion by nonnative 

plants, fire, and climate change. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. 

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 

(9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 

434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not 

rely on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

to serve its intended conservation role 

for the species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

•Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

•Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s legal 

authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

•Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly or its 

designated critical habitat will require 

section 7 consultation under the Act. 

Activities on State, tribal, local, or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions on State, tribal, local, or private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7(a)(2) consultations. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the Federal 

action, the affected critical habitat 

would continue to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCEs to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the affected 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

populations of the subspecies. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or those activities that may be 

affected by such designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

include, but are not limited to, actions 

that remove host plants and nectar 

sources, introduce or increase invasion 

rates of invasive, nonnative exotic plant 

species, or fragment habitat. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: 

• Off-road vehicle use; 

• Mechanical soil disturbance; 

•Clearing or grading; 

• Development; and 

• Pesticide use. 

These activities could result in 

reduction or degradation of habitat 

necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of these butterflies and 

their host plants, including reduction or 

preclusion of necessary movement of 

adults between host plant patches 

within a greater habitat patch, and 

directly or cumulatively causing adverse 

affects to Quino checkerspot butterflies 

and their life cycles. 

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

Act 

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. In the 

following sections, we address a number 

of general issues that are relevant to our 

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

Economic Analysis 

Following the publication of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, we conducted an economic 

analysis to estimate the potential 

economic effect of the designation. The 

DEA (dated December 19, 2008) was 

made available for public review and 

comment from December 19, 2008, to 

January 20, 2009 (73 FR 77568). 

Substantive comments and information 

received on the DEA are summarized 

above in the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section 

and are incorporated into the final 

analysis, as appropriate. Taking any 

relevant new information into 

consideration, the Service completed a 

final economic analysis (FEA) (dated 

March 24, 2009) of the designation that 

updates the DEA. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

incremental economic impacts 

associated with the revised designation 

of critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. The information 

is intended to assist the Secretary in 

making decisions about whether the 

benefits of excluding particular areas 

from the designation outweigh the 

benefits of including those areas in the 

designation. The economic analysis 

considers the economic efficiency 

effects that may result from the 

designation. In the case of habitat 

conservation, efficiency effects generally 

reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’ 

associated with the commitment of 

resources to comply with habitat 

protection measures (such as lost 

economic opportunities associated with 

restrictions on land use). It also 

addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on government agencies, 

private businesses, and individuals. The 

economic analysis measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. This 

information can be used by the 

Secretary to assess whether the effects of 

the designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the economic analysis looks 

retrospectively at costs that have been 

incurred since the date we listed the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly as 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28813 

endangered (62 FR 2313; August 16, 

1997), and considers those costs that 

may occur in the years following the 

revised designation of critical habitat, 

with the timeframes for this analysis 

varying by activity. 

The economic analysis focuses on the 

direct and indirect costs of the rule. 

However, economic impacts to land use 

activities can exist in the absence of 

critical habitat. These impacts may 

result from, for example, local zoning 

laws, State and natural resource laws, 

and enforceable management plans and 

best management practices applied by 

other State and Federal agencies. 

Economic impacts that result from these 

types of protections are not included in 

the analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

The economic analysis examines 

activities taking place both within and 

adjacent to the designation. It estimates 

impacts based on activities that are 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ including, but 

not limited to, activities that are 

currently authorized, permitted, or 

funded, or for which proposed plans are 

currently available to the public. 

Accordingly, the analysis bases 

estimates on activities that are likely to 

occur within a 23-year timeframe, from 

when the proposed rule became 

available to the public (73 FR 3328; 

January 17, 2008). The 23-year 

timeframe was chosen for the analysis 

because, as the time horizon for an 

economic analysis is expanded, the 

assumptions on which the projected 

number of projects and cost impacts 

associated with those projects are based 

become increasingly speculative. 

The vast majority of potential 

incremental economic impacts 

attributed to the revised critical habitat 

designation, if it was finalized as 

proposed, would be expected to be 

related to residential development (62 to 

86 percent) and tribal activities (38 to 14 

percent). The FEA estimates total 

potential incremental economic impacts 

in areas proposed as revised critical 

habitat over the next 23 years to be 

$13.1 million to $50.4 million ($1.1 

million to 4.2 million annualized) in 

present value terms using a 7 percent 

discount rate (including areas 

considered for exclusion under section 

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

The FEA estimates the largest impacts 

of the proposed revised critical habitat 

rule would result from section 7 

consultations with the Service on 

residential development projects likely 

to occur in areas where surveys are 

unable to detect the butterfly (including 

tribal lands). The best estimates give a 

range of costs based on low and high 

impact assumptions of development 

projections (projection uncertainty). In 

the high estimate scenario, if the critical 

habitat designation was finalized as 

proposed, five projects in Unit 9 and 

nine projects in Unit 10 would likely 

require consultation with the Service as 

a result of the critical habitat 

designation. Conservatively assuming 

that each project is undertaken by a 

separate entity, as many as 14 

developers would likely be affected over 

the 23-year timeframe of the analysis. At 

the high end, the one-time costs 

resulting from the consultation process, 

including administrative time spent by 

the businesses, compensation costs, and 

the value of time delays, total 

approximately $16.1 million for the 

projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 million for 

the projects in Unit 10. Additionally, 

over the 23–year timeframe, a high-end 

estimate of 131 projects (approximately 

six projects per year) would experience 

additional administrative costs as a 

result of the consultation. These costs 

result from the need to address adverse 

modification in a consultation that 

would occur even in the absence of 

critical habitat. These additional 

administrative costs are estimated to be 

$1,000 per project. 

The final economic analysis is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat 

The process of designating critical 

habitat as described in the Act requires 

that the Service identify those lands 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing on 

which are found the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, and those 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. In 

identifying those lands, the Service 

must consider the recovery needs of the 

species, such that, on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available at the time of designation, the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the subspecies and habitat that is 

identified, if managed or protected, 

could provide for the survival and 

recovery of the subspecies. 

The identification of areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies, or are 

otherwise essential for the conservation 

of the subspecies if outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

subspecies at the time of listing, is a 

benefit resulting from the designation. 

The critical habitat designation process 

includes peer review and public 

comment on the identified physical and 

biological features and areas, and 

provides a mechanism to educate 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. This helps focus and promote 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation value for the subspecies, 

and is valuable to land owners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified areas, 

as well as for any other identified 

occupied habitat or suitable habitat that 

may not be included in the areas the 

Service identifies as meeting the 

definition of critical habitat. 

In general, critical habitat designation 

always has educational benefits; 

however, in some cases, they may be 

redundant with other educational 

effects. For example, habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) have 

significant public input and may largely 

duplicate the educational benefits of a 

critical habitat designation. Including 

lands in critical habitat also would 

inform State agencies and local 

governments about areas that could be 

conserved under State laws or local 

ordinances. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As 

discussed above, Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect critical habitat and must 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects to 

critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species, and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

to survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

For Quino checkerspot butterfly, 

when consulting under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act in designated critical habitat, 

independent analyses are made for 

jeopardy and adverse modification. In 

consultations on projects where surveys 

detect high densities of butterflies or 

low densities of butterflies combined 

with high densities of butterfly 

resources (host plants, nectaring plants), 

there is not likely to be a quantifiable 

difference between the jeopardy 

analysis and the adverse modification 

analysis as we estimate take for this 

subspecies in terms of acres of occupied 

habitat, and the Act requires Federal 

agencies to minimize the impact of the 

taking on the subspecies that may result 

from implementation of a proposed 

action. Furthermore, any upfront 

modifications made to the project 

description to minimize the project’s 

impact on the critical habitat 

designation will also minimize the 

impacts of the taking of individuals on 

the subspecies. The habitat-based 

population distributions predict the 

habitat distribution needed to conserve 

each core occurrence complex in the 

long-term (see ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section above). 

All lands within the critical habitat 

units are occupied at the population 

level; however, they contain habitat that 

may be unoccupied by individuals in a 

given year. Observable butterfly activity 

will vary in any given year at any one 

location due to multiple variables 

affecting the butterfly presence (for 

example, metapopulation dynamics, 

drought, weather conditions, and 

available plant resources). For example, 

annual nectar and host plant densities 

will vary by location within and 

between years based on local 

microclimate conditions, and adult 

butterfly presence will vary with 

resource availability. Furthermore, 

because Quino checkerspot butterflies 

are capable of multiyear diapause, fewer 

adult butterflies may emerge in years 

when nectar and host plant resources 

are limited. Therefore, even within 

habitat-based population distributions 

(occupied critical habitat as defined in 

this rule), surveys may not detect 

butterflies at a given location within a 

unit during a given flight season, and 

subspecies’ protection under the Act 

may be limited to conservation 

measures resulting from critical habitat 

adverse modification analysis. 

There are two limitations to the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, 

a consultation is only required where 

there is a Federal nexus (an action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

any Federal agency) – if there is no 

Federal nexus, the critical habitat 

designation of private lands, by itself, 

does not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, the designation only limits 

destruction or adverse modification. By 

its nature, the prohibition on adverse 

modification is designed to ensure that 

the conservation role and function of 

those areas that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species or of 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the species are not 

appreciably reduced. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require private property owners to 

undertake specific steps toward 

recovery of the species. 

Once an agency determines that 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act is necessary, the process may 

conclude informally when the Service 

concurs in writing that the proposed 

Federal action is not likely to adversely 

affect the species or critical habitat. 

However, if we determine through 

informal consultation that adverse 

impacts are likely to occur, then formal 

consultation is initiated. Formal 

consultation concludes with a biological 

opinion issued by the Service on 

whether the proposed Federal action is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 

For critical habitat, a biological 

opinion that concludes in a 

determination of no destruction or 

adverse modification may recommend 

additional conservation measures to 

minimize adverse effects to the primary 

constituent elements, but such measures 

would be discretionary on the part of 

the Federal agency. A biological opinion 

that concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification 

would not suggest the implementation 

of any reasonable and prudent 

alternative, as we suggest reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to the 

proposed Federal action only when our 

biological opinion results in an adverse 

modification conclusion. 

As stated above, the designation of 

critical habitat does not require that any 

management or recovery actions take 

place on the lands included in the 

designation. Even in cases where 

consultation is initiated under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of 

consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the 

species or adverse modification of its 

critical habitat, but not necessarily to 

manage critical habitat or institute 

recovery actions on critical habitat. 

Conversely, voluntary conservation 

efforts implemented through 

management plans institute proactive 

actions over the lands they encompass 

and are put in place to remove or reduce 

known threats to a species or its habitat; 

therefore, implementing recovery 

actions. We believe that in many 

instances the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat is minimal when 

compared to the conservation benefit 

that can be achieved through 

implementing HCPs under section 10 of 

the Act or other habitat management 

plans. In particular, the conservation 

achieved through large or regional plans 

is typically greater than what we 

achieve through multiple site-by-site, 

project-by-project, section 7(a)(2) 

consultations involving consideration of 

critical habitat. Management plans 

commit resources to implement longterm management and protection to 

particular habitat for at least one and 

possibly other listed or sensitive 

species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations 

only commit Federal agencies to 

preventing adverse modification of 

critical habitat caused by the particular 

project, and they are not committed to 

provide conservation or long-term 

benefits to areas not affected by the 

proposed action. Thus, implementation 

of an HCP or management plan that 

incorporates enhancement or recovery 

as the management standard may often 

provide as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

cooperation of non-Federal landowners. 

More than 60 percent of the United 

States is privately owned (National 

Wilderness Institute 1995, p.2), and at 

least 80 percent of endangered or 

threatened species occur either partially 

or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 

2002, p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) 

found that only about 12 percent of 

listed species were found almost 

exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 100 

percent of their known occurrences 

restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 

percent of federally listed species are 

not known to occur on Federal lands at 

all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 

1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 

2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28815 

promoting voluntary cooperation of 

landowners are essential to 

understanding the status of species on 

non-Federal lands, and are necessary to 

implement recovery actions such as 

reintroducing listed species, habitat 

restoration, and habitat protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction from contributing to 

endangered species recovery. We 

promote these private-sector efforts 

through the Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, other conservation 

agreements, easements, and State and 

local regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade, we have encouraged nonFederal landowners to enter into 

conservation agreements, based on a 

view that we can achieve greater species 

conservation on non-Federal land 

through such partnerships than we can 

through regulatory methods (61 FR 

63854; December 2, 1996). 

Many private landowners, however, 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

encouraging endangered species to their 

property, and there is mounting 

evidence that some regulatory actions 

by the Federal Government, while wellintentioned and required by law, can 

(under certain circumstances) have 

unintended negative consequences for 

the conservation of species on private 

lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5–6; 

Bean 2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and 

Mathews 2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp. 

270–271; Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brook et 

al. 2003, pp. 1639–1643). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability. This 

perception results in anti-conservation 

incentives because maintaining habitats 

that harbor endangered species 

represents a risk to future economic 

opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 

1264–1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644– 

1648). 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002, 

p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–1648). 

The magnitude of this negative outcome 

is greatly amplified in situations where 

active management measures (such as 

reintroduction, fire management, and 

control of invasive species) are 

necessary for species conservation (Bean 

2002, pp. 3–4). We believe that the 

judicious exclusion of specific areas of 

non-federally owned lands from critical 

habitat designations can contribute to 

species recovery and provide a superior 

level of conservation than critical 

habitat alone. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by partnerships or voluntary 

conservation efforts can often be high. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs 

or Other Approved Management Plans 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

HCPs or other approved long-term 

management plans from critical habitat 

designation include relieving 

landowners, communities, and counties 

of any additional regulatory burden that 

might be imposed as a result of the 

critical habitat designation. Most HCPs 

and other conservation plans take many 

years to develop, and upon completion, 

are consistent with the recovery 

objectives for listed species that are 

covered within the plan area. Many also 

provide conservation benefits to 

unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an 

additional regulatory review as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat may 

undermine our efforts and partnerships 

as well. Our experience in 

implementing the Act has found that 

designation of critical habitat within the 

boundaries of management plans that 

provide conservation measures for a 

species is a disincentive to many 

entities that are either currently 

developing such plans, or 

contemplating doing so in the future, 

because one of the incentives for 

undertaking conservation is greater ease 

of permitting where listed species are 

affected. Addition of a new regulatory 

requirement would remove a significant 

incentive for undertaking the time and 

expense of management planning. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

covered by approved HCPs and 

management plans that cover listed 

species from critical habitat designation 

is the unhindered, continued ability it 

gives us to seek new partnerships with 

future plan participants, including 

States, counties, local jurisdictions, 

conservation organizations, and private 

landowners, which together can 

implement conservation actions that we 

would be unable to accomplish 

otherwise. Designating lands within 

approved management plan areas as 

critical habitat would likely have a 

negative effect on our ability to establish 

new partnerships to develop these 

plans, particularly plans that address 

landscape-level conservation of species 

and habitats. By excluding these lands, 

we preserve our current partnerships 

and encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. 

Both HCPs and Natural Communities 

Conservation Plan (NCCP)-HCP 

applications require consultation, which 

would review the effects of all HCPcovered activities that might adversely 

affect the species under a jeopardy 

standard, including possibly significant 

habitat modification, even without the 

critical habitat designation. 

Additionally, all other Federal actions 

that may affect the listed species still 

require consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, and we review these 

actions for possibly significant habitat 

modification in accordance with the 

jeopardy standard under section 7(a)(2). 

The information provided in the 

previous sections applies to all the 

following discussions of benefits of 

inclusion or exclusion of critical habitat. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) – Impacts 

To Government-To-Government 

Relationship With Tribes And 

Economics 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the 

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat based on economic or other 

relevant impacts if the Secretary 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion exceed the benefits of 

designating the area as critical habitat. 

However, these exclusions cannot occur 

if it will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. 

In making the following exclusions, 

we acknowledge that the costs and other 

impacts predicted in the economic 

analysis might not be completely 

avoided by this exclusion because some 

of the costs may still be incurred 

through implementation of other 

protections for the subspecies that exist 

elsewhere in the Act. 

Tribal Lands – Cahuilla Band of Indians 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (Secretarial Order 3206; 

June 5, 1997); the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), 

we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources on tribal lands are 

better managed under tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Based on this 

philosophy, we believe in most cases 

designation of tribal lands as critical 

habitat provides very little additional 

benefits to threatened and endangered 

species. Conversely, such designation is 

often viewed by tribes as an 

unwarranted and unwanted intrusion 

into tribal self-governance; therefore, 

critical habitat designation compromises 

the government-to-government 

relationship essential to achieving our 

mutual goal of managing for viability of 

ecosystems on which threatened and 

endangered species depend. Section 

3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial 

Order 3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997), also 

specifically states ‘‘* * * Critical habitat 

shall not be designated in [areas that 

may affect tribal trust resources, triballyowned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal 

rights] unless it is determined essential 

to conserve a listed species. In 

designating critical habitat, the Services 

shall evaluate and document the extent 

to which the conservation needs of the 

listed species can be achieved by 

limiting the designation to other lands.’’ 

We received multiple comment letters 

from several tribal governments and the 

BIA stating that designation of critical 

habitat on lands of the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians constitutes a significant burden 

to the tribe. It is our understanding that 

all proposed revised critical habitat on 

the Cahuilla Band of Indians’ land is on 

individual allotments, and any 

economic impacts resulting from the 

designation would directly effect 

individual tribal members or families. 

We determined that lands of the 

Cahuilla Band of Indians contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and therefore meet 

the definition of critical habitat under 

the Act. In making our final decision 

with regard to these tribal lands, we 

considered several factors including our 

relationship with the affected tribe, our 

recognition that tribal governments 

protect and manage their resources in 

the manner most beneficial to them, and 

the estimated economic impacts to the 

affected tribe associated with the 

designation of critical habitat. We 

recognize that the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians exercises legislative, 

administrative, and judicial control over 

activities within the boundaries of its 

lands and has a natural resource 

management program and staff. The 

tribe’s natural resource management 

efforts will continue to be implemented 

regardless of whether tribal lands are 

designated as critical habitat. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 

excluding all Cahuilla Band of Indians’ 

lands (in Unit 6) that contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly from this 

final revised critical habitat designation. 

As described in our analysis below, we 

reached this determination because of 

our effective working relationship with 

the tribe, our responsibilities under 

Secretarial Order 3206, and in 

consideration of the disproportionate 

relative economic impact on the tribe 

associated with the designation of 

critical habitat on tribal lands. 

Socioeconomic data discussed in 

chapter 6 of the FEA describe the 

vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians to economic impacts. The tribe 

governs its lands and is solely 

responsible for providing necessary 

public services that are typically 

provided by county and city 

governments on nontribal lands. 

However, the tribe has a much smaller 

population base and a limited amount of 

land available for development or 

conservation. Therefore, far fewer 

resources are available to the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians to draw upon in 

comparison to local and county 

governments, in addition to the tribe 

serving a disadvantaged population. 

According to data collected in 

preparation of the DEA, the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians has a relatively small 

population (168 members) from which 

to raise revenue. This resource base is 

significantly smaller than the 

surrounding county (Riverside) that 

supports a population base of 1,545,387 

people. The DEA stated the median 

household income level of the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians is lower than the 

surrounding county. Likewise, the 

proportion of people below the poverty 

level is substantially higher for the 

Cahuilla Band of Indians relative to the 

nontribal populations of Riverside 

County. There is an even larger 

disparity among the most impoverished 

people (percentage of people below 50 

percent of the poverty level); the 

percentage of people on the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians’ reservation whose 

income is below half the poverty level 

(approximately 15 percent) is 

approximately three times that of the 

nontribal population of Riverside 

County (approximately 6 percent). This 

disparity is also reflected in the 

property values on the reservation, 

where the median value of owneroccupied houses is less than half that of 

owner-occupied houses in the county. 

Chapter 6 of the FEA states that, while 

no specific economic impacts can be 

quantified, it should be emphasized that 

the Cahuilla Band of Indians do not 

have independent taxing authority and 

therefore must rely on development fees 

within limited tribal lands to generate 

government revenue. While there are no 

development plans for the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians that can be specified at 

this time, potential restrictions on 

development resulting from critical 

habitat designation could result in 

additional constraints to limited tribal 

resources. In consideration of economic 

vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians discussed above, their limited 

resource base, and the disadvantaged 

population they serve, we determined 

any economic impacts associated with a 

critical habitat designation will have a 

disproportionately negative impact on 

this tribe and our working relationship 

with them. 

Benefits of Inclusion – Cahuilla Band of 

Indians 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated 

critical habitat, the regulatory standard 

under which consultation is completed. 

The Cahuilla Band of Indians’ lands 

are within the habitat-based population 

distribution of the Tule Peak/Silverado 

Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 6). If 

surveys detect occupancy within a 

project footprint, then consultation 

would occur regardless of critical 

habitat designation, and the likelihood 

of this occurring within this occupied 

critical habitat unit is high. However, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Benefits of 

Designating Critical Habitat’’ section, 

even in occupied habitat, surveys may 

not detect butterflies during any given 

flight season. Therefore, the 

conservation benefits of critical habitat 

designation for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly are reduced but not negated by 

population occupancy in Unit 6. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that a designation can serve to educate 

the landowner and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28817 

area, which could help focus 

conservation efforts to designated areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience is 

valuable, including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed 

above in the ‘‘Tribal Comments’’ 

section, the Cahuilla Band of Indians is 

aware of the value of its lands to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and currently implements 

management measures that contribute to 

the conservation of natural resources 

and native species. The tribe is already 

working with the Service to understand 

the habitat needs of this subspecies, and 

has an active natural resource 

management program. Further, the tribal 

lands were included in the proposed 

designation, and the proposed 

designation reached a wide audience. 

Therefore, the educational benefits that 

might follow critical habitat designation 

(such as providing information to the 

BIA or tribes on areas important to the 

long-term conservation of this 

subspecies) may have already been 

realized. 

In light of continued commitment by 

the Cahuilla Band of Indians to manage 

its lands in a manner that promotes the 

conservation of native species, we 

believe designation of critical habitat on 

these tribal lands would provide few 

additional regulatory and conservation 

benefits to the subspecies beyond those 

that will result from continued jeopardy 

consultation. 

Benefits of Exclusion – Cahuilla Band of 

Indians 

The benefits of excluding 

approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of 

Cahuilla Band of Indians’ land from 

designated critical habitat are 

significant. We believe the benefits that 

would be realized by forgoing the 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands include: (1) Furtherance of our 

Federal Indian Trust obligations and our 

deference to tribal conservation and 

natural resource management of its 

lands and resources, including Federal 

trust species; (2) continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationships with the tribe to promote 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its habitat; (3) 

conservation benefits by tribal programs 

that might not otherwise occur; and (4) 

removal of all incremental economic 

impacts to the tribe that may result from 

critical habitat designation on tribal 

lands. 

We communicated with the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians throughout the 

designation process. Meetings and 

communications were conducted in 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; 

the Presidential memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Department Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). 

We believe tribes should be the 

governmental entities to manage and 

promote conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly on their lands. We 

recognize the tribes’ fundamental right 

to provide for tribal resource 

management activities, including those 

relating to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. The Cahuilla Band of Indians 

informed us that critical habitat would 

be viewed as an intrusion on its 

sovereign abilities to manage natural 

resources in accordance with its own 

policies, customs, and laws. 

Furthermore, several comment letters 

received from tribes and the BIA 

indicated designation of critical habitat 

would adversely affect our working 

relationships with tribes. 

Several tribes and the BIA commented 

that designation of critical habitat on 

these tribal lands would constitute a 

significant burden to the Cahuilla Band 

of Indians. Potential economic impacts 

only become realized through 

consultation when there is a Federal 

nexus. However, in the case of tribal 

lands, there is a high likelihood all 

projected costs would be realized, as the 

BIA (a Federal Agency) provides 

technical assistance to tribes on 

management planning and oversees a 

variety of programs on tribal lands. As 

described above, the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians is economically depressed and 

therefore vulnerable to an economic 

impact. Eliminating potential 

incremental economic impacts of 

critical habitat designation would 

prevent additional economic impact on 

the tribal economy where section 7 

consultation costs are already likely due 

to known occupancy. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion—Cahuilla Band of Indians 

The benefits of excluding the Cahuilla 

Band of Indians’ lands from critical 

habitat are more significant than the 

benefits of inclusion. The philosophy of 

allowing the tribe to manage its natural 

resources to benefit the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 

without the perception of additional 

Federal Government intrusion is 

consistent with our published policies 

on Native American natural resource 

management. The exclusion of these 

areas will also encourage and help 

maintain our cooperative working 

relationships with this tribe and 

facilitate further conservation activities 

by local tribal environmental 

organizations, which will likely provide 

benefits to this subspecies that would 

not otherwise occur. Finally, as 

discussed above, eliminating the 

disproportionately high incremental 

economic impacts associated with a 

critical habitat designation on the 

Cahuilla Band of Indians’ lands will 

prevent unnecessary and counterproductive impacts to the vulnerable 

tribal economy. Therefore, we 

determined the benefits identified above 

of excluding approximately 1,203 ac 

(487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians’ 

land from the critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

including these tribal lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Cahuilla Band of 

Indians 

We determined that exclusion of the 

Cahuilla Band of Indians’ lands from the 

final revised designation of critical 

habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly will not result in the extinction 

of the subspecies. The majority of lands 

within proposed Unit 6 that are outside 

of the tribe’s jurisdiction are protected 

and managed either explicitly for the 

subspecies, or indirectly through more 

general objectives to protect natural 

values, thereby providing conservation 

value to the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly that are 

found within the area supporting the 

Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 

Complex. Additionally, the tribe’s 

continued commitment to manage its 

lands in a manner that promotes the 

conservation of native species, and the 

high likelihood of future Federal 

nexuses on tribal land resulting in 

consultations under the jeopardy 

standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

that will ensure activities on tribal land 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the subspecies 

provide assurances that the subspecies 

will not go extinct as a result of this 

exclusion. Therefore, based on the 

above discussion we are excluding 

approximately 1,202 ac (488 ha) of 

Cahuilla Band of Indians’ land proposed 

in Unit 6 from this critical habitat 

designation. 

Tribal Lands – Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (Secretarial Order 3206; 

June 5, 1997); the President’s 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), 

we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources on tribal lands are 

better managed under tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Based on this 

philosophy, we believe in most cases 

designation of tribal lands as critical 

habitat provides very little additional 

benefits to threatened and endangered 

species. Conversely, such designation is 

often viewed by tribes as an 

unwarranted and unwanted intrusion 

into tribal self-governance; therefore, 

critical habitat designation compromises 

the government-to-government 

relationship essential to achieving our 

mutual goal of managing for viability of 

ecosystems on which threatened and 

endangered species depend. Section 

3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial 

Order 3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997), also 

specifically states ‘‘* * * Critical habitat 

shall not be designated in [areas that 

may affect tribal trust resources, triballyowned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal 

rights] unless it is determined essential 

to conserve a listed species. In 

designating critical habitat, the Services 

shall evaluate and document the extent 

to which the conservation needs of the 

listed species can be achieved by 

limiting the designation to other lands.’’ 

We received multiple comment letters 

from several tribal governments and the 

BIA stating that designation of critical 

habitat on tribal lands constitutes a 

significant burden to tribes. The 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is the 

only tribe affected by the proposed 

revision to critical habitat that does not 

own a casino. It is our understanding 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ 

primary economic development plan is 

the low-impact ecotourism ‘‘resort’’ 

(solar-powered electricity and only 

structures are small cabin-like ‘‘yurts’’ 

and a electrical facility) currently under 

construction on their reservation. 

We determined that tribal fee lands of 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

under the Act. In making our final 

decision with regard to these tribal 

lands, we considered several factors 

including our relationship with the 

affected tribe, our recognition that tribal 

governments protect and manage their 

resources in the manner most beneficial 

to them, and the estimated economic 

impacts to the affected tribe associated 

with the designation of critical habitat. 

We recognize that the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians exercises legislative, 

administrative, and judicial control over 

activities within the boundaries of its 

lands and that the tribe has a natural 

resource management program and staff. 

The tribe’s natural resource 

management efforts will continue to be 

implemented regardless of whether 

tribal lands are designated as critical 

habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

we are excluding all Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ lands (in Unit 7) from 

this final revised critical habitat 

designation. As described in our 

analysis below, we reached this 

determination because of our effective 

working relationship with the tribe and 

in consideration of the disproportionate 

economic impact associated with the 

designation of critical habitat on tribal 

lands. 

Socioeconomic data discussed in 

chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate the 

economic vulnerability of the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians. The tribe selfgoverns its lands and is solely 

responsible for public services in the 

same manner as county and city 

governments. The Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians does not have 

independent taxing authority and, 

therefore, must rely on development 

fees within limited tribal lands to 

generate government revenue. However, 

as discussed in detail in chapter 6 of the 

FEA, local tribal governments have far 

fewer resources to draw from than 

county governments and the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians serves an 

especially disadvantaged population. 

Furthermore, the tribe has a limited 

amount of reservation lands available 

for development and conservation. 

The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

has an extremely small population (8 

members), including children, from 

which to raise revenue. The FEA did not 

analyze impacts to the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians because data were not 

available, but it is our understanding 

that their resource base is reduced 

compared to the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians. This resource base is 

significantly smaller than the 

surrounding county (Riverside) that 

supports a population base of 1,545,387 

people. Additionally, although the DEA 

did not provide specific statistics for the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, it is 

reasonable to assume, based on our 

general knowledge of the tribe’s 

circumstances (see above discussion) 

that, similar to the Cahuilla Band of 

Indians, the proportion of tribal 

members below the poverty level, 

particularly the most impoverished 

people, is substantially higher relative 

to the nontribal populations of Riverside 

County, and the median value of owneroccupied houses is less than half that of 

owner-occupied houses in the county. 

The DEA did not analyze costs to the 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians as we 

were initially unaware that the 

proposed revisions to critical habitat 

included tribally owned fee lands for 

this tribe. Land ownership data used in 

our analysis of proposed revisions to 

critical habitat did not accurately reflect 

recent tribal purchases. However, in 

consideration of land ownership 

information submitted to the Service 

after publication of proposed revisions 

to critical habitat (indicating 79 ac (32 

ha) of lands owned by the tribe were 

included in Unit 7), the general 

economic vulnerability of tribes 

discussed in the DEA, the Ramona Band 

of Cahuilla Indians’ limited resource 

base, and the disadvantaged population 

they serve, we determined any 

economic impacts associated with a 

critical habitat designation will have a 

disproportionately negative impact on 

this tribe. 

Benefits of Inclusion – Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated 

critical habitat, the regulatory standard 

under which consultation is completed. 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ 

lands are within the habitat-based 

population distribution of the Bautista 

Road core occurrence complexes (Unit 

7). If surveys detect occupancy within a 

project footprint, then consultation 

would occur regardless of critical 

habitat designation, and the likelihood 

of this occurring within this occupied 

critical habitat unit is high. However, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Benefits of 

Designating Critical Habitat’’ section, 

surveys may not detect butterflies 

during any given flight season even in 

occupied habitat. Therefore, the 

conservation benefits of critical habitat 

designation for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly are reduced but not negated by 

population occupancy in Unit 7. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28819 

that the designation can serve to educate 

the landowner and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area, and this may help focus 

conservation efforts to designated areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience is 

valuable, including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed 

above in the ‘‘Tribal Comments’’ 

section, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians is aware of the value of its lands 

to the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and currently 

implements management measures that 

contribute to the conservation of natural 

resources and native species, for 

example, surveys and mapping of 

sensitive native species and habitat 

restoration associated with ecotourism 

resort development. The Ramona Band 

of Cahuilla Indians is already working 

with the Service to understand the 

habitat needs of this subspecies, and has 

an active natural resource management 

program including nontribal staff 

members. Further, the tribal lands were 

included in the proposed designation, 

which itself reached a wide audience 

and served to educate the public. 

Therefore, the educational benefits that 

might follow critical habitat designation 

(such as providing information to the 

BIA or tribes on areas important to the 

long-term conservation of this 

subspecies) may have already been 

realized. 

In light of continued commitment by 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians to 

manage its lands in a manner that 

promotes the conservation of native 

species, we believe designation of 

critical habitat on tribal fee lands would 

provide few additional regulatory and 

conservation benefits to the subspecies 

beyond those that will result from 

continued jeopardy consultation. 

Benefits of Exclusion – Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians 

The benefits of excluding 

approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians’ land from 

designated critical habitat are 

significant. We believe the benefits that 

would be realized by forgoing the 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands include: (1) Furtherance of our 

Federal Indian Trust obligations and our 

deference to tribal conservation and 

natural resource management of their 

lands and resources, including Federal 

trust species; (2) continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationships with the tribe to promote 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its habitat; (3) 

conservation benefits by tribal programs 

that might not otherwise occur; and (4) 

removal of all incremental economic 

impacts to the tribe that may result from 

critical habitat designation on tribal 

lands. 

We communicated with the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians during the 

designation process, as soon as we were 

aware that the proposed revision 

included tribal fee lands. Meetings and 

communications were conducted in 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; 

the Presidential memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Department Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). 

We believe tribes should be the 

governmental entities to manage and 

promote conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly on their lands. We 

recognize tribes’ fundamental right to 

provide for tribal resource management 

activities, including those relating to the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

informed us that critical habitat would 

be viewed as an intrusion on its 

sovereign abilities to manage natural 

resources in accordance with its own 

policies, customs, and laws. 

Furthermore, several comment letters 

received from tribes and the BIA 

indicated designation of critical habitat 

would adversely affect our working 

relationships with the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians. 

Several tribes, including the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the BIA 

commented that designation of critical 

habitat on tribal lands would constitute 

a significant burden to affected tribes. 

Potential economic impacts only 

become realized through consultation 

when there is a Federal nexus. However, 

in the case of tribal lands, there is a high 

likelihood all projected costs will be 

realized, as the BIA (a Federal Agency) 

provides technical assistance to tribes 

on management planning and oversees 

a variety of programs on tribal lands. As 

described above, the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians is economically 

depressed and therefore vulnerable to 

an economic impact. Eliminating 

potential incremental economic impacts 

of critical habitat designation will 

prevent additional economic impact on 

the tribal economy where section 7 

consultation costs are already likely due 

to known occupancy. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion – Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Indians 

The benefits of excluding the Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians’ lands from 

critical habitat are more significant than 

the benefits of inclusion. The 

philosophy of allowing the tribe to 

manage its natural resources to benefit 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat without the perception of 

additional Federal Government 

intrusion is consistent with our 

published policies on Native American 

natural resource management. The 

exclusion of these areas will also 

encourage and help maintain our 

cooperative working relationships with 

this tribe and facilitate further 

conservation activities by the tribal 

environmental organization, which will 

likely provide benefits to this 

subspecies that would not otherwise 

occur. Finally, as discussed above, 

eliminating the disproportionately high 

incremental economic impacts 

associated with a critical habitat 

designation on the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ lands will prevent 

unnecessary and counter-productive 

impacts to the vulnerable tribal 

economy. Therefore, we determined the 

benefits identified above of excluding 

approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona 

Band of Cahuilla Indians’ land from the 

revised critical habitat designation 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

tribal lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians 

We determined that the exclusion of 

79 ac (32 ha) of the Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians’ land from the final 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not 

result in the extinction of the 

subspecies. The vast majority of lands 

proposed in Unit 7 are being designated 

as critical habitat and will receive the 

full protection afforded to critical 

habitat under the Act. Additionally, the 

tribe’s continued commitment to 

manage its lands in a manner that 

promotes the conservation of native 

species, and the likelihood of future 

Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting 

in consultations under the jeopardy 

standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

that will ensure activities on tribal land 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the subspecies 

provide assurances that the subspecies 

will not go extinct as a result of this 

exclusion. Therefore, based on the 

above discussion we are excluding 

approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Band of Cahuilla Indians’ land proposed 

in Unit 7 from this critical habitat 

designation. 

Tribal Lands—Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (Secretarial Order 3206; 

June 5, 1997); the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), 

we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources on tribal lands are 

better managed under tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Based on this 

philosophy, we believe in most cases 

designation of tribal lands as critical 

habitat provides very little additional 

benefits to threatened and endangered 

species. Conversely, such designation is 

often viewed by tribes as an 

unwarranted and unwanted intrusion 

into tribal self-governance; therefore 

critical habitat designation compromises 

the government-to-government 

relationship essential to achieving our 

mutual goal of managing for viability of 

ecosystems on which threatened and 

endangered species depend. Section 

3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial 

Order 3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997), also 

specifically states ‘‘* * * Critical habitat 

shall not be designated in [areas that 

may affect tribal trust resources, triballyowned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal 

rights] unless it is determined essential 

to conserve a listed species. In 

designating critical habitat, the Services 

shall evaluate and document the extent 

to which the conservation needs of the 

listed species can be achieved by 

limiting the designation to other lands.’’ 

We received multiple comment letters 

from several tribal governments and the 

BIA stating that designation of critical 

habitat on tribal lands constitutes a 

significant burden to tribes. 

We determined that 3,167 ac (1,282 

ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’ lands (in Unit 9) contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and meet the 

definition of critical habitat under the 

Act. In making our final decision with 

regard to these tribal lands, we 

considered several factors including our 

relationship with the affected tribe, our 

recognition that tribal governments 

protect and manage their resources in 

the manner most beneficial to them, and 

the estimated economic impacts to the 

affected tribe associated with the 

designation of critical habitat. We 

recognize that the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians exercises legislative, 

administrative, and judicial control over 

activities within the boundaries of its 

lands and has a natural resource 

management program and staff. Natural 

resource management efforts will 

continue to be implemented by the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

regardless of whether tribal lands are 

designated as critical habitat. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 

excluding all 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

lands (in Unit 9) from this final revised 

critical habitat designation that contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. As 

described in our analysis below, we 

reached this determination because of 

our effective working relationship with 

the tribe and in consideration of the 

disproportionate economic impact 

associated with the designation of 

critical habitat on tribal lands. 

Socioeconomic data discussed in 

chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate the 

economic vulnerability of the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians. The tribe 

self-governs its lands and is solely 

responsible for public services in the 

same manner as county and city 

governments. However, as discussed in 

detail in chapter 6 of the FEA, this tribal 

government has far fewer resources to 

draw from than county governments 

and serves an especially disadvantaged 

population. Tribal governments do not 

have independent taxing authority and 

therefore must rely on development fees 

within limited tribal lands to generate 

government revenue. Furthermore, the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians has 

a very limited amount of reservation 

lands available for development and 

conservation. 

According to data collected in 

preparation of the DEA, the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians has a small 

population (372 members) from which 

to raise revenue. This resource base is 

significantly smaller than the 

surrounding county (San Diego) that 

supports a population base of 2,813,833 

people. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’ unemployment rate is almost 

twice that of San Diego County, and the 

median household income level is 

lower. Likewise, the proportion of 

people below the poverty level is 

substantially higher for the Campo Band 

of Kumeyaay Indians relative to the 

nontribal population of San Diego 

County. There is an even larger 

disparity among the most impoverished 

people (percentage of people below 50 

percent of the poverty level); the 

percentage of people below half of the 

poverty level on the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians’ reservation 

(approximately 29 percent) is more than 

five times that of the nontribal 

population of San Diego County 

(approximately 5 percent). This 

disparity is also reflected in property 

values on the reservation, where the 

median value of owner-occupied houses 

is less than half that of owner-occupied 

houses in San Diego County. 

As described in Chapter 6 of the FEA, 

the projected incremental economic 

impacts that would be incurred by the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians as a 

result of the proposed critical habitat 

designation totals $4.9 million to $6.8 

million over the 23 year analysis period 

($406,000 to $563,000 annualized) at a 

seven percent discount rate (up to 62 

percent of all incremental economic 

impacts of designating critical habitat in 

Unit 9). Tribal lands available for 

development are limited on the 

reservation, and up to 62 percent of all 

projected incremental economic impacts 

of designating critical habitat in Unit 9 

(primarily residential development) 

were anticipated to be incurred by the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. 

Therefore, in consideration of economic 

vulnerability of the tribal government 

discussed above, its limited resource 

base, and the disadvantaged population 

it serves, we determined any economic 

impacts associated with a critical 

habitat designation will have a 

disproportionately negative impact on 

this tribe. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated 

critical habitat, the regulatory standard 

under which consultation is completed. 

The Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’ land are within the habitatbased population distribution of the La 

Posta–Campo Core Occurrence Complex 

(Unit 9). If surveys detect occupancy 

within a project footprint, then 

consultation would occur regardless of 

critical habitat designation, and the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28821 

likelihood of this occurring within this 

occupied critical habitat unit is high. 

However, as discussed above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, even in occupied 

habitat, surveys may not detect 

butterflies during any given flight 

season. Therefore, the conservation 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

are reduced but not negated by 

population occupancy in Unit 9. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that the designation can serve to educate 

the landowner and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area, and this may help focus 

conservation efforts to designated areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience is 

valuable, including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed in 

the ‘‘Tribal Comments’’ section above, 

the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

is aware of the value of its lands to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and currently implements 

management measures that contribute to 

the conservation of natural resources 

and native species. For example, in their 

first comment letter (March 20, 2008) 

the tribe cited a completed riparian 

habitat restoration project. The Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians is already 

working with the Service to understand 

the habitat needs of this subspecies, and 

has an active natural resource 

management program. Further, the tribal 

lands were included in the proposed 

designation, which itself reached a wide 

audience and served to educate the 

public. Therefore, the educational 

benefits that might follow critical 

habitat designation (such as providing 

information to the BIA or tribes on areas 

important to the long-term conservation 

of this subspecies) may have already 

been realized. 

In light of continued commitment by 

the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

to manage its lands in a manner that 

promotes the conservation of native 

species, we believe designation of 

critical habitat on tribal lands would 

provide few additional regulatory and 

conservation benefits to the subspecies 

beyond those that will result from 

continued jeopardy consultation. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians 

The benefits of excluding 

approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians land 

from designated critical habitat are 

significant. We believe the benefits that 

would be realized by forgoing the 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands include: (1) Furtherance of our 

Federal Indian Trust obligations and our 

deference to tribal conservation and 

natural resource management of their 

lands and resources, including Federal 

trust species; (2) continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationship with the tribe to promote 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its habitat; (3) 

conservation benefits by tribal programs 

that might not otherwise occur; and (4) 

removal of all incremental economic 

impacts to the tribe that may result from 

critical habitat designation on tribal 

lands. 

We communicated with the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians throughout 

the designation process. Meetings and 

communications were conducted in 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; 

the Presidential memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Department Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). 

We believe tribes should be the 

governmental entities to manage and 

promote conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly on their lands. We 

recognize tribes’ fundamental right to 

provide for tribal resource management 

activities, including those relating to the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

informed us that critical habitat would 

be viewed as an intrusion on its 

sovereign abilities to manage natural 

resources in accordance with its own 

policies, customs, and laws. 

Furthermore, several comment letters 

received from the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, other tribes, and the 

BIA indicated designation of critical 

habitat adversely affects our working 

relationships with all tribes. 

The Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians and the BIA commented that 

designation of critical habitat on Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ lands would 

constitute a significant burden to the 

tribe. Projected economic impacts only 

become realized through consultation 

when there is a Federal nexus. However, 

in the case of tribal lands, there is a high 

likelihood all projected costs will be 

realized, as the BIA (a Federal Agency) 

provides technical assistance to tribes 

on management planning and oversees 

a variety of programs on tribal lands. As 

described above, the Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians is economically 

depressed and therefore vulnerable to 

the economic impact. Eliminating 

projected incremental economic impacts 

of critical habitat designation as 

described in the FEA will prevent 

additional economic impact on the 

tribal economy where section 7 

consultation costs are already likely due 

to known occupancy. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion—Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians 

The benefits of excluding the Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ lands from 

critical habitat are more significant than 

the benefits of inclusion. The 

philosophy of allowing the tribe to 

manage its natural resources to benefit 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat without the perception of 

additional Federal Government 

intrusion is consistent with our 

published policies on Native American 

natural resource management. The 

exclusion of these areas will also 

encourage and help maintain our 

cooperative working relationship with 

the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

and facilitate further conservation 

activities by local tribal environmental 

organizations, which will likely provide 

benefits to this subspecies that would 

not otherwise occur. Finally, as 

discussed above, eliminating the 

disproportionately high incremental 

economic impacts associated with a 

critical habitat designation on the 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ land 

will prevent unnecessary and counterproductive impacts to the vulnerable 

tribal economy. Therefore, we 

determined the benefits identified above 

of excluding approximately 3,087 ac 

(1,249 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians’ land from the critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

including these tribal lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species – Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians 

We determined that the exclusion of 

the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ 

lands from the final revised designation 

of critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly will not result in 

the extinction of the subspecies. The 

tribe’s continued commitment to 

manage its lands in a manner that 

promotes the conservation of native 

species, and the high likelihood of 

future Federal nexuses on tribal land 

resulting in consultations under the 

jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act that will ensure activities on 

tribal land are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the 

subspecies provide assurances that the 

subspecies will not go extinct as a result 

of this exclusion. Therefore, based on 

the above discussion we are excluding 

approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ land 

proposed in Unit 9 from this critical 

habitat designation. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2)—Impacts 

to National Security 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the 

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat for reasons of national security 

if the Secretary determines the benefits 

of such an exclusion exceed the benefits 

of designating the area as critical 

habitat. However, this exclusion cannot 

occur if it will result in the extinction 

of the species concerned. 

Department of Defense—San Diego Air 

Force Space Surveillance Station 

We determined that approximately 

109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force lands at the 

San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance 

Station (Surveillance Station), located in 

Unit 8, contain the features essential to 

the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, and therefore 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

under the Act. In making our final 

decision with regard to these Air Force 

lands, we considered several factors 

including impacts to national security 

associated with a critical habitat 

designation as described by the Air 

Force, existing consultations, and 

conservation measures in place at this 

facility that benefit the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding all 

Air Force Surveillance Station lands in 

Unit 8 containing features essential to 

the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly from this final 

revised critical habitat designation. As 

described in our analysis below, we 

reached this determination in 

consideration of the impact to national 

security associated with the designation 

of critical habitat on these Air Force 

lands. 

An endangered species management 

plan is in place at the Surveillance 

Station to conserve Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat. Activities at the station 

that reduce the risk of fire damage 

consist of occasional equipment 

inspection, equipment maintenance, 

and mowing, therefore conservation 

actions are relatively simple. 

Conservation measures included in the 

plan that benefit the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its habitat include (1) 

Monitoring Quino checkerspot butterfly 

occupancy and habitat status through 

protocol surveys that also document 

habitat quality, suitability, and the 

presence and abundance of host plants 

and nectar sources; (2) use of 

monitoring results to adopt management 

strategies that maintain and protect the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly; and (3) 

maintaining existing habitat onsite, 

including actions such as flagging and 

avoiding host plants prior to fire 

abatement activities, or utilizing the 

existing mowing program to maintain 

areas of low, open grassland most 

suitable for host plants. The Air Force 

is currently working on an INRMP for 

this facility that will incorporate the 

existing endangered species 

management plan. Quino checkerspot 

butterfly management efforts will 

continue to be implemented by the Air 

Force regardless of whether the 

Surveillance Station is designated as 

critical habitat. 

In a letter received by the Service on 

March 20, 2008, the Air Force 

determined that critical habitat 

designation on Surveillance Station 

lands would impact national security. 

The mission of the Surveillance Station 

is to detect, track, and identify 

manmade objects in near-earth and 

deep-space orbits using a series of 

receiving stations equipped with linear 

antenna arrays. The Air Force expressed 

concern that designation of these lands 

could cause short-notice, national 

security, mission-critical activities to be 

delayed if they were required to conduct 

consultation due to a critical habitat 

designation. Short-notice, missioncritical activities not previously 

analyzed that would likely be delayed 

by section 7 consultation and directly 

affect national security include 

equipment upgrades, some maintenance 

activities, and replacement of antennae. 

These activities require immediate 

ground disturbance in designated areas 

for new antennae construction or heavy 

equipment operation, and are not 

covered by the INRMP. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Air Force 

Surveillance Station 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to insure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat, the regulatory standard under 

which consultation is completed. 

These Air Force lands are within the 

habitat-based population distribution of 

the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence 

Complex (Unit 8). If surveys detect 

occupancy within a project footprint, 

then consultation would occur 

regardless of critical habitat designation, 

and the likelihood of this occurring 

within this occupied critical habitat unit 

is high. However, as discussed above in 

the ‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, even in occupied 

habitat, surveys may not detect 

butterflies during any given flight 

season. Therefore, the conservation 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

are reduced but not negated by 

population occupancy in Unit 8. 

The primary benefit of including 

these Air Force lands within a critical 

habitat designation is the requirement 

for consultation on actions that may 

adversely modify or destroy designated 

critical habitat; however, consultation 

on these lands, which are within the 

habitat-based population distribution of 

the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence 

Complex and are within the boundaries 

of previously designated Quino 

checkerspot butterfly critical habitat, 

has already been completed. The 

Service completed consultation with the 

Navy (prior landowner) regarding all 

current and foreseen mowing activity 

and issued a biological opinion 

concluding that all current and foreseen 

mowing activity is not likely to 

jeopardize the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly nor destroy or adversely 

modify its currently designated critical 

habitat (Service 2003, FWS–SDG– 

2511.3). 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that the designation can serve to educate 

the landowner and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area, and this may help focus 

conservation efforts to identified areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience is 

valuable, including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed 

above, the Air Force is aware of the 

value of Surveillance Station lands to 

the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and currently 

implements management measures to 

conserve Quino checkerspot butterflies 

and their habitat. The Air Force is 

actively working with the Service and 

the CDFG to develop an INRMP that 

will ensure conservation of this 

subspecies on Surveillance Station 

lands. Further, all Surveillance Station 

lands were included in the proposed 

designation, which itself reached a wide 

audience. Therefore, the educational 

benefits that might follow critical 

habitat designation (such as providing 

information to the Air Force on areas 

important to the long-term conservation 

of this subspecies) have largely already 

been realized by consultation, 

development of the management plan, 

development of the INRMP, and 

proposing these areas as critical habitat. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28823 

We believe designation of critical 

habitat would provide few, if any, 

additional regulatory and conservation 

benefits to the subspecies beyond those 

that will result from continued jeopardy 

consultation due to the continued 

commitment by the Air Force to manage 

its lands in a manner that promotes 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and the coordination and 

management efforts demonstrated by the 

Air Force resulting from consultation 

and development of an INRMP. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Air Force 

Surveillance Station 

The benefits of excluding 

approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air 

Force lands are significant. The Air 

Force maintains and defends our 

national security at the Surveillance 

Station by detecting, tracking, and 

identifying man-made objects in nearearth and deep space orbits. As 

described above, the Air Force 

determined designation of Surveillance 

Station lands could delay short-notice 

national security mission-critical 

activities such as inspections/ 

maintenance of antenna arrays and their 

components. Excluding these Air Force 

lands from critical habitat designation 

will remove the potentially significant 

impact that a designation of critical 

habitat could have on the Air Force’s 

ability to maintain and defend our 

national security. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion—Air Force Surveillance 

Station 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and benefits of 

exclusion for Air Force Surveillance 

Station lands in Unit 8. We believe the 

benefits of designating these lands as 

Quino checkerspot butterfly critical 

habitat are small, whereas the benefits 

of excluding these lands from critical 

habitat will result in the removal of 

impacts to national security as 

determined by the Air Force. Therefore, 

we have determined the benefits 

identified above of excluding 

approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air 

Force Surveillance Station lands from 

the critical habitat designation outweigh 

the benefits of including these lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Air Force Surveillance 

Station 

We determined that the exclusion of 

the Air Force Surveillance Station lands 

from the final revised designation of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly will not result in 

the extinction of the subspecies. While 

some loss of habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly is anticipated with 

the continued Air Force activities on 

Surveillance Station lands, we 

concluded in our biological opinion 

(Service 2003, FWS–SDG–2511.3) that 

mowing activity would not jeopardize 

the continued existence of this 

subspecies. Additionally, the current 

management and proposed management 

under the draft INRMP in development 

provides some protection and 

management of lands within Unit 8, 

including the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Finally, the likelihood of future Federal 

nexuses on these Air Force lands 

resulting in consultations under the 

jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act that will ensure activities on 

these lands are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the 

subspecies provide assurances that the 

subspecies will not go extinct as a result 

of this exclusion. Therefore, based on 

the above discussion we are excluding 

approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air 

Force Surveillance Station lands 

proposed in Unit 8 from this critical 

habitat designation. 

Department of Defense—La Posta 

Mountain Warfare Training Facility 

We determined that approximately 

2,463 ac (997 ha) of land owned or 

controlled by the United States Navy 

(Navy), or designated for its use, at the 

La Posta Mountain Warfare Training 

Facility (La Posta Facility), located in 

Unit 9, contain the features essential to 

the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, and meet the 

definition of critical habitat under the 

Act. In making our final decision with 

regard to these Navy lands, we 

considered several factors including 

impacts to national security associated 

with a critical habitat designation as 

described by the Navy, existing 

consultations, and conservation 

measures in place at this facility that 

benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 

excluding all Navy La Posta Facility 

lands, and lands owned by the BLM 

designated for use as part of the La Posta 

Facility from this final revised critical 

habitat designation. As described in our 

section 4(b)(2) analysis below, we 

reached this determination in 

consideration of the impact to national 

security associated with the designation 

of critical habitat on these Navy lands. 

The Navy Special Operations Forces 

train at the La Posta Facility before 

deploying to the United States Pacific 

and Central Commands in support of 

missions in the global war on terrorism. 

This warfare training facility supports 

mission-essential training for Navy 

troops prior to deployment into these 

hostile areas of the world. The La Posta 

Facility is currently the only semiremote, Navy-controlled complex 

supporting Assault and Tactical 

Weapons Training, and the only San 

Diego region cold weather—mountain 

warfare site that provides training in 

unconventional warfare and special 

tactical intelligence. The Navy Special 

Operations Forces training schedule is 

extremely concentrated and does not 

allow for any shifting of training blocks. 

By Navy training policy, this site 

contains a remote range built 

specifically for the skill set required, is 

close to home, and is without 

distractions. Therefore, these lands have 

high national security value. 

The Navy actively conserves the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat at the La Posta Facility. 

Conservation measures pursuant to a 

biological opinion (FWS–SDG–4452) 

include a comprehensive Quino Habitat 

Enhancement Plan for the La Posta 

Facility. The Navy funds 

implementation of the Quino Habitat 

Enhancement Plan and consistent with 

the plan, the Navy: (1) Identifies areas 

containing important Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat features (e.g., host 

plants for breeding and hilltops for 

mating); (2) delineates Quino 

Management Area boundaries (based on 

mapping in #1); (3) implements specific 

management strategies, such as weed 

control, to conserve the subspecies; (4) 

avoids trampling of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly larvae, host plants, or 

cryptobiotic soil crusts in important 

habitat; (5) monitors Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat to detect any significant 

changes; (6) describes and implements 

larval salvage and release techniques; 

and (7) conducts surveys every 4 years 

to detect changes in the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly distribution. 

In addition to the conservation 

measures described above, the Navy 

provided funding for The Nature 

Conservancy to purchase and manage 

approximately 138 ac (56 ha) of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly habitat adjacent to 

the La Posta Facility. Furthermore, the 

Navy has updated its Naval Base 

Coronado INRMP to address the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat at 

the La Posta Facility and is awaiting 

approval by the Service. The INRMP 

will incorporate all conservation 

measures included in the current Quino 

checkerspot butterfly Habitat 

Enhancement Plan and address 

expansion plans for the La Posta 

Facility. Quino checkerspot butterfly 

management efforts will continue to be 

implemented by the Navy regardless of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

whether the La Posta Facility is 

designated as critical habitat. 

In a letter received by the Service on 

March 20, 2008, (see ‘‘Comments From 

Other Federal Agencies’’ section above) 

the Navy determined that critical habitat 

designation on La Posta Facility lands 

would affect national security. With the 

closure of several contract sites 

previously conducting Navy Sea, Air, 

and Land Forces unit level training, the 

La Posta facility is now the sole Navy 

training site in the San Diego region for 

developing small, well-trained and 

highly mobile independent operational 

units for deployment into combat. 

Designation of these lands as critical 

habitat could delay construction of 

facilities needed to support mission 

critical training vital to the current 

global war on terrorism and other 

missions related to national security. To 

support training requirements, there are 

a series of development projects being 

planned at the La Posta Facility 

including construction of a close-quarter 

combat training facility. Any delay in 

construction of facilities that support 

operational readiness would seriously 

affect personnel readiness by disrupting 

mission critical training and the ability 

to acquire and perform special warfare 

skills. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Navy La Posta 

Facility 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to insure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat, the regulatory standard under 

which consultation is completed. 

These Navy lands are within the 

habitat-based population distribution of 

the recently identified La Posta/Campo 

Core Occurrence Complex. If surveys 

detect occupancy within a project 

footprint, then consultation would 

occur regardless of critical habitat 

designation, and the likelihood of this 

occurring within this occupied critical 

habitat unit is high. However, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Benefits of 

Designating Critical Habitat’’ section, 

even in occupied habitat, surveys may 

not detect butterflies during any given 

flight season. Therefore, the 

conservation benefits of critical habitat 

designation are reduced but not negated 

by population occupancy in Unit 9. 

Additionally, the Service has already 

consulted with the Navy regarding all 

current construction activities at the La 

Posta Facility, including construction of 

the aforementioned close-quarters 

combat training facility, and issued a 

biological opinion (Service 2007; FWS– 

SDG–4452) concluding the proposed 

activities are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Conservation 

measures resulting from that 

consultation include the development of 

a comprehensive Quino Habitat 

Enhancement Plan discussed above. 

Critical habitat is not currently 

designated on these lands; therefore, the 

consultation did not include an adverse 

modification analysis. However, the 

Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan, if 

implemented long-term as described 

above, will conserve and enhance the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that the designation can serve to educate 

the landowner and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area, and this may help focus 

conservation efforts to identified areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience is 

valuable, including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed 

above, the Navy is aware of the value of 

La Posta Facility lands to Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation and 

currently implements management 

measures to conserve the subspecies 

and its habitat. The Navy is actively 

working with the Service and the CDFG 

to update the Naval Base Coronado 

INRMP to address Quino checkerspot 

butterflies and their habitat at the La 

Posta Facility. Further, all La Posta 

Facility lands were included in the 

proposed designation, which itself 

reached a wide audience. Therefore, the 

educational benefits that might follow 

critical habitat designation (such as 

providing information to the Navy on 

areas important to the long-term 

conservation of this subspecies) have 

largely already been realized by 

consultation, development of the 

Habitat Enhancement Plan, 

development of the INRMP, and 

proposing these areas as critical habitat. 

In light of continued Navy 

commitments to manage its lands in a 

manner that promotes conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly, we 

believe designation of critical habitat on 

these Navy lands would provide 

minimal additional regulatory and 

conservation benefits to the subspecies 

beyond those that will result from 

continued jeopardy consultation. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Navy La Posta 

Facility 

The benefits of excluding the 

approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of Navy 

lands are significant. The Navy 

maintains and defends our national 

security at the La Posta Facility by 

training highly specialized troops for 

deployment. As described above, it is 

possible that designation of La Posta 

Facility lands as critical habitat could 

delay construction schedules and 

thereby disrupt mission critical training 

and the Navy’s ability to acquire and 

perform special warfare skills. 

Additional consultation under section 7 

of the Act due to critical habitat 

designation could limit or otherwise 

delay or restrict the amount and timing 

of mission-critical training exercises. 

Excluding these Navy lands from the 

critical habitat designation will 

effectively remove the impact that a 

designation of critical habitat could 

have on the Navy’s ability to maintain 

and defend our national security. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion—Navy La Posta Facility 

The benefits of including these Navy 

La Posta Facility lands in designation of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly are small 

compared to the benefits of excluding 

these lands from critical habitat for the 

purposes of national security training 

efforts. Therefore, we determined the 

benefits identified above of excluding 

approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of Navy 

La Posta Facility lands from the critical 

habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands in the 

designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Navy La Posta Facility 

In keeping with our analysis and 

conclusion detailed in our biological 

opinion for the Navy La Posta Facility 

(Service 2007; FWS–SDG–4452) and 

potential national security impacts 

identified by the Navy, we determined 

exclusion of 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land 

within the La Posta Facility from the 

final designation of critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly in Unit 

9 will not result in the extinction of the 

subspecies. Additionally, the likelihood 

of future federal nexuses on these 

Federal lands resulting in consultations 

under the jeopardy standard of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that will ensure 

activities on these lands are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the subspecies provide assurances that 

the subspecies will not go extinct as a 

result of this exclusion. Therefore, based 

on the above discussion we are 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28825 

excluding approximately 2,463 ac (997 

ha) of land within the La Posta Facility 

proposed in Unit 9 from this critical 

habitat designation. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2)—Other 

Relevant Impacts—Conservation 

Partnerships 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the 

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat for other relevant impacts if he 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless he determines, 

based on the best scientific data 

available, that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species. As 

discussed above in the ‘‘Conservation 

Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands’’ 

section, we believe that designation can 

negatively impact the working 

relationships and conservation 

partnerships we have formed with 

private landowners. The Service 

recognizes that 80 percent of 

endangered or threatened species occur 

either partially or solely on private 

lands (Crouse et al. 2002) and we will 

only achieve recovery of federally listed 

species with the cooperation of private 

landowners. 

In making the following exclusions, 

we evaluated the benefits of designating 

these non-Federal lands while 

considering the conservation benefits to 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and the 

physical or biological features essential 

to its conservation that result from our 

existing partnerships. As discussed in 

the ‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section above, conservation 

partnerships that result in 

implementation of an HCP or other 

management plan that considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard often provide as 

much or more benefit than consultation 

for critical habitat designation (the 

primary benefit of a designation). 

In considering the benefits of 

including lands in a designation that are 

covered by a current HCP or other 

management plan, we evaluate a 

number of factors to help us determine 

if the plan provides additional 

conservation benefits than would likely 

result from consultation on a 

designation: 

(1)Whether the plan is complete and 

provides protection from destruction or 

adverse modification; 

(2)Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions will 

be implemented for the foreseeable 

future, based on past practices, written 

guidance, or regulations; and 

(3)Whether the plan provides 

conservation strategies and measures 

consistent with currently accepted 

principles of conservation biology. 

We balance the benefits of inclusion 

against the benefits of exclusion by 

considering the benefits of preserving 

partnerships and encouraging 

development of additional HCPs and 

other conservation plans in the future. 

San Diego County Multiple Species 

Conservation Program – Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan 

We determined approximately 1,673 

ac (677 ha) of land in Unit 8 owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the City of Chula Vista 

(City) Subarea Plan of the San Diego 

County Multiple Species Conservation 

Program (MSCP) (Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan) contain the features essential to 

the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, and therefore 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

under the Act. In making our final 

decision with regard to these Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the HCP, we considered several 

factors, including our relationship with 

the participating MSCP jurisdiction, our 

relationship with other MSCP 

stakeholders, existing consultations, 

conservation measures in place on these 

lands that benefit the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly, and impacts to current and 

future partnerships. We recognize the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

conservation efforts outlined in the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan will continue 

to be implemented by the jurisdictions 

and HCP permit holders regardless of 

whether covered areas are designated as 

critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act, we are excluding all lands 

covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

that are owned by or are under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP 

from this final revised designation of 

critical habitat. As described in our 

section 4(b)(2) analysis below, we have 

reached this determination in 

consideration of the impacts associated 

with designation of critical habitat on 

non-Federal lands covered by a 

management plan and on our effective 

working relationships with HCP permit 

holders. 

The MSCP is a framework HCP that 

has been in place for more than a 

decade. The plan area encompasses 

approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 

(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1–1; 

MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1, 4–2 to 4–4) and 

provides for conservation of 85 federally 

listed and sensitive species (‘‘covered 

species’’) through the establishment and 

management of approximately 171,920 

ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within 

the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

(MHPA) (City of San Diego) and PreApproved Mitigation Areas (PAMA) 

(County of San Diego). The MSCP was 

developed in support of applications for 

incidental take permits for several 

federally listed species by 12 

participating jurisdictions and many 

other stakeholders in southwestern San 

Diego County. Under the umbrella of the 

MSCP, each of the 12 participating 

jurisdictions is required to prepare a 

subarea plan that implements the goals 

of the MSCP within that particular 

jurisdiction. Although not covered 

under the umbrella of the MSCP, the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly is a covered 

species under the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan, which provides for the long-term 

conservation of this subspecies. 

We approved the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan, covering approximately 58,000 ac 

(23,472 ha) under the City’s jurisdiction, 

through an incidental take permit issued 

on January 12, 2005. Within the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, approximately 1,673 

ac (677 ha) meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. The Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan includes the following 

goals: (1) To conserve covered species 

(including the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly) and their habitats through the 

assemblage and conservation of 

significant interconnected habitat cores 

and linkages (Preserve); (2) to provide 

funding for and management of the 

Preserve, including biological 

monitoring and adaptive management; 

and (3) to reduce or eliminate redundant 

Federal, State, and local natural 

resource regulatory and environmental 

review of individual projects by 

obtaining Federal and State take 

authorizations for 85 species (City of 

Chula Vista 2003, Section 1, p. 2). 

The Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

contains requirements to monitor and 

adaptively manage Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitats and therefore provides 

for conservation of this subspecies’ 

essential physical and biological 

features. This area-specific management 

plan is comprehensive and addresses a 

broad range of management needs at the 

preserve and species levels intended to 

reduce threats to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and thereby contribute to its 

recovery. The Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is threatened primarily by loss 

and fragmentation of habitat and 

landscape connectivity due to urban 

and agricultural development, invasion 

of nonnative plant species, off-road 

vehicle use, grazing, fire, enhanced soil 

nitrogen levels, and range shift resulting 

from environmental changes associated 

with changing climate patterns (Service 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2003a, pp. 55–65). All lands preserved 

under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan are 

adaptively managed and maintained to: 

(1) Ensure the long-term viability and 

sustainability of native ecosystem 

function and natural processes 

throughout the Preserve; (2) protect 

existing and restored biological 

resources from the impacts of human 

activities within the Preserve while 

accommodating compatible uses; (3) 

enhance and restore, where feasible, 

appropriate native plant associations 

and wildlife connections to adjoining 

habitat to provide viable wildlife and 

sensitive species habitat; (4) facilitate 

monitoring of selected target species, 

habitats, and linkages to ensure longterm persistence of viable populations 

of priority plant and animal species 

(including the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly); and (5) ensure functional 

habitats and linkages for those species 

(Service 2003b, pp.18, 70, FWS–SDG– 

882.1). Quino checkerspot butterfly 

management efforts will continue to be 

implemented by the City regardless of 

whether these areas are designated as 

critical habitat. 

We determined that approximately 

1,673 ac (677 ha) of land within the 

boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

therefore meet the definition of critical 

habitat. The City has assured the 

conservation of approximately 1,520 ac 

(615 ha) (91 percent) of those lands in 

the ‘‘hard line areas designated for 100 

percent conservation’’ where no 

additional development will be 

approved unless a Boundary 

Adjustment or HCP Amendment is 

approved by the Service (City of Chula 

Vista 2003, pp. 5–2 to 5–3, Figure 5–1). 

In implementing the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan, the City has already 

conserved approximately 894 ac (362 

ha), or 59 percent, of those 1,520 ac (615 

ha), and the remaining approximate 626 

ac (253 ha) are assured conservation 

under the Plan. The extent of habitat 

preservation and management to date 

through implementation of the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan is significant and 

demonstrates the City’s commitment to 

fully implement the HCP. 

The other 164 ac (66 ha) that meet the 

definition of critical habitat within the 

boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan were not originally assured 

conservation. However, through the 

adaptive management flexibility of the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the City has 

already placed approximately 28 ac (11 

ha) of those 164 ac (66 ha) into the 

habitat preserve system conserved and 

managed under the HCP. These 

approximately 28 ac (11 ha) are already 

receiving management consistent with 

the goals and objectives of the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan. The remaining 

approximately 136 ac (55 ha) of land 

that contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species within the boundaries of the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan (less than one 

percent of Unit 8) are not currently 

assured conservation; however, any 

impacts to those 136 ac (55 ha) will still 

be subject to the requirements of the 

Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Furthermore, 

under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, 

development projects must avoid 

impacts to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly to the maximum extent 

practicable in areas not identified for 

conservation (McNeeley 2008, p. 1). 

Current development plans indicate that 

these remaining lands are planned for 

recreational use, and there will continue 

to be opportunities to preserve some 

native habitat in these areas. Although 

some losses may occur to this 

subspecies within the approximate 136 

ac (55 ha) of land that are not currently 

preserved or otherwise assured 

conservation under the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan, the preservation, 

conservation, and management of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly provided 

under the subarea plan provides a more 

comprehensive ecosystem-based 

approach to protecting and managing 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat and 

ensures the long-term conservation of 

this subspecies and its habitat within all 

areas addressed by this HCP than would 

be achieved through consultation for 

critical habitat designation (the primary 

benefit of a designation). 

The MSCP and the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan incorporate many 

processes that allow for Service 

oversight and participation in program 

implementation. These processes 

include: annual reporting requirements, 

review and approval of proposed 

subarea plan amendments or preserve 

boundary adjustments, review and 

comment on projects through CEQA, 

and chairing the Habitat Management 

Technical Committee and the 

Monitoring Subcommittee (MSCP 1998, 

p. 5–11 to 5–23). For example, Habitat 

Management Plans are developed for 

each preserve area within the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, and annual 

monitoring and management objectives 

are reported for each preserve. There are 

also monthly coordination meetings 

between the Service and the City to 

discuss any conservation issues that 

need to be addressed. The MSCP and 

the Chula Vista Subarea Plan annually 

account for progress that occurs. Annual 

reports from each HCP are provided to 

the Service, which include by 

individual project and cumulatively, 

habitat acreage destroyed and conserved 

within the MSCP and its respective 

subareas. This accounting process 

ensures habitat conservation proceeds 

in rough proportion with losses and is 

in compliance with the MSCP subarea 

plans and associated implementing 

agreements. 

In summary, although not all lands 

meeting the definition of critical habitat 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan of the MSCP are assured 

conservation within the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan preserve system (136 ac 

(55 ha) not protected, see above), the 

majority (91 percent) of these 

approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) are 

assured conservation. 

We received letters during the 

comment periods indicating designation 

of lands covered by an HCP as critical 

habitat would affect our relationships 

with large private landowners and 

stakeholders. Furthermore, designation 

would discourage development of 

additional HCPs and other conservation 

plans in the future. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated 

critical habitat, the regulatory standard 

of section 7 of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. 

The MSCP addresses conservation 

issues from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project-by-project approach (as would 

occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act) 

and will achieve more Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation 

within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

boundaries than would be achieved 

through section 7 consultations 

involving consideration of critical 

habitat. The MSCP and Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan provide for proactive 

monitoring and management of 

preserved lands (as previously 

described), which will remove or reduce 

known threats to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its PCEs. The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly will benefit from the 

preservation of high quality habitat; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28827 

restoration, enhancement, and 

management of all preserve lands; 

minimization of project impacts; 

education of the public and state and 

local governments; and continued 

promotion of partnerships on lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the HCP. Conservation 

and management of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat within the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan boundaries is needed for 

survival and recovery of this subspecies. 

Meeting such conservation needs on a 

regional scale, as can be provided 

through a regional HCP approach that 

includes areas not likely to have a 

Federal nexus, typically is not achieved 

through the application of the statutory 

prohibition on adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. 

Furthermore, 91 percent of all lands 

within the boundaries of the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan proposed for designation 

that are owned by or are under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP 

is within the boundaries of formerly 

designated Quino checkerspot butterfly 

critical habitat. The Service completed 

consultation on the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan and continues to work closely with 

the City to ensure the Plan is 

implemented properly and in a manner 

that contributes to the conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

We believe some habitat loss may 

occur within the approximate 136 ac (55 

ha) of land that contain the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species that are not 

currently preserved or otherwise 

assured conservation under the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan. Therefore, the 

benefits of including these lands within 

designated critical habitat are greater 

than for the lands not conserved or 

assured conservation under the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan. However, the area 

permitted for development is less than 

one percent of proposed critical habitat 

in Unit 8, and the overall conservation 

benefits of designating this small 

percentage of the unit as critical habitat 

(e.g., protection afforded through the 

section 7(a)(2) consultation process) to 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly are 

minimal. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that the designation can serve to educate 

the landowners and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area and may help focus conservation 

efforts on areas of high conservation 

value for certain species. Any 

information about the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience is valuable, 

including parties engaged in 

conservation activities. As discussed 

above, the permit holders of the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan are aware of the 

value of these lands to conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and 

management measures are in place to 

conserve Quino checkerspot butterflies 

and their habitat. The Service was a 

partner in the development of the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan and consultation was 

completed on the issuance of the 

10(a)(1)(B) permit. The process of 

developing the MSCP and Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan involved numerous 

partners including (but not limited to) 

the 12 participating jurisdictions, the 

CDFG, and several Federal agencies. 

Furthermore, all lands were included in 

the proposed revised designation 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). This 

publication was announced by way of a 

press release and information was 

posted on the Service’s website, which 

ensured the proposal reached a wide 

audience. Therefore, the educational 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

(such as providing information to the 

City and other stakeholders on areas 

important to the long-term conservation 

of this subspecies) have largely already 

been realized through the HCP 

development process, by proposing 

these areas as critical habitat, and 

through the Service’s public notification 

processes. 

Specific conservation actions, 

avoidance and minimization measures, 

and management for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs 

provided by the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan should make conservation 

measures required as a result of 

regulatory protections afforded through 

a critical habitat designation unlikely. 

Based on the above discussion we 

believe section 7 consultations for 

critical habitat designation conducted 

under the standards required by the 

Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot 

decision provide little conservation 

benefits above and beyond those 

provided by the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan. Therefore, we determine the 

regulatory and educational benefits of 

designating those acres as Quino 

checkerspot butterfly critical habitat 

(e.g., protection afforded through the 

section 7(a)(2) consultation process) are 

minimal. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan 

The benefits of excluding the 

approximate 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land 

within the boundaries of the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan of the MSCP owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the HCP from designated critical 

habitat are significant. We believe 

significant benefits would be realized by 

forgoing designation of critical habitat 

on these lands including: (1) 

Continuance and strengthening of our 

effective working relationships with all 

MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to 

promote conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2) 

allowance for continued meaningful 

collaboration and cooperation in 

working toward recovering this 

subspecies, including conservation 

benefits that might not otherwise occur; 

(3) encouragement of other jurisdictions 

with completed subarea plans under the 

MSCP to amend its plans to cover and 

benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

and its habitat; (4) the encouragement 

for other jurisdictions to complete 

subarea plans under the MSCP (e.g., 

including the cities of Coronado, Del 

Mar, El Cajon, and Santee); and (5) 

encouragement of additional HCP and 

other conservation plan development in 

the future on other private lands for this 

and other federally listed and sensitive 

species. 

We developed close partnerships with 

the City and several other stakeholders 

through the development of the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, which incorporates 

appropriate protections and 

management for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly, its habitat, and the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of this subspecies. Those 

protections are consistent with statutory 

mandates under section 7 of the Act to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat and go 

beyond that requirement by including 

active management and protection of 

connected habitat areas. By excluding 

these approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of 

land from designation, we are 

eliminating an essentially redundant 

layer of regulatory review for projects 

covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

in this area, helping to preserve our 

ongoing partnership with the City, and 

encouraging new partnerships with 

other landowners and jurisdictions. 

This partnership with the City, the 

larger regional MSCP participants, and 

the landscape level, multiple-species 

conservation planning efforts they 

promote are needed to achieve longterm conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. 

Large scale HCPs, such as the regional 

MSCP and subarea plans issued under 

its framework, take many years to 

develop and foster an ecosystem-based 

approach to habitat conservation 

planning by addressing conservation 

issues through a coordinated approach. 

However, participation in these large 

and often costly regional plans are 

voluntary for permit holders (such as 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

local jurisdictions), in the sense they 

could require landowners (e.g., 

homeowners, developers) to consult 

with the Service individually for 

required permits under section 10 of the 

Act. If, in the case of the MSCP, local 

jurisdictions required landowners to 

obtain section 10 permits individually 

prior to issuance of a building permit, 

they would incur no costs associated 

with the landowner’s need for a section 

10 permit. However, this approach 

results in uncoordinated, ‘‘patchy’’ 

conservation that would not be likely to 

further federally listed species’ 

recovery. Rather, by voluntarily 

developing these large scale plans, 

coordinated landscape-scale 

conservation results in preservation of 

interconnected linkage areas and 

populations that support recovery of 

listed species. Once an HCP is 

permitted, implementation of 

conservation measures will occur 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated within its plan boundaries. 

We received letters commenting on 

the designation of critical habitat from 

other HCP permit holders, private 

landowners, and stakeholders in HCPs 

indicating designation of lands covered 

by an HCP as critical habitat would 

affect our relationships with large 

private landowners, jurisdictions, and 

tribal governments. Furthermore, 

designation would discourage 

development of additional HCPs and 

other conservation plans in the future. 

Excluding lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of an HCP 

within the boundary of an HCP 

demonstrates our good faith effort and 

working relationships, and eliminates 

impacts to existing and future 

partnerships while encouraging 

development of additional HCPs and 

other species or habitat conservation 

plans. 

The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 1,673 ac 

(677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP 

from revised designation of critical 

habitat and determined the benefits of 

excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including them. 

The benefits of including these lands 

in the designation are small. Critical 

habitat is currently designated in 91 

percent of lands covered by the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, and the Service 

conducted a consultation with the City 

and continues to work with them 

through the implementation phase to 

ensure the HCP is implemented 

properly and providing conservation for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

eight percent of lands (136 ac; 55 ha) on 

which critical habitat was not 

previously designated are not assured 

conservation under the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan. However, current 

development plans indicate that these 

remaining lands are planned for 

recreational use, and opportunities will 

exist to continue to preserve some 

native habitat in these areas while 

developing and allowing recreational 

use. In areas not conserved by the Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, development 

projects must still avoid impacts to the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly to the 

maximum extent practicable (McNeeley 

2008, p. 1). The City has already placed 

approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of land 

under conservation outside of the 

requirements of its subarea plan. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation have largely already been 

realized as a result of material provided 

on our website, through the public 

notice-and-comment procedures 

required to establish the MSCP and City 

and County subarea plans, and by 

proposal of these lands for designation 

as revised critical habitat. Therefore, 

although we acknowledge that there are 

approximately 136 ac (55 ha) addressed 

by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan that 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

and are not assured conservation (at risk 

for development), we believe that the 

benefits of including these areas in the 

critical habitat designation would be 

minor. 

In contrast to the benefits of 

inclusion, the benefits of excluding 

lands covered by the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan from critical habitat are 

significant. Exclusion of these lands 

from critical habitat will help preserve 

the partnerships we developed with 

local jurisdictions and project 

proponents in the development of the 

MSCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

and aid in fostering additional 

partnerships for the benefit of all 

species of concern on lands owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the HCP. Designation of 

lands covered by the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan may discourage other 

partners from seeking, amending, or 

completing subarea plans under the 

MSCP framework plan or from pursing 

other HCPs. Designation of critical 

habitat does not require management or 

recovery actions take place on the lands 

included in the designation. The Chula 

Vista Subarea Plan, however, will 

provide for significant preservation and 

management of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat and help reach the 

recovery goals for this subspecies 

through habitat enhancement and 

restoration; functional connections to 

adjoining habitat; and subspecies 

monitoring efforts. Additional HCPs or 

other species–habitat plans potentially 

fostered by this exclusion would also 

help to recover this and other federally 

listed species. Therefore, in 

consideration of the relevant impact to 

current and future partnerships, as 

summarized in the ‘‘Conservation 

Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands’’ 

section above, we determined 

significant benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the minor benefits of critical 

habitat designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan 

In keeping with our analysis and 

conclusion detailed in our biological 

opinion for the Chula Vista Subarea 

Plan (Service 2003b, FWS–SDG–882.1), 

we determined that the exclusion of 

approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land 

within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan 

area owned by or under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the HCP from the 

final designation of critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not 

result in extinction of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. The Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan provides protection and 

management, in perpetuity, of lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the subspecies in Unit 9. Additionally, 

the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the 

Act and routine implementation of 

conservation measures through the 

section 7 process provide assurances 

that the subspecies will not go extinct 

as a result of exclusion. Therefore, based 

on the above discussion we are 

excluding approximately 1,673 ac (677 

ha) of land within the Chula Vista 

Subarea Plan area owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

HCP from this critical habitat 

designation. 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

We determined that approximately 

31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly, and meet 

the definition of critical habitat under 

the Act. Our exclusion analysis did not 

include lands within the boundaries of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

that are not owned by or otherwise 

under the jurisdiction of permittees and 

therefore not subject to the permit 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28829 

conditions of this HCP (e.g. Federal 

lands, Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California lands, tribal lands). 

In making our final decision with regard 

to these lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, we 

considered several factors including our 

relationships with the participating 

jurisdictions, our relationships with 

other stakeholders, existing 

consultations, conservation measures in 

place on these lands that benefit the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 

impacts to current and future 

partnerships. We recognize Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation 

efforts outlined in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP will continue to be 

implemented regardless of whether 

covered areas are designated as revised 

critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act, we are excluding all 27,465 ac 

(11,115 ha) of land meeting the 

definition of critical habitat covered by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

within Units 1 through 6 that are owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees from this revised final 

designation of critical habitat. 

Conversely, within Unit 7, we are 

designating all lands meeting the 

definition of critical habitat covered by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

that are owned by or are under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees (4,141 ac 

(1,676 ha)). As described in our section 

4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached these 

determinations in consideration of the 

impacts associated with the designation 

of revised critical habitat on lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the HCP covered by 

the HCP balanced against the benefits of 

including an area in the final 

designation. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is a large-scale, multijurisdictional HCP encompassing 

approximately 1.26 million ac (510,000 

ha) of land in western Riverside County. 

The Western Riverside County MSHCP 

addresses 146 listed and unlisted 

‘‘covered species,’’ including the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Participants in 

the MSHCP include 14 cities; the 

County of Riverside (including the 

Riverside County Flood Control and 

Water Conservation Agency, Riverside 

County Transportation Commission, 

Riverside County Parks and Open Space 

District, and Riverside County Waste 

Department); California Department of 

Parks and Recreation; and the California 

Department of Transportation. The 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is a 

multi-species conservation program 

minimizing and mitigating expected 

loss of habitat and associated incidental 

take of covered species. On June 22, 

2004, the Service issued an incidental 

take permit (Service 2004a, TE–088609– 

0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 

22 permittees under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP for a period of 

75 years. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP requires conservation of 

approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of 

new lands (Additional Reserve Lands) 

to complement the approximate 347,000 

ac (140,426 ha) of pre-existing natural 

and open space areas (Public–QuasiPublic (PQP) lands). PQP lands include 

those under Federal ownership, 

primarily managed by the Forest Service 

and BLM, and also permittee-owned or 

privately-owned open-space areas under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

primarily managed by the State and 

Riverside County. Collectively. The 

Additional Reserve Lands and PQP 

lands form the overall Western 

Riverside County MSHCP Conservation 

Area. The configuration of the 

approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of 

Additional Reserve Lands is not 

mapped or precisely identified (‘‘hardlined’’) in the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, but rather is based on textual 

descriptions of habitat conservation 

necessary to meet the conservation goals 

for all covered species within the 

bounds of an approximately 310,000-ac 

(125,453-ha) Criteria Area interpreted as 

implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP takes place. 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

conservation goals under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP include 

protection (Additional Reserve Lands 

and PQP, including Federal lands) of at 

least 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of 

subspecies’ habitat mosaic. The 

conservation acreage goal will be 

achieved through acquisition or other 

dedications of land assembled from 

within the Criteria Area (the Additional 

Reserve Lands) and through coordinated 

management of existing PQP lands. We 

internally mapped a ‘‘Conceptual 

Reserve Design’’ that illustrates existing 

PQP lands and predicts an ideal 

geographic distribution of the 

Additional Reserve Lands based on our 

interpretation of the textual descriptions 

of habitat conservation necessary to 

meet conservation goals. Our 

Conceptual Reserve Design was 

intended to predict one possible future 

configuration of the eventual 

approximately 153,000 ac (61, 916 ha) of 

Additional Reserve Lands in 

conjunction with the existing PQP 

lands, including approximately 67,493 

ac (27,314 ha) of ‘‘suitable’’ Quino 

checkerspot butterfly habitat throughout 

the plan area, that will be conserved to 

meet the goals and objectives of the plan 

(Service 2004a, p. 73; FWS–WRIV– 

870.19). 

Preservation and management of 

approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP will contribute to conservation 

and ultimate recovery of this 

subspecies. The Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is threatened primarily by loss 

and fragmentation of habitat and 

landscape connectivity due to urban 

and agricultural development, invasion 

of nonnative plant species, off-road 

vehicle use, grazing, and fire, enhanced 

soil nitrogen levels, and range shift 

resulting from environmental changes 

due to changing climate patterns 

(Service 2003a, pp. 55–65). The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP removes or 

reduces threats to this subspecies and 

the features essential to its conservation 

by placing large blocks of occupied and 

unoccupied habitat into preservation 

throughout the MSHCP Conservation 

Area. Areas identified for preservation 

and conservation include linkages of 

suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly 

habitat between the 7 ‘‘Core Areas’’ to 

maintain landscape connectivity and 

support the population dynamics of this 

subspecies. The approximately 67,493 

ac (27,314 ha) that will be conserved 

under this plan for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly capture a variety 

of habitat characteristics supporting 

Quino checkerspot butterflies 

throughout western Riverside County. 

Distribution of the subspecies within 

the existing Western Riverside County 

MSHCP Conservation Area is 

documented through annual surveys. 

Surveys will continue annually as lands 

are added to the Conservation Area. The 

surveys are intended to verify continued 

occupancy at a minimum of 75 percent 

of the occupied locations identified in 

the plan. An adaptive management 

program is being implemented to 

maintain or enhance all conserved 

habitat to increase its value for, and the 

viability of, Quino checkerspot butterfly 

populations (Dudek 2003, Volume I, 

Section 9, Table 9–2, pp. 9–28, 9–29). 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

conservation and management efforts 

will continue to be implemented under 

this plan regardless of whether these 

areas are designated as revised critical 

habitat. 

We determined that approximately 

31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Quino 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

checkerspot butterfly. These lands are 

divided into 7 units, each associated 

with a core occurrence complex habitatbased population distribution as 

identified in this final rule. Our analysis 

of additional survey data and 

distribution information not available at 

the time the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP was developed identified a new 

core occurrence complex, the Bautista 

Road Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 

7). Therefore permittees can meet the 

goals and objectives of the plan as 

written for this subspecies without 

conserving significant portions of the 

permittee-owned or open-space areas 

that are essential for the conservation of 

the species in Unit 7. Due to the 

identification of a new core occurrence 

complex (Unit 7) mostly outside the 

HCP conservation design, we evaluated 

the benefits of including (if the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP conservation 

design provides equivalent or greater 

conservation benefit to Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 

than would likely result from 

consultation on a designation) the lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Unit 7 separately 

from our evaluation of the benefits of 

designating Units 1 through 6. 

Conservation Status of Units 1 through 

6 Western Riverside County MSHCP 

Units 1 through 6 contain 

approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of 

land owned by or under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Our analysis 

identified four basic conservation status 

categories of land under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP: (1) 

Conserved as Public/Quasi-Public or as 

Additional Reserve Lands (already in 

Conservation Area); (2) likely to be 

conserved as indicated by our 

Conceptual Reserve Design (targeted as 

Additional Reserve Lands); (3) possible, 

but not likely, conservation within the 

defined Criteria Area (not captured by 

our Conceptual Reserve Design), and (4) 

no possibility of conservation under the 

HCP (outside the defined Criteria Area). 

In the 4 years of implementing the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

approximately 1,956 ac (792 ha) of land 

within Units 1 through 6 have already 

been placed into the Conservation Area 

and are permanently preserved as 

Additional Reserve Lands, and 2036 ac 

(ha) were already conserved prior to 

HCP implementation. Although some 

areas placed in conservation are not yet 

fully managed, such management will 

occur as the plan continues to be 

implemented. Our Conceptual Reserve 

Design indicates that another 

approximately 17,302 ac (7,002 ha) of 

land owned by or under the jurisdiction 

of the permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 

through 6 (approximately 63 percent) 

will likely be conserved as Additional 

Reserve Lands. The extent of habitat 

preservation that has taken place to date 

through implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP is significant 

and demonstrates the permittees’ 

commitment to fully implement the 

plan. 

In Units 1 through 6, approximately 

5,851 ac (2,368 ha) that meet the 

definition of critical habitat owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP are within the Criteria Area but 

were not captured by our Conceptual 

Reserve Design. A substantial portion of 

these lands occur in Unit 6 

(approximately 2,819 ac (951 ha)). 

Condition 12 of the Special Terms and 

Conditions for Incidental Take Permit 

TE–088609–0 specifically identifies 

Unit 6 for additional conservation by 

requiring the permittees to ‘‘work to 

conserve the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly within the Tule Creek—Anza 

Valley Subunit of the REMAP Area 

(Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 

Complex) and, if necessary, to use the 

Criteria Refinement Process to achieve 

this conservation’’ (Service 2004b, p. 2, 

TE–088609–0). The Western Riverside 

County Regional Conservation 

Authority (permittee under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP) has 

demonstrated its willingness and 

commitment to conserve lands needed 

for subspecies’ recovery that are not 

otherwise targeted for conservation by 

plan criteria. In 2008, approximately 

396 ac (160 ha) of occupied habitat all 

or partly outside of our Conceptual 

Reserve Design, but within the Criteria 

Area, were acquired as Additional 

Reserve Lands within the Tule Peak/ 

Silverado Core Occurrence Complex 

(Unit 6). These lands were acquired 

specifically for the conservation of the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land 

within Unit 2 owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP that 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

occur outside of the Criteria Area and 

are not already conserved. These areas 

all occur on the outer edges of Unit 2 

and represent only 3 percent of the unit. 

Although some losses may occur to this 

subspecies within these lands, we 

believe the losses are minimal and the 

preservation, conservation, and 

management of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly provided for by this plan 

ensures sufficient long-term 

conservation of this subspecies and its 

habitat in Units 1 through 6. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP incorporates many processes 

that allow for Service oversight and 

participation in program 

implementation. These processes 

include: (1) Consultation with the 

Service on a long-term management and 

monitoring plan; (2) submission of 

annual monitoring reports; (3) annual 

status meetings with the Service; and (4) 

submission of annual implementation 

reports to the Service (Service 2004b, p. 

9–10, TE–088609–0). 

In summary, although not all lands 

proposed as revised critical habitat 

within Units 1 through 6 are targeted for 

preservation as Additional Reserve 

Lands within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP or have already been 

officially dedicated to the preserve 

system, continued implementation of 

the MSHCP will result in the majority 

of these lands being conserved. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Units 1 through 6 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

including an area in a critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of any designated 

critical habitat, the regulatory standard 

of section 7 of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP addresses conservation issues 

from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project-by-project approach (as would 

occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act) 

and will achieve more Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation than 

would be achieved through section 7 

consultations involving consideration of 

critical habitat. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP provides for proactive 

monitoring and management of 

preserved lands (as previously 

described), which remove or reduce 

known threats to the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its PCEs and therefore 

preclude or reduce the need for 

additional conservation provided by 

section 7 consultations due to critical 

habitat designation. The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly will benefit from the 

preservation of high quality habitat and 

management of all preserve lands; 

minimization of project impacts; 

education of the public and state and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28831 

local governments; and continued 

promotion of partnerships on lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. Conservation and 

management of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP boundaries is 

needed for survival and recovery of this 

subspecies. Meeting such conservation 

needs on a regional scale, as can be 

provided through a regional HCP 

approach that includes areas that likely 

do not have a Federal nexus typically is 

not achieved through the application of 

the statutory prohibition on adverse 

modification or destruction of critical 

habitat alone, and are otherwise largely 

redundant. 

Furthermore, the HCP preserve lands 

are within the habitat-based population 

distributions of six core occurrence 

complexes and approximately 90 

percent of all land owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

proposed for designation in Units 1 

through 6 is within the boundaries of 

formerly designated Quino checkerspot 

butterfly critical habitat. The Service 

completed consultation on the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP and continues 

to work with plan participants to ensure 

the Plan is implemented properly and in 

a manner that contributes to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. 

We believe some losses may occur to 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 

within the approximately 5,851 ac 

(2,368 ha) that are within the Criteria 

Area but were not captured by our 

Conceptual Reserve Design and the 

approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land 

that will not be conserved under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

(outside the Criteria Area). Therefore, 

the benefits of including these lands 

within designated critical habitat is 

higher than for the lands that are 

conserved or targeted for conservation 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP. However, the area that will not 

be conserved under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP is less than 

one percent of proposed revised critical 

habitat in Units 1 through 6, and the 

area not captured by our Conceptual 

Reserve Design is less than 12 percent 

of proposed revised critical habitat in 

Units 1 through 6 (including land not 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP). Therefore the benefits 

for the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly that would occur 

as a result of designating this small 

percentage as critical habitat (e.g., 

protection afforded through the section 

7(a)(2) consultation process) are 

minimal. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

the designation can serve to educate the 

landowners and the public regarding the 

potential conservation value of an area, 

and this may help focus conservation 

efforts on areas of high conservation 

value for certain species. Any 

information about the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. As discussed 

above the permit holders of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP are aware of 

the value of these lands to the 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and management measures are 

in place to conserve Quino checkerspot 

butterflies and their habitat. The Service 

was a partner in the development of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

consultation was completed on the 

issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The 

process of developing the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP has involved 

numerous partners including (but not 

limited to): 14 cities in western 

Riverside County; the County of 

Riverside; the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation; and the California 

Department of Transportation; and 

several Federal agencies. Furthermore, 

the majority of lands in Units 1–6 were 

previously designated as critical habitat 

(67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002; Table 1) 

and all lands were included in the 

proposed revised designation, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). These 

publications were announced in a press 

release and information was posted on 

the Service’s website, which ensured 

the proposal reached a wide audience. 

No substantial new information 

regarding additional habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of Quino 

checkerspot butterfly in Units 1-6 was 

provided in the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat (see ‘‘Summary of 

Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule 

To Revise Critical Habitat’’ section 

above). Therefore, the educational 

benefits that might follow critical 

habitat designation (such as providing 

information to the permittees and other 

stakeholders on areas important to the 

long-term conservation of this 

subspecies) have largely already been 

realized for these units on multiple 

occasions by: (1) HCP development; (2) 

designating these areas as critical 

habitat; (3) proposing these areas as 

revised critical habitat; and (4) through 

the Service’s other public notification 

processes. 

Specific conservation actions, 

avoidance and minimization measures, 

and management for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs 

provided by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP should make most 

conservation measures required as a 

result of regulatory protections afforded 

through a critical habitat designation 

unlikely. Based on the above discussion 

we believe section 7 consultations for 

critical habitat designation conducted 

under the standards required by the 

Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot 

decision provide little conservation 

benefits above and beyond those 

provided by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. Therefore, we 

determine the regulatory and 

educational benefits of designating 

those acres as Quino checkerspot 

butterfly critical habitat (e.g., protection 

afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 

consultation process) are minimal. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Units 1 through 

6 Western Riverside County MSHCP 

The benefits of excluding the 

approximate 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of 

land within Units 1 through 6 owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP from designated critical 

habitat are significant. We believe 

significant benefits would be realized by 

forgoing the designation of critical 

habitat on these lands including: (1) 

Continuance and strengthening of our 

effective working relationships with all 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittees and stakeholders to promote 

further conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2) 

allowance for continued meaningful 

collaboration and cooperation in 

working toward recovering this 

subspecies, including conservation 

benefits that might not otherwise occur; 

and (3) encouragement of development 

of additional HCPs and other 

conservation plans in the future on 

other private lands for this and other 

federally listed and sensitive species. 

We developed close partnerships with 

the all permittees under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP (represented 

by the Riverside Conservation 

Authority) and several other 

stakeholders through the development 

of this large scale HCP, which 

incorporates appropriate protections 

and management for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly, its habitat, and 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of this 

subspecies. Those protections are 

consistent with statutory mandates 

under section 7 of the Act to avoid 

adverse modification or destruction of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat and go beyond that 

prohibition by including active 

management and protection of 

connected habitat areas. By excluding 

approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of 

land in Units 1 through 6 from 

designation, we are eliminating an 

essentially redundant layer of regulatory 

review for projects covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

this area, helping to preserve our 

ongoing partnership with the 

represented city and county 

governments, and encouraging new 

partnerships with other landowners and 

jurisdictions. This partnership with 

regional participants and the landscape 

level, multiple-species conservation 

planning efforts it promotes, are integral 

to achieving long-term conservation of 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Large scale regional HCPs, such as the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP take 

many years to develop and foster an 

ecosystem-based approach to habitat 

conservation planning by coordinating 

conservation issues with regional 

planning efforts. However, participation 

in these large and often costly regional 

plans is voluntary for permit holders 

(such as local jurisdictions), in the sense 

these permit holders could require 

landowners (e.g., homeowners, 

developers) to consult with the Service 

individually for required section 10 

permits. If, in the case of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, the local 

jurisdictions required landowners to 

obtain section 10 permits individually 

prior to issuance of a building permit, 

these jurisdictions would incur no costs 

associated with the landowner’s need 

for a section 10 permit. However, this 

approach would result in 

uncoordinated, ‘‘patchy’’ conservation 

that would not be likely to further the 

recovery of federally listed species. 

Rather, by voluntarily developing these 

large scale plans, the coordinated 

landscape-scale conservation results in 

preservation of interconnected linkage 

areas and populations that support 

recovery of listed species. We recognize 

that once an HCP is permitted, 

implementation of conservation 

measures will occur regardless of 

whether critical habitat is designated 

within plan boundaries in order for 

permittees to receive incidental take 

coverage. 

We received multiple letters 

commenting on the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat from 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permit holders, private landowners and 

other stakeholders in this HCP 

indicating designation of lands covered 

by an HCP as critical habitat would 

affect our relationships with them. 

Furthermore, designation would 

discourage development of additional 

HCPs and other conservation plans in 

the future. Excluding lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP demonstrates our good faith 

effort and working relationships and 

will eliminate impacts to existing and 

future partnerships while encouraging 

development of additional HCPs and 

other species or habitat conservation 

plans. 

The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Units 1 through 6 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 27,465 ac 

(11,115 ha) of land within Units 1 

through 6 owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP from 

designation of revised critical habitat 

and determined the benefits of 

excluding these lands within the 

boundaries of the HCP outweigh the 

benefits of including them. 

The benefits of including these lands 

in final revised critical habitat are small. 

Critical habitat is currently designated 

on approximately 90 percent of the 

proposed lands in Units 1 through 6 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. The Service conducted 

a consultation with the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP participants 

and continues to work with them 

through the implementation phase to 

ensure the HCP is implemented 

properly and providing conservation for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation are already in place as a 

result of material provided on our 

website, the public notice-and-comment 

procedures required to establish the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, and 

our inclusion of these lands in the 

proposed rule to revise critical habitat. 

We acknowledge that there are 

approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 ha) of 

land meeting the definition of critical 

habitat that are within the Criteria Area 

but were not captured by our 

Conceptual Reserve Design (and 

therefore not likely to be conserved), 

and approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of 

land outside the Criteria Area addressed 

by the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP that meet the definition of 

critical habitat but are not within 

criteria cells or already conserved (no 

possible conservation under the HCP) in 

Units 1 through 6; however, the benefits 

of designating these areas as critical 

habitat are minor. 

The benefits of excluding lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 

from critical habitat are more significant 

than the benefits of including them. 

Exclusion of these lands from critical 

habitat will help preserve our 

partnerships with the local jurisdictions 

and project proponents achieved 

through development of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP and aid in 

fostering additional partnerships for the 

benefit of all species of concern on 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

HCP. Designation of lands covered by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

may also discourage other partners from 

pursuing HCPs or conservation plans. 

Designation of critical habitat does not 

require management or recovery actions 

take place on the lands included in the 

designation. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, however, will provide 

for significant preservation and 

management of habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and will help 

reach the recovery goals for this 

subspecies through habitat 

enhancement and restoration, functional 

connections to adjoining habitat, and 

monitoring efforts. Future HCPs or other 

species or habitat plans fostered by this 

exclusion would also help to recover 

this and other federally listed species. 

Therefore, in consideration of the 

relevant impacts to current and future 

partnerships, as summarized above and 

in the ‘‘Conservation Partnerships on 

Non-Federal Lands’’ section, we 

determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the minor benefits of 

designating lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Units 1 through 6. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Units 1 through 6 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

We determined that exclusion of 

approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) in 

Units 1 through 6 from the final revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly will not 

result in extinction of the subspecies 

because the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP provides for conservation of 

this subspecies and its PCEs (Warm 

Springs Creek, Skinner/Johnson, Sage, 

Wilson Valley, Vail Lake/Oak Mountain, 

and Tule Peak/Silverado core 

occurrence complexes). While some loss 

of habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is anticipated with the 

continued implementation of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

critical habitat was already designated 

in the majority of Units 1 through 6 

prior to approval of the HCP. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28833 

Additionally, the Service conducted a 

consultation with the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP participants and 

continues to work with them through 

the implementation phase to ensure the 

HCP is implemented properly and 

providing conservation for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Furthermore, the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

and routine implementation of habitat 

conservation through the section 7 

process also provide assurances the 

subspecies will not go extinct. The 

exclusion leaves these protections 

unchanged from those that would exist 

if excluded areas were designated as 

critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly in other 

areas that will be accorded protection 

from adverse modification by Federal 

actions using the conservation standard 

in the Act consistent with the Ninth 

Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford 

Pinchot. Additionally, the subspecies 

occurs on lands protected and managed 

either explicitly for the subspecies, or 

indirectly through more general 

objectives to protect natural values. 

Existing protections acting in concert 

with the other protections provided 

under the Act for these lands, absent 

designation of critical habitat on them, 

and with protections afforded by the 

remaining critical habitat designation, 

lead us to find exclusion of lands in 

Units 1 through 6 covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP will 

not result in extinction of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, based 

on the above discussion, we are 

excluding approximately 27,465 ac 

(11,115 ha) of land owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Units 1 through 6 from this critical 

habitat designation. 

Conservation Status of Unit 7 Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

Unit 7 contains approximately 4,387 

ac (1,775 ha) of land owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. As 

described above, conservation to meet 

the goals and objectives of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP will occur 

within the defined Criteria Area; 

approximately 686 ac (278 ha) (17 

percent) of land owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Unit 7 that meet the definition of critical 

habitat are within the Criteria Area. 

In the 4 years of implementing the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, no 

land within the Criteria Area in Unit 7 

has been acquired for conservation as 

Additional Reserve Lands. Our 

interpretation of the written 

conservation criteria indicates that 15 

percent (595 ac; 240 ha) of land owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Unit 7 are targeted 

for conservation as Additional Reserve 

Lands (within our Conceptual Reserve 

Design). 

Approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) 

(about 84 percent) of land within Unit 

7 that meets the definition of critical 

habitat and are owned by or are under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP fall 

outside the Criteria Area and, therefore, 

have no possibility of conservation 

under the HCP (by comparison, only 3 

percent of Unit 2 in all of Units 1 

through 6 falls into this category). The 

Service will work with our partners to 

fund and facilitate conservation of these 

approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) of 

Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat that 

would not otherwise be conserved 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP in Unit 7. However, we expect 

habitat losses will occur within these 

approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) of 

land outside the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Criteria Area. Although 

we believe preservation, conservation, 

and management of Quino checkerspot 

butterfly habitat provided for by this 

plan ensures the long-term conservation 

of this subspecies and its habitat within 

Units 1 through 6, subspecies 

conservation needs within the majority 

of lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Unit 7 (approximately 84 percent of 

these lands) are not addressed by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

because they lie outside of the Criteria 

Area. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Unit 7 Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

As described in detail above in the 

‘‘Benefits of Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ section, the principle benefit of 

designating an area as critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to result in destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, the regulatory standard of 

section 7 of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. 

As described above in the ‘‘Benefits of 

Inclusion – Units 1 through 6 Western 

Riverside County MSHCP’’ section, the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

addresses conservation issues from a 

coordinated, integrated perspective and 

will achieve more Quino checkerspot 

butterfly conservation than would be 

achieved through section 7 

consultations involving consideration of 

critical habitat. However, Quino 

checkerspot butterfly conservation 

measures under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP does not address new 

information regarding Quino 

checkerspot butterfly distribution in 

Unit 7 (Bautista Road Core Occurrence 

Complex and associated habitats) 

because the importance of habitat in this 

area to the conservation of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly was not 

understood when the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permit was issued. 

Thus, the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP does not provide habitat 

conservation and other measures 

necessary to maintain the Bautista Road 

Core Occurrence Complex and support 

ongoing elevation range shift in the area. 

Furthermore, lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

Unit 7 are outside of the boundaries of 

currently designated Quino checkerspot 

butterfly critical habitat. Therefore, our 

HCP permit analysis did not address 

Unit 7 of this revised designation 

(Service 2004a, p. 287; FWS–WRIV– 

870.19). 

Unit 7, along with the closest other 

core occurrence complex (Tule Peak/ 

Silverado), supports the highest 

recorded post-listing Quino checkerspot 

butterfly abundance observations and 

the highest diversity of host plant 

species in the subspecies’ extant range. 

Unit 7 is also the northernmost unit and 

contains the greatest elevational 

gradient within the extant range of the 

butterfly. The high diversity of host 

plants and the elevational gradient 

underscore the importance of this 

habitat to the butterfly in light of 

documented drought conditions and 

future drought predictions (see 

‘‘Background’’ section above). 

Furthermore, we believe that non-core 

occurrence complexes north of the 

community of Anza (Unit 7) are the 

result of recent colonization events and 

an ongoing range shift in this subspecies 

upward in elevation. We expect Unit 7 

to provide immigrants to higher 

elevation suitable habitat that is not yet 

occupied and to proximal higher 

elevation populations that may be 

temporarily extirpated during the course 

of range-edge expansion and therefore 

require immigrants for re-establishment 

(e.g., the Quinn Flat Non-core 

Occurrence Complex). 

We believe losses may occur to Quino 

checkerspot butterfly habitat within the 

majority of the approximately 4,387 ac 

(1,775 ha) of lands owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Unit 7. Therefore, the benefits of 

including these lands within designated 

critical habitat are greater than for lands 

conserved or targeted for conservation 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP in Units 1 through 6. The area 

permitted for development under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is 25 

percent of proposed critical habitat in 

Unit 7. Because lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP in Unit 7 are largely outside the 

Criteria Area, conservation design under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

does not capture the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex. Therefore, there is 

a significant regulatory benefit of 

designating the approximately 4,387 ac 

(1,775 ha) of land owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

HCP as critical habitat in this unit. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

the designation can serve to educate the 

landowners and the public regarding the 

potential conservation value of an area 

and may help focus conservation efforts 

to areas of high conservation value for 

certain species. Any information about 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 

habitat that reaches a wide audience, 

including parties engaged in 

conservation activities, is valuable. As 

discussed above, additional 

distributional information 

demonstrating the significance of Unit 7 

became available following completion 

of consultation on the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, including the 

importance of populations in Unit 7 in 

supporting range shift resulting from 

environmental changes due to changing 

climate patterns (see ‘‘Background’’ and 

‘‘Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ sections above). The majority 

of lands in Unit 7 owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP are 

not currently preserved or targeted for 

conservation under the HCP and the 

new information was not addressed by 

the HCP, therefore the permit holders of 

the HCP are not necessarily aware of the 

value of these lands to the conservation 

of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 

Furthermore, no lands in Unit 7 were 

previously designated as critical habitat 

(Table 1) (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002). 

With regard to occupied areas in Unit 7, 

the April 15, 2002, critical habitat 

designation stated ‘‘[the Bautista Road 

Occurrence Complex] ...was first 

documented in 2001 following the 

publication of the [critical habitat] 

proposal and we do not currently have 

sufficient information concerning 

habitat within the complex and 

landscape connectivity to other 

complexes to determine that it is 

essential to the conservation of the 

[sub]species.’’ Although all lands in 

Unit 7 were included in the proposed 

revised designation, this final revised 

critical habitat designation will 

continue to provide useful educational 

information to the public. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Unit 7 Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

There are benefits of excluding the 

approximate 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Unit 7 from revised 

critical habitat. We believe benefits 

would be realized by forgoing the 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands including: (1) Continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationships with all Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permittees and 

stakeholders to promote further 

conservation of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly and its habitat; (2) allowance 

for continued meaningful collaboration 

and cooperation in working toward 

recovering this subspecies, including 

conservation benefits that might not 

otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement 

of development of additional HCPs and 

other conservation plans in the future 

on other private lands for this and other 

federally listed and sensitive species. 

Please see the ‘‘Benefits of Exclusion – 

Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside 

County MSHCP’’ section for additional 

discussion related to partnerships and 

landscape-scale conservation benefits. 

The Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Exclusion—Unit 7 Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 4,387 ac 

(1,775 ha) ha) of land within Unit 7 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP from designation of 

revised critical habitat and determined 

the benefits of designating these lands 

as critical habitat outweigh the benefits 

of excluding them. 

We recognize there are significant 

benefits of excluding lands within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP from 

critical habitat. The exclusion of these 

lands from critical habitat would help 

preserve the partnerships we developed 

with the local jurisdictions and project 

proponents in the development of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

foster additional partnerships for the 

benefit of all species of concern on 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

HCP. Although the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP will provide significant 

preservation and management of habitat 

for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and 

help reach recovery goals for this 

subspecies in Units 1 through 6, the 

plan does not conserve the Bautista 

Road Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 7) 

because this area was identified as a 

core occurrence complex following 

completion of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. 

We believe the benefits of designating 

lands within Unit 7 owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP as 

critical habitat are more significant than 

the benefits of excluding them. Critical 

habitat was not previously designated in 

Unit 7; therefore, the effects of permit 

issuance on critical habitat in this area 

were not analyzed in a biological 

opinion, and the educational benefits of 

HCP analysis and critical habitat 

designation were not realized. Unit 7 

supports the Bautista Road Core 

Occurrence Complex and associated 

habitat and non-core occurrence 

complexes which we believe are needed 

to support a resilient core population, as 

well as ongoing range shift of this 

subspecies upward in elevation. This 

unit contains the greatest elevational 

gradient and highest diversity of host 

plant species within the extant range of 

the butterfly. Furthermore, substantial 

losses to Quino checkerspot butterfly 

habitat within Unit 7 may occur on 

3,701 ac (1,498 ha) outside the Criteria 

Area. We do not anticipate that 

monitoring and management of lands 

within the Criteria Area of Unit 7 will 

ensure continued occupancy of this core 

occurrence complex. Finally, we find 

that there will be significant educational 

benefits of designation in this unit, not 

already met by the HCP approval 

process, previous critical habitat 

designation, or publication of proposed 

revised critical habitat. Therefore, we 

conclude the regulatory protections that 

may be afforded through critical habitat 

designation in Unit 7 are greater than 

the conservation benefits provided by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

in this unit. 

In summary, we determined the 

benefits of including Unit 7 in 

designated critical habitat outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion; therefore, we are 

designating all 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of 

land within Unit 7 owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP as 

revised critical habitat. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28835 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB 

bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(1) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 

U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

this final rule, we are certifying that the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

community governments that serve 

fewer than 50,000 residents; and small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly would 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, we consider the number of 

small entities affected within particular 

types of economic activities, such as 

residential and commercial 

development. In order to determine 

whether it is appropriate for our agency 

to certify that this rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered each industry or category 

individually. To estimate the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. 

Designation of critical habitat affects 

only activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. Some kinds of activities are 

unlikely to have any Federal 

involvement and so will not be affected 

by critical habitat designation. In areas 

where the species is present, Federal 

agencies already are required to consult 

with us under section 7 of the Act on 

activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Federal agencies 

also must consult with us if their 

activities may affect critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat, therefore, 

could result in an additional economic 

impact on small entities due to the 

requirement to reinitiate consultation 

for ongoing Federal activities. 

In the DEA of the proposed revisions 

to critical habitat, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. The DEA is based 

on the estimated incremental impacts 

associated with the proposed 

rulemaking as described in sections 2 

through 7. The DEA evaluates the 

potential for economic impacts related 

to activity categories including 

residential development, tribal 

activities, habitat management, and nonresidential development. The DEA 

concludes that the incremental impacts 

resulting from this rulemaking that may 

be borne by small businesses will be 

associated only with residential 

development. Incremental impacts are 

either not expected for the other types 

of activities considered or, if expected, 

will not be borne by small entities. 

As discussed in Appendix A of the 

DEA, the largest impacts of the 

proposed rule result from section 7 

consultations with the Service on 

development projects likely to occur in 

areas where surveys are unable to detect 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 

exclusions made in this final revised 

rule do not affect this analysis in the 

DEA. In the high estimate scenario, five 

projects in Unit 9 and nine projects in 

Unit 10 were identified as likely to 

require consultation with the Service as 

a result of the proposed rule. 

Conservatively assuming that each 

project is undertaken by a separate 

entity, as many as 14 developers were 

identified as likely to be affected over 

the 23–year time frame of the analysis. 

Furthermore, approximately six 

developers per year were identified as 

potentially experiencing impacts that 

likely represent less than one percent of 

the value of a new home. At the highend, the one-time costs resulting from 

the consultation process, including 

administrative time spent by the 

businesses, compensation costs, and the 

value of time delays, totaled 

approximately $16.1 million for the 

projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 million for 

the projects in Unit 10. No information 

regarding the probability that these 

businesses are small entities is 

available. However, assuming they are 

small businesses, we are certifying that 

the number of small entities (14) that 

could be significantly affected is not 

substantial, and that the critical habitat 

designation for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly will not have a significant 

economic impact on these small 

entities. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. This revision to critical 

habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is not considered a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866. 

OMB has provided guidance for 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

implementing this Order that outlines 

nine outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a 

significant adverse effect’’ when 

compared without the regulatory action 

under consideration. The FEA identified 

Calpine Corporation, San Diego Gas and 

Electric, and Southern California Edison 

as entities involved in the production of 

energy. As discussed in Appendix A, 

the FEA finds that none of these 

outcomes are likely to occur. As such, 

the final designation of critical habitat is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use, 

and a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under section 7 of the 

Act, the only regulatory effect is that 

Federal agencies must ensure that their 

actions do not destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, permits, or otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the legally binding 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly affected 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply, nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above on to 

State governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it would not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The FEA concludes incremental 

impacts may occur due to project 

modifications that may need to be made 

for development; however, these are not 

expected to affect small governments. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the revised critical habitat designation 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small government entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly in a takings 

implications assessment. Critical habitat 

designation does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this final 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly does 

not pose significant takings 

implications. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

final revised critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California; however, we did not 

receive any comments from State 

agencies. The majority of land (68 

percent) being designated is not State or 

locally-owned and, therefore, the 

designation has little incremental 

impact on State and local governments 

and their activities. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments in that the areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the subspecies are more clearly defined, 

and the primary constituent elements of 

the habitat necessary to the conservation 

of the subspecies are specifically 

identified. While making this definition 

and identification does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored activities 

may occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species within the designated areas 

to assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Tenth Circuit, we 

do not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by the NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28837 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld by the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997, ‘‘American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act,’’ we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

In the proposed revisions to critical 

habitat published in the Federal 

Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 

3328), we proposed approximately 

1,203 ac (487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of 

Indians’ and approximately 79 ac (ha) of 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians’ lands 

in Riverside County, and approximately 

3,156 ac (1277 ha) of land within Campo 

Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ lands in San 

Diego County as critical habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. We worked 

directly with the tribes to determine 

economic and other burdens expected to 

result from critical habitat designation 

on tribal lands, and as a result of 

information exchanged, are excluding 

all tribal lands meeting the definition of 

critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly from this final 

revised designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) –Impacts to 

Government-To-Government 

Relationships With Tribes And 

Economics’’ section above). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

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

Author(s) 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff from the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ 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 § 17.95(i), revise the entry for 

‘‘Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha quino)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(i) Insects. 

* * * * * 

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha quino) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Riverside and San Diego Counties, 

California, on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly are: 

(i) Open areas within scrublands at 

least 21.5 square feet (ft2) (2 square 

meters (m)) in size that: 

(A) Contain no woody canopy cover; 

and 

(B) Contain one or more of the host 

plants Plantago erecta, Plantago 

patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, 

or Collinsia concolor used for Quino 

checkerspot butterfly growth, 

reproduction, and feeding; or 

(C) Contain one or more of the host 

plants Cordylanthus rigidus or Castilleja 

exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of 

the host plants listed in paragraph 

(2)(i)(B) above; or 

(D) Contain flowering plants with a 

corolla tube less than or equal to 0.43 

in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly feeding; 

(ii) Open scrubland areas and 

vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of the 

open canopy areas (described in 

paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) used for 

movement and basking; and 

(iii) Hilltops or ridges within 

scrublands, containing an open, woodycanopy area at least 21.5 ft2 (2 m2) in 

size used for Quino checkerspot 

butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) 

and are contiguous with (but not 

otherwise included in) open areas and 

natural vegetation described in 

paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) above. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 1:24,000 maps, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28839 

(6) Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson, Riverside 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Murrieta, Bachelor Mountain, 

Winchester, Sage, and Hemet. Land 

bounded by the following Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 

coordinates (E, N): 499480, 3720871; 

498641, 3720857; 498511, 3720856; 

498353, 3720855; 498593, 3720996; 

498642, 3721009; 499082, 3721122; 

499479, 3721141; 499529, 3721143; 

499731, 3721103; 499738, 3721101; 

499829, 3720955; 499918, 3720879; 

thence returning to 499480, 3720871. 

Continue to 497696, 3720235; 497728, 

3720291; 497832, 3720397; 498082, 

3720651; 498640, 3720657; 498640, 

3720445; 498639, 3720257; 498639, 

3720257; 498059, 3720244; 497833, 

3720239; 497778, 3720238; thence 

returning to 497696, 3720235. Continue 

to 494486, 3720445; 494486, 3720445; 

494496, 3720550; 494671, 3720558; 

494796, 3720564; 495236, 3720522; 

495415, 3720453; 495475, 3720430; 

495475, 3720430; 495474, 3720194; 

495474, 3720033; 495470, 3719192; 

496227, 3719210; 496269, 3719211; 

496291, 3719212; 496669, 3719221; 

497068, 3719231; 497401, 3719235; 

497436, 3719236; 497456, 3719236; 

497636, 3719238; 497727, 3719239; 

497838, 3719241; 498238, 3719245; 

498463, 3719247; 498638, 3719249; 

498647, 3719249; 498648, 3719249; 

498654, 3719249; 498722, 3719250; 

499106, 3719253; 499141, 3719254; 

499290, 3719254; 499723, 3719253; 

499723, 3719253; 499641, 3719206; 

499612, 3719190; 499612, 3719190; 

499544, 3719046; 499543, 3719044; 

499543, 3719044; 499540, 3719034; 

499529, 3719035; 499526, 3719035; 

499524, 3719035; 499523, 3719035; 

499523, 3719036; 499080, 3719076; 

499079, 3719074; 499065, 3719034; 

499065, 3719034; 499063, 3719029; 

499059, 3719017; 498910, 3719042; 

498899, 3719044; 498888, 3719047; 

498877, 3719051; 498866, 3719054; 

498856, 3719059; 498845, 3719064; 

498743, 3719119; 498736, 3719121; 

498733, 3719122; 498725, 3719123; 

498722, 3719123; 498718, 3719123; 

498715, 3719122; 498708, 3719120; 

498704, 3719118; 498701, 3719116; 

498698, 3719114; 498695, 3719112; 

498679, 3719100; 498672, 3719094; 

498672, 3719094; 498641, 3719071; 

498638, 3719069; 498638, 3718868; 

498638, 3718796; 498638, 3718794; 

498683, 3718804; 498683, 3718805; 

498692, 3718806; 498692, 3718806; 

498694, 3718801; 498695, 3718797; 

498697, 3718793; 498700, 3718789; 

498702, 3718786; 498705, 3718783; 

498708, 3718780; 498711, 3718777; 

498715, 3718775; 498718, 3718773; 

498730, 3718768; 498737, 3718764; 

498744, 3718759; 498750, 3718753; 

498756, 3718747; 498761, 3718741; 

498766, 3718734; 498770, 3718726; 

498773, 3718719; 498776, 3718711; 

498778, 3718703; 498780, 3718690; 

498781, 3718687; 498782, 3718683; 

498784, 3718679; 498786, 3718676; 

498788, 3718673; 498793, 3718667; 

498796, 3718664; 498802, 3718660; 

498806, 3718658; 498809, 3718656; 

498817, 3718654; 498821, 3718654; 

498831, 3718653; 498838, 3718652; 

498844, 3718651; 498850, 3718648; 

498856, 3718646; 498862, 3718642; 

498868, 3718639; 498873, 3718634; 

498877, 3718630; 498882, 3718625; 

498885, 3718619; 498889, 3718614; 

498891, 3718608; 498894, 3718602; 

498895, 3718595; 498896, 3718589; 

498897, 3718582; 498897, 3718571; 

498896, 3718569; 498893, 3718491; 

498893, 3718487; 498892, 3718483; 

498891, 3718479; 498890, 3718476; 

498888, 3718472; 498887, 3718469; 

498884, 3718466; 498882, 3718463; 

498876, 3718457; 498873, 3718454; 

498871, 3718451; 498869, 3718448; 

498866, 3718440; 498865, 3718436; 

498864, 3718433; 498864, 3718432; 

498863, 3718429; 498863, 3718425; 

498864, 3718421; 498864, 3718417; 

498866, 3718409; 498868, 3718405; 

498871, 3718401; 498873, 3718397; 

498897, 3718360; 498899, 3718357; 

498902, 3718354; 498905, 3718351; 

498908, 3718348; 498911, 3718346; 

498915, 3718344; 498919, 3718342; 

498923, 3718341; 498931, 3718338; 

498935, 3718337; 498939, 3718335; 

498942, 3718333; 498949, 3718327; 

498952, 3718324; 498954, 3718321; 

498954, 3718321; 498962, 3718311; 

498969, 3718301; 498978, 3718292; 

498986, 3718283; 498996, 3718275; 

499005, 3718267; 499014, 3718261; 

499009, 3718254; 498845, 3718012; 

498846, 3718004; 498847, 3717997; 

498849, 3717990; 498852, 3717983; 

498856, 3717977; 498860, 3717970; 

498864, 3717965; 498864, 3717964; 

498869, 3717959; 498874, 3717954; 

498879, 3717949; 498882, 3717945; 

498882, 3717945; 498886, 3717940; 

498888, 3717935; 498891, 3717929; 

498893, 3717923; 498894, 3717917; 

498895, 3717912; 498895, 3717906; 

498895, 3717900; 498894, 3717894; 

498893, 3717888; 498891, 3717882; 

498889, 3717877; 498886, 3717871; 

498881, 3717863; 498875, 3717854; 

498839, 3717794; 498842, 3717633; 

498659, 3717635; 498659, 3717635; 

498656, 3717528; 498651, 3717303; 

498651, 3717303; 498669, 3717308; 

499021, 3717392; 499247, 3717391; 

499345, 3717390; 499345, 3717390; 

499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717434; 

499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717434; 

499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 

499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 

499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 

499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717436; 

499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 

499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 

499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717437; 

499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 

499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 

499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 

499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 

499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 

499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 

499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 

499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 

499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 

499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717440; 

499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 

499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 

499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717441; 

499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 

499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 

499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 

499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 

499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 

499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 

499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717443; 

499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 

499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 

499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717444; 

499349, 3717444; 499349, 3717444; 

499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 

499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 

499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717445; 

499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 

499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 

499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 

499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 

499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 

499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 

499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717447; 

499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 

499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 

499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 

499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 

499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 

499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 

499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717449; 

499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 

499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 

499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 

499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 

499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 

499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 

499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 

499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 

499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 

499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717452; 

499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 

499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 

499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 

499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 

499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 

499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 

499350, 3717453; 499349, 3717454; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 

499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 

499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717455; 

499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 

499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 

499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 

499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717456; 

499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 

499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 

499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 

499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 

499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 

499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 

499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717458; 

499349, 3717458; 499349, 3717458; 

499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514; 

499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514; 

499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 

499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 

499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 

499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717516; 

499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 

499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 

499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 

499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 

499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 

499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 

499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 

499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 

499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 

499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717519; 

499346, 3717519; 499346, 3717519; 

499346, 3717519; 499345, 3717519; 

499345, 3717519; 499345, 3717520; 

499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 

499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 

499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 

499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 

499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 

499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 

499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717522; 

499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 

499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 

499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717523; 

499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 

499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 

499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 

499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 

499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 

499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 

499344, 3717524; 499344, 3717525; 

499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 

499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 

499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 

499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717526; 

499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 

499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 

499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717527; 

499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 

499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 

499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 

499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 

499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 

499344, 3717528; 499343, 3717528; 

499343, 3717528; 499343, 3717529; 

499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 

499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 

499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 

499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717530; 

499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 

499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 

499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 

499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 

499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 

499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 

499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 

499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 

499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 

499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 

499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717533; 

499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 

499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 

499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 

499342, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 

499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 

499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 

499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 

499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 

499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 

499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 

499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 

499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536; 

499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536; 

499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 

499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 

499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 

499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 

499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 

499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717538; 

499340, 3717538; 499340, 3717538; 

499340, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 

499339, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 

499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 

499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 

499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 

499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 

499339, 3717540; 499339, 3717540; 

499339, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 

499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 

499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717541; 

499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 

499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 

499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 

499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717542; 

499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 

499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 

499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 

499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 

499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 

499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 

499336, 3717543; 499336, 3717543; 

499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 

499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 

499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 

499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 

499336, 3717545; 499336, 3717545; 

499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 

499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 

499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 

499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 

499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 

499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 

499334, 3717546; 499334, 3717546; 

499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 

499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 

499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 

499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 

499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 

499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 

499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 

499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 

499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717549; 

499333, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 

499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 

499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 

499332, 3717549; 499331, 3717550; 

499265, 3717629; 499269, 3717629; 

499269, 3717629; 499277, 3717716; 

499284, 3717792; 499284, 3717792; 

499282, 3717803; 499282, 3717803; 

499285, 3717803; 499290, 3717804; 

499296, 3717806; 499302, 3717809; 

499308, 3717812; 499313, 3717815; 

499318, 3717819; 499323, 3717824; 

499375, 3717877; 499551, 3718054; 

499553, 3718057; 499557, 3718060; 

499560, 3718062; 499563, 3718063; 

499567, 3718065; 499571, 3718066; 

499575, 3718067; 499579, 3718067; 

499582, 3718068; 499586, 3718067; 

499590, 3718067; 499594, 3718066; 

499598, 3718065; 499602, 3718063; 

499605, 3718061; 499612, 3718056; 

499613, 3718056; 499605, 3718049; 

499605, 3718049; 499589, 3718033; 

499588, 3718026; 499588, 3718019; 

499588, 3718013; 499588, 3718006; 

499589, 3718000; 499591, 3717994; 

499593, 3717984; 499596, 3717974; 

499600, 3717964; 499604, 3717955; 

499610, 3717946; 499612, 3717943; 

499614, 3717940; 499614, 3717940; 

499623, 3717926; 499622, 3717911; 

499621, 3717907; 499622, 3717899; 

499623, 3717895; 499624, 3717894; 

499621, 3717877; 499606, 3717770; 

499585, 3717626; 499585, 3717626; 

499615, 3717626; 499683, 3717626; 

499901, 3717624; 499903, 3717590; 

499912, 3717430; 499919, 3717323; 

499919, 3717322; 499972, 3717322; 

500032, 3717321; 500350, 3717271; 

500421, 3717259; 500421, 3717152; 

500445, 3717103; 500445, 3717103; 

500363, 3717091; 500216, 3717069; 

500178, 3717063; 500188, 3716806; 

500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 

500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 

500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716804; 

500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 

500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 

500187, 3716804; 500187, 3716804; 

500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 

500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 

500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 

500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716802; 

500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 

500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 

500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 

500187, 3716802; 500186, 3716801; 

500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 

500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 

500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 

500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28841 

500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 

500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 

500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716799; 

500186, 3716799; 500186, 3716799; 

500186, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 

500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 

500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716798; 

500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 

500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 

500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 

500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 

500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 

500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 

500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716796; 

500185, 3716796; 500185, 3716796; 

500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 

500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 

500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 

500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 

500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 

500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716794; 

500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 

500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 

500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 

500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 

500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 

500184, 3716793; 500183, 3716793; 

500183, 3716793; 500183, 3716792; 

500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 

500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 

500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 

500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 

500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 

500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 

500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716790; 

500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 

500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 

500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716789; 

500183, 3716789; 500183, 3716789; 

500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 

500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 

500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 

500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 

500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 

500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 

500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 

500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 

500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 

500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716786; 

500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 

500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 

500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 

500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 

500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 

500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 

500181, 3716785; 500181, 3716784; 

500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 

500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 

500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 

500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 

500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 

500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 

500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 

500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 

500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 

500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716781; 

500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 

500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 

500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 

500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716780; 

500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 

500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 

500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716779; 

500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 

500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 

500180, 3716779; 500180, 3716779; 

500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 

500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 

500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 

500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 

500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 

500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 

500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 

500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 

500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 

500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 

500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 

500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 

500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 

500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 

500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 

500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 

500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 

500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716773; 

500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 

500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 

500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 

500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716772; 

500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 

500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 

500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716771; 

500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 

500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 

500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 

500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 

500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 

500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 

500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 

500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 

500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 

500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 

500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 

500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 

500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716767; 

500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 

500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 

500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 

500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 

500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 

500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 

500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 

500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 

500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716453; 

500180, 3716396; 500181, 3716131; 

500010, 3716115; 499920, 3716070; 

499820, 3716020; 499809, 3716013; 

499809, 3716013; 499804, 3716010; 

499676, 3716013; 499676, 3716013; 

499675, 3715929; 499675, 3715929; 

499669, 3715926; 499560, 3715877; 

499560, 3716013; 499560, 3716013; 

499417, 3716012; 499415, 3716012; 

499415, 3715832; 499252, 3715812; 

499195, 3715717; 499166, 3715670; 

499158, 3715600; 499158, 3715600; 

499147, 3715508; 499034, 3715357; 

499025, 3715330; 499025, 3715330; 

498939, 3715072; 498844, 3715034; 

498768, 3715025; 498637, 3714966; 

498637, 3714966; 498621, 3714959; 

498590, 3714804; 498564, 3714680; 

498549, 3714412; 498565, 3714290; 

498549, 3714218; 498549, 3714073; 

498468, 3714072; 498460, 3714072; 

498284, 3714069; 498285, 3714010; 

498285, 3714005; 498119, 3714003; 

498005, 3714001; 497973, 3714001; 

497909, 3714000; 497865, 3713999; 

497817, 3713999; 497762, 3713998; 

497762, 3713998; 497611, 3714040; 

497536, 3714122; 497328, 3714352; 

497167, 3714371; 497116, 3714377; 

497116, 3714379; 497116, 3714385; 

497115, 3714483; 497118, 3714774; 

497118, 3714797; 497118, 3714799; 

497114, 3714799; 497109, 3714799; 

495457, 3714793; 494866, 3714791; 

494879, 3714858; 494858, 3714858; 

494815, 3714786; 494012, 3714783; 

493832, 3714783; 493832, 3714783; 

493831, 3714783; 492831, 3714782; 

492830, 3714782; 492635, 3714782; 

492640, 3714780; 492640, 3714780; 

492548, 3714782; 492548, 3714782; 

492548, 3714782; 492530, 3714782; 

492516, 3714782; 492406, 3714782; 

492327, 3714782; 492302, 3714782; 

492300, 3714782; 492300, 3714921; 

492300, 3714921; 492328, 3714940; 

492356, 3714959; 492687, 3715186; 

492904, 3715335; 493417, 3715698; 

493428, 3715706; 493435, 3715699; 

493475, 3715656; 493525, 3715654; 

493632, 3715652; 493636, 3715657; 

493747, 3715813; 493814, 3715822; 

493824, 3715823; 493971, 3715842; 

494048, 3715838; 494148, 3715832; 

494196, 3715830; 494280, 3715807; 

494400, 3715775; 494439, 3715774; 

494489, 3715772; 494574, 3715770; 

494648, 3715751; 494705, 3715736; 

494797, 3715672; 494849, 3715635; 

494888, 3715590; 494926, 3715546; 

495057, 3715609; 495261, 3715609; 

495324, 3715562; 495350, 3715588; 

495396, 3715635; 495445, 3715692; 

495465, 3715715; 495473, 3715724; 

495513, 3715731; 495617, 3715749; 

495720, 3715760; 495740, 3715762; 

495901, 3715758; 495942, 3715754; 

495999, 3715749; 496083, 3715728; 

496245, 3715719; 496295, 3715753; 

496295, 3715753; 496389, 3715711; 

496401, 3715711; 496473, 3715708; 

496482, 3715708; 496516, 3715707; 

496572, 3715731; 496630, 3715758; 

496723, 3715865; 496828, 3715931; 

496851, 3715946; 496901, 3715996; 

497000, 3716094; 497018, 3716113; 

497075, 3716169; 497087, 3716217; 

497138, 3716403; 497179, 3716557; 

497164, 3716735; 497079, 3716780; 

496941, 3716855; 496702, 3717093; 

496840, 3717214; 496911, 3717221; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

496923, 3717212; 496973, 3717159; 

496989, 3717131; 497050, 3717075; 

497075, 3717034; 497077, 3716950; 

497077, 3716930; 497098, 3716915; 

497184, 3716884; 497316, 3716877; 

497377, 3716851; 497413, 3716861; 

497426, 3716905; 497385, 3716966; 

497359, 3716994; 497230, 3717067; 

497197, 3717111; 497182, 3717179; 

497182, 3717281; 497151, 3717314; 

497129, 3717352; 497131, 3717380; 

497139, 3717394; 497140, 3717394; 

497196, 3717418; 497258, 3717442; 

497268, 3717443; 497284, 3717456; 

497322, 3717527; 497350, 3717552; 

497380, 3717606; 497380, 3717611; 

497380, 3717611; 497380, 3717644; 

497230, 3717728; 497213, 3717720; 

497207, 3717714; 497177, 3717720; 

497124, 3717711; 497074, 3717682; 

497067, 3717693; 497060, 3717703; 

496479, 3717674; 496121, 3717689; 

496063, 3717606; 495943, 3717435; 

495885, 3717410; 495808, 3717461; 

495722, 3717442; 495693, 3717365; 

495626, 3717331; 495492, 3717331; 

495452, 3717314; 495452, 3717314; 

495449, 3717312; 495352, 3717269; 

495117, 3717216; 495046, 3717218; 

494959, 3717221; 494805, 3717221; 

494694, 3717187; 494522, 3717154; 

494358, 3717139; 494243, 3717144; 

494123, 3717183; 494070, 3717178; 

493993, 3717149; 493878, 3717197; 

493869, 3717202; 493840, 3717218; 

493734, 3717279; 493633, 3717346; 

493652, 3717379; 493604, 3717408; 

493571, 3717375; 493446, 3717447; 

493364, 3717557; 493246, 3717610; 

493072, 3717688; 493044, 3717692; 

492709, 3717744; 492583, 3717876; 

492569, 3718009; 492737, 3718239; 

492694, 3718421; 492681, 3718477; 

492625, 3718567; 492597, 3718686; 

492618, 3718685; 492618, 3718685; 

492622, 3718670; 492647, 3718567; 

492647, 3718564; 492648, 3718561; 

492649, 3718557; 492650, 3718554; 

492651, 3718551; 492652, 3718550; 

492653, 3718548; 492654, 3718547; 

492655, 3718545; 492657, 3718543; 

492659, 3718541; 492660, 3718540; 

492662, 3718538; 492669, 3718531; 

492680, 3718519; 492684, 3718516; 

492687, 3718513; 492689, 3718510; 

492693, 3718505; 492698, 3718498; 

492699, 3718498; 492703, 3718490; 

492705, 3718485; 492707, 3718481; 

492709, 3718472; 492711, 3718462; 

492711, 3718462; 492756, 3718473; 

492756, 3718473; 492767, 3718421; 

492802, 3718251; 492803, 3718244; 

492806, 3718228; 492806, 3718215; 

492804, 3718205; 492802, 3718197; 

492801, 3718193; 492799, 3718187; 

492797, 3718181; 492792, 3718170; 

492785, 3718159; 492778, 3718149; 

492778, 3718149; 492768, 3718137; 

492762, 3718129; 492671, 3718014; 

492938, 3718015; 493045, 3718015; 

493543, 3718017; 493845, 3718018; 

493849, 3717608; 493849, 3717608; 

494138, 3717605; 494643, 3717601; 

495049, 3717603; 495453, 3717605; 

495453, 3717607; 495455, 3717771; 

495461, 3718399; 494976, 3718407; 

494783, 3718411; 494656, 3718413; 

494628, 3718414; 494621, 3718414; 

494602, 3718414; 494417, 3718417; 

494345, 3718419; 494296, 3718419; 

494217, 3718421; 494103, 3718423; 

493928, 3718426; 493840, 3718428; 

493840, 3718428; 493848, 3718672; 

493858, 3719011; 493861, 3719091; 

493864, 3719200; 493864, 3719210; 

493864, 3719210; 493864, 3719210; 

493864, 3719210; 493979, 3719209; 

494214, 3719206; 494526, 3719203; 

494667, 3719201; 494667, 3719201; 

494667, 3719210; 494668, 3719409; 

494668, 3719617; 494669, 3719801; 

494670, 3720032; 494671, 3720447; 

494671, 3720447; thence returning to 

494486, 3720445. Excluding land 

bounded by 499546, 3716748; 499545, 

3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 

3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 

3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 

3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 

3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 

3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 

3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 

3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 

3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 

3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499542, 

3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 

3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 

3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 

3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 

3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 

3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 

3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 

3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 

3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 

3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499539, 

3716748; 499539, 3716748; 499539, 

3716748; 499539, 3716749; 499539, 

3716749; 499539, 3716749; 499538, 

3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 

3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 

3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 

3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 

3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 

3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 

3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499536, 

3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 

3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 

3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499535, 

3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 

3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 

3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 

3716749; 499534, 3716749; 499534, 

3716749; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 

3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 

3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499533, 

3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 

3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 

3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 

3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 

3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 

3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 

3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499531, 

3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 

3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 

3716751; 499531, 3716751; 499531, 

3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 

3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 

3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 

3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499529, 

3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 

3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 

3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 

3716751; 499528, 3716751; 499528, 

3716751; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 

3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 

3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499527, 

3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 

3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 

3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 

3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 

3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 

3716752; 499526, 3716753; 499526, 

3716753; 499526, 3716753; 499525, 

3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 

3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 

3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 

3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499524, 

3716753; 499524, 3716753; 499524, 

3716753; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 

3716754; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 

3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 

3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 

3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 

3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 

3716754; 499522, 3716754; 499522, 

3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 

3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 

3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499521, 

3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 

3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 

3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 

3716755; 499521, 3716756; 499520, 

3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 

3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 

3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 

3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499519, 

3716756; 499519, 3716756; 499519, 

3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 

3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 

3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499518, 

3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 

3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 

3716757; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 

3716758; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 

3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 

3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 

3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 

3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 

3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 

3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 

3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 

3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 

3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499515, 

3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28843 

3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 

3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 

3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499514, 

3716760; 499514, 3716760; 499514, 

3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 

3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 

3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 

3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499513, 

3716761; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 

3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 

3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 

3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 

3716762; 499512, 3716762; 499512, 

3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 

3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 

3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 

3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 

3716763; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 

3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 

3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 

3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 

3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 

3716765; 499511, 3716765; 499510, 

3716765; 499508, 3716768; 499493, 

3716786; 499493, 3716786; 499492, 

3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 

3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 

3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 

3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 

3716788; 499492, 3716788; 499491, 

3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 

3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 

3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 

3716788; 499491, 3716789; 499491, 

3716789; 499491, 3716789; 499491, 

3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 

3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 

3716789; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 

3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 

3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 

3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499489, 

3716790; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 

3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 

3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 

3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 

3716791; 499489, 3716792; 499489, 

3716792; 499489, 3716792; 499489, 

3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 

3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 

3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 

3716792; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 

3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 

3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 

3716793; 499487, 3716793; 499487, 

3716793; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 

3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 

3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 

3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 

3716794; 499487, 3716795; 499487, 

3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 

3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 

3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 

3716795; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 

3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 

3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 

3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499485, 

3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 

3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 

3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 

3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 

3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 

3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 

3716798; 499484, 3716798; 499484, 

3716798; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 

3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 

3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 

3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 

3716799; 499484, 3716800; 499484, 

3716800; 499484, 3716800; 499484, 

3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483, 

3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483, 

3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 

3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 

3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 

3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 

3716802; 499483, 3716802; 499483, 

3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 

3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 

3716802; 499482, 3716803; 499482, 

3716803; 499477, 3716812; 499477, 

3716813; 499453, 3716862; 499453, 

3716862; 499453, 3716862; 499444, 

3716871; 499353, 3716944; 499347, 

3716948; 499248, 3717028; 499067, 

3716918; 498635, 3716657; 498635, 

3716657; 498634, 3716602; 498629, 

3716418; 498795, 3716421; 499116, 

3716425; 499299, 3716427; 499334, 

3716428; 499415, 3716429; 499415, 

3716429; 499806, 3716412; 499810, 

3716412; 499814, 3716412; 499816, 

3716856; 499816, 3716856; 499809, 

3716855; 499684, 3716831; 499675, 

3716825; 499659, 3716812; 499602, 

3716769; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 

3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 

3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 

3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499563, 

3716752; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 

3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 

3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 

3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 

3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 

3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 

3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499561, 

3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 

3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 

3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 

3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 

3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 

3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 

3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499559, 

3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 

3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 

3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 

3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 

3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 

3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 

3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499557, 

3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 

3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 

3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499556, 

3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 

3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 

3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 

3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 

3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 

3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 

3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499554, 

3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 

3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 

3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 

3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 

3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 

3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 

3716749; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 

3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 

3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 

3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499551, 

3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 

3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 

3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499550, 

3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 

3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 

3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 

3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 

3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 

3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 

3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499548, 

3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 

3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 

3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499547, 

3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 

3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 

3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 

3716748; thence returning to 499546, 

3716748. Continuing to include as 

Critical Habitat lands bounded by 

500357, 3718083; 500349, 3718085; 

500340, 3718087; 500331, 3718087; 

500321, 3718087; 500315, 3718086; 

500311, 3718086; 500302, 3718083; 

500296, 3718082; 500293, 3718081; 

500288, 3718079; 500288, 3718079; 

500274, 3718074; 500274, 3718074; 

500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 

500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 

500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 

500273, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 

500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 

500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 

500272, 3718074; 500271, 3718074; 

500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 

500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 

500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 

500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 

500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 

500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 

500270, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 

500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 

500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 

500269, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 

500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 

500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 

500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 

500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 

500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 

500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 

500267, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 

500266, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 

500266, 3718073; 500251, 3718072; 

500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 

500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 

500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

500250, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 

500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 

500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 

500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 

500248, 3718072; 500248, 3718072; 

500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071; 

500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071; 

500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 

500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 

500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 

500247, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 

500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 

500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 

500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 

500245, 3718071; 500245, 3718071; 

500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 

500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 

500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 

500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 

500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 

500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 

500244, 3718070; 500243, 3718070; 

500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 

500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 

500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 

500243, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 

500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 

500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718068; 

500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 

500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 

500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 

500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 

500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718067; 

500241, 3718067; 500241, 3718067; 

500241, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 

500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 

500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718066; 

500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 

500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 

500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 

500239, 3718066; 500239, 3718066; 

500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 

500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 

500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 

500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718064; 

500239, 3718064; 500239, 3718064; 

500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 

500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 

500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718063; 

500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 

500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 

500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 

500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 

500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 

500238, 3718062; 500237, 3718062; 

500237, 3718062; 500237, 3718061; 

500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 

500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 

500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 

500237, 3718060; 500232, 3718060; 

500227, 3718060; 500226, 3718060; 

500224, 3718060; 500222, 3718060; 

500222, 3718060; 500222, 3718050; 

500222, 3718050; 500222, 3718050; 

500222, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 

500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 

500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 

500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 

500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 

500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 

500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 

500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 

500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 

500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 

500219, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 

500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 

500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 

500218, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 

500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 

500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 

500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 

500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 

500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 

500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 

500216, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 

500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 

500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 

500215, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 

500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 

500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 

500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 

500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 

500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 

500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 

500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 

500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 

500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 

500212, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 

500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 

500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 

500211, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 

500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 

500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 

500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 

500209, 3718050; 500209, 3718050; 

500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 

500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 

500209, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 

500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 

500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 

500208, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 

500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 

500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 

500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 

500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 

500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 

500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 

500206, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 

500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 

500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 

500205, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 

500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 

500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 

500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 

500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 

500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 

500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 

500202, 3718049; 500202, 3718049; 

500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 

500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 

500202, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 

500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 

500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 

500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 

500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 

500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 

500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 

500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 

500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 

500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 

500199, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 

500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 

500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 

500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 

500197, 3718048; 500197, 3718048; 

500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 

500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 

500197, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 

500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 

500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 

500196, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 

500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 

500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 

500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 

500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 

500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 

500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 

500194, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 

500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 

500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718046; 

500193, 3718046; 500193, 3718046; 

500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 

500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 

500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 

500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 

500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 

500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 

500191, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 

500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 

500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 

500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 

500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 

500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 

500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 

500189, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 

500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 

500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 

500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 

500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 

500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 

500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718044; 

500187, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 

500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 

500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 

500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 

500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 

500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 

500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 

500185, 3718044; 500184, 3718044; 

500184, 3718044; 500184, 3718043; 

500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 

500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 

500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 

500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 

500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 

500183, 3718043; 500182, 3718043; 

500182, 3718043; 500182, 3718045; 

500180, 3718050; 500178, 3718056; 

500178, 3718062; 500177, 3718067; 

500178, 3718073; 500178, 3718079; 

500179, 3718084; 500181, 3718090; 

500185, 3718099; 500186, 3718102; 

500187, 3718105; 500187, 3718109; 

500188, 3718115; 500187, 3718119; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28845 

500186, 3718125; 500185, 3718129; 

500182, 3718135; 500136, 3718206; 

500132, 3718212; 500127, 3718218; 

500121, 3718223; 500115, 3718228; 

500109, 3718232; 500102, 3718236; 

500096, 3718239; 500088, 3718242; 

500085, 3718242; 500087, 3718268; 

500087, 3718276; 500086, 3718284; 

500084, 3718292; 500081, 3718299; 

500078, 3718310; 500074, 3718322; 

500071, 3718333; 500070, 3718345; 

500068, 3718357; 500068, 3718369; 

500068, 3718381; 500069, 3718398; 

500069, 3718404; 500069, 3718409; 

500068, 3718415; 500067, 3718421; 

500065, 3718426; 500062, 3718431; 

500033, 3718490; 500031, 3718495; 

500029, 3718500; 500026, 3718504; 

500023, 3718508; 500020, 3718512; 

500016, 3718516; 500006, 3718524; 

500003, 3718526; 499999, 3718530; 

499995, 3718535; 499992, 3718540; 

499989, 3718545; 499987, 3718551; 

499985, 3718557; 499983, 3718563; 

499982, 3718568; 499980, 3718578; 

499977, 3718587; 499973, 3718596; 

499967, 3718607; 499961, 3718619; 

499955, 3718631; 499954, 3718631; 

499952, 3718637; 499949, 3718644; 

499947, 3718651; 499946, 3718658; 

499931, 3718759; 499931, 3718765; 

499931, 3718771; 499932, 3718776; 

499933, 3718782; 499934, 3718788; 

499937, 3718795; 499940, 3718800; 

499941, 3718803; 499942, 3718804; 

499946, 3718813; 499949, 3718821; 

499951, 3718829; 499953, 3718837; 

499954, 3718845; 499954, 3718853; 

499953, 3718862; 499952, 3718870; 

499936, 3718933; 499926, 3718951; 

499944, 3718947; 499944, 3718947; 

499960, 3718944; 500049, 3718925; 

500207, 3718936; 500207, 3718934; 

500208, 3718913; 500210, 3718777; 

500212, 3718650; 500213, 3718633; 

500213, 3718619; 500214, 3718536; 

500366, 3718536; 500366, 3718536; 

500369, 3718517; 500378, 3718435; 

500422, 3718059; 500422, 3718059; 

500403, 3718058; 500403, 3718058; 

500400, 3718060; 500400, 3718060; 

500400, 3718061; 500393, 3718066; 

500385, 3718072; 500376, 3718076; 

500368, 3718080; 500368, 3718080; 

500360, 3718083; 500359, 3718083; 

thence returning to 500357, 3718083. 

Continue to 500187, 3717622; 500000, 

3717623; 499967, 3717713; 499917, 

3717846; 499917, 3717857; 499923, 

3717858; 499927, 3717859; 499931, 

3717860; 499938, 3717863; 499942, 

3717865; 499945, 3717868; 499948, 

3717870; 499953, 3717876; 499955, 

3717880; 499957, 3717883; 499960, 

3717891; 499962, 3717895; 499964, 

3717898; 499967, 3717901; 499969, 

3717904; 499972, 3717907; 499976, 

3717910; 499979, 3717912; 499983, 

3717914; 499986, 3717916; 499990, 

3717917; 499994, 3717918; 499998, 

3717918; 500002, 3717919; 500026, 

3717919; 500026, 3717919; 500213, 

3717924; 500224, 3717924; 500224, 

3717922; 500225, 3717921; 500225, 

3717921; 500230, 3717622; 500230, 

3717622; thence returning to 500187, 

3717622. Continue to 491502, 3714828; 

491542, 3714827; 491542, 3714827; 

491506, 3714754; 491500, 3714742; 

491398, 3714534; 491396, 3714529; 

491376, 3714490; 491306, 3714347; 

491302, 3714339; 491302, 3714339; 

491303, 3714339; 490908, 3713519; 

490764, 3713221; 490740, 3713172; 

490622, 3712839; 490613, 3712849; 

490573, 3712746; 490564, 3712723; 

490542, 3712723; 490550, 3712747; 

490611, 3712919; 490620, 3712944; 

490707, 3713186; 490720, 3713214; 

491262, 3714337; 491261, 3714337; 

491267, 3714350; 491267, 3714350; 

491335, 3714489; 491336, 3714492; 

491409, 3714641; 491463, 3714749; 

491500, 3714824; thence returning to 

491502, 3714828. Continue to 493853, 

3712379; 493853, 3712254; 493776, 

3712306; 493776, 3712403; 493853, 

3712388; thence returning to 493853, 

3712379. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Skinner/ 

Johnson follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28847 

(7) Unit 3: Sage Unit, Riverside 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Sage. Land bounded by the following 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 505035, 

3716405; 505035, 3716405; 505175, 

3716404; 505175, 3716404; 505245, 

3716403; 505267, 3716403; 505380, 

3716402; 505427, 3716402; 505429, 

3716017; 505429, 3715985; 505432, 

3715985; 505727, 3715975; 505831, 

3715971; 505831, 3715971; 505831, 

3715774; 505831, 3715547; 505025, 

3715591; 505025, 3715611; 505026, 

3715641; 505027, 3715789; 505027, 

3715789; 505029, 3715890; 505030, 

3715988; 505032, 3716141; 505032, 

3716189; 505032, 3716189; thence 

returning to 505035, 3716405. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Sage Unit), 

Unit 4 (Wilson Valley Unit), and Unit 5 

(Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Unit) follows: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28849 

(8) Unit 4: Wilson Valley Unit, 

Riverside County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Cahuilla Mountain, Sage, and Vail Lake. 

Land bounded by the following 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 510234, 

3707784; 510234, 3707785; 510234, 

3707800; 510234, 3707808; 509911, 

3707810; 509378, 3707813; 509357, 

3707813; 509356, 3707812; 509356, 

3707812; 509094, 3707816; 509094, 

3707816; 509094, 3707816; 509092, 

3707833; 509092, 3707835; 509064, 

3708174; 509061, 3708213; 509060, 

3708216; 509060, 3708217; 509311, 

3708214; 509360, 3708214; 509412, 

3708213; 509447, 3708213; 509447, 

3708213; 509535, 3708212; 509558, 

3708212; 509712, 3708211; 509854, 

3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509870, 

3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509935, 

3708209; 510386, 3708205; 510689, 

3708203; 511420, 3708197; 511480, 

3708197; 511507, 3708197; 511507, 

3708197; 511507, 3708172; 511507, 

3708066; 511507, 3708066; 511506, 

3707959; 511506, 3707934; 511505, 

3707784; 511504, 3707636; 511504, 

3707594; 511503, 3707514; 511503, 

3707503; 511503, 3707503; 511503, 

3707375; 511502, 3707375; 511087, 

3707383; 510706, 3707390; 510706, 

3707390; 510706, 3707390; 510706, 

3707424; 510704, 3707599; 510702, 

3707780; 510680, 3707780; 510595, 

3707781; thence returning to 510234, 

3707784. Continue to 510706, 3707390; 

510707, 3707301; 510715, 3706625; 

510715, 3706625; 510035, 3706610; 

510035, 3706610; 510025, 3706704; 

510024, 3706709; 510024, 3706712; 

510015, 3706798; 509994, 3707007; 

509994, 3707007; 509973, 3707206; 

509973, 3707206; 509963, 3707305; 

509953, 3707404; 509953, 3707404; 

510609, 3707392; 510678, 3707390; 

thence returning to 510706, 3707390. 

(ii) Note: Unit 4 (Wilson Valley) for 

the Quino checkerspot butterfly is 

depicted on the map in paragraph (7)(ii) 

of this entry. 

(8) Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain 

Unit, Riverside County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Bachelor Mountain, Sage, Pechanga, and 

Vail Lake. Land bounded by the 

following Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 

501858, 3709596; 501858, 3709596; 

502139, 3709646; 502615, 3709631; 

502626, 3709625; 502643, 3709615; 

502643, 3709609; 502642, 3709465; 

502642, 3709465; 502641, 3709286; 

502641, 3709256; 502640, 3709087; 

502640, 3709074; 502640, 3709046; 

503036, 3709037; 503036, 3709037; 

503174, 3709034; 503340, 3709031; 

503433, 3709028; 503434, 3708993; 

503434, 3708987; 503434, 3708987; 

503434, 3708899; 503435, 3708725; 

503435, 3708713; 503435, 3708707; 

503435, 3708707; 503437, 3708213; 

503437, 3708213; 503437, 3708213; 

501828, 3708226; 501828, 3708226; 

501828, 3708226; 501829, 3708245; 

501829, 3708258; 501841, 3708792; 

501844, 3708936; 501849, 3709192; 

501853, 3709344; 501853, 3709354; 

501853, 3709364; thence returning to 

501858, 3709596. Continue to 500229, 

3708250; 500085, 3708249; 499766, 

3708247; 499671, 3708246; 499671, 

3708246; 499668, 3708295; 499768, 

3708331; 499694, 3708419; 499652, 

3708468; 499727, 3708495; 499768, 

3708510; 499887, 3708558; 499915, 

3708657; 499987, 3708725; 500070, 

3708773; 500134, 3708820; 500154, 

3708832; 500220, 3708869; 500220, 

3708868; thence returning to 500229, 

3708250. Continue to 501828, 3708226; 

501830, 3708001; 501831, 3707844; 

501833, 3707599; 501834, 3707442; 

501835, 3707394; 501835, 3707318; 

501835, 3707318; 501550, 3707363; 

501429, 3707383; 501022, 3707448; 

500616, 3707513; 500397, 3707548; 

500210, 3707578; 500210, 3707578; 

500210, 3707582; 500214, 3707723; 

500226, 3708156; 500229, 3708250; 

500229, 3708250; 500229, 3708250; 

500719, 3708249; 501023, 3708249; 

501441, 3708237; 501466, 3708236; 

501737, 3708229; 501801, 3708227; 

501817, 3708226; thence returning to 

501828, 3708226. Continue to 507529, 

3701874; 507531, 3701777; 507532, 

3701729; 507532, 3701729; 507513, 

3701663; 507489, 3701583; 507470, 

3701544; 507352, 3701469; 507350, 

3701469; 507350, 3701467; 507271, 

3701434; 507218, 3701448; 507155, 

3701416; 507129, 3701371; 507113, 

3701304; 507071, 3701262; 506993, 

3701239; 506916, 3701235; 506865, 

3701235; 506805, 3701244; 506703, 

3701200; 506640, 3701170; 506568, 

3701135; 506494, 3701063; 506399, 

3701047; 506264, 3701054; 506246, 

3701061; 506242, 3701061; 506242, 

3701072; 505840, 3701071; 505840, 

3701071; 505840, 3701068; 505840, 

3701068; 505833, 3701068; 505723, 

3701058; 505713, 3701052; 505415, 

3701052; 505035, 3701052; 505013, 

3701052; 504656, 3701290; 504313, 

3701648; 504171, 3701886; 503985, 

3702199; 503837, 3702780; 503528, 

3702954; 503528, 3702954; 503494, 

3702973; 503477, 3702981; 503477, 

3702981; 503417, 3703009; 503271, 

3703077; 503258, 3703095; 503250, 

3703106; 503340, 3703114; 503415, 

3703121; 503866, 3703163; 503873, 

3703164; 503946, 3703171; 503953, 

3703172; 505023, 3703271; 505023, 

3703271; 505026, 3703040; 505026, 

3703040; 505029, 3702852; 505029, 

3702852; 505030, 3702776; 505031, 

3702723; 505031, 3702702; 505039, 

3702145; 505043, 3701881; 505043, 

3701881; 505266, 3701880; 505443, 

3701879; 505443, 3701879; 505722, 

3701878; 505843, 3701877; 505848, 

3701877; 506242, 3701875; 506242, 

3701875; 506242, 3702278; 506244, 

3702278; 506643, 3702274; 506643, 

3702106; 506642, 3702087; 506642, 

3701873; 506642, 3701873; 506657, 

3701873; 506684, 3701873; 507103, 

3701873; 507282, 3701874; thence 

returning to 507529, 3701874. 

(ii) Note: Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak 

Mountain) for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly is depicted on the map in 

paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry. 

(10) Unit 6: Tule Peak Unit, Riverside 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Aguanga, Beauty Mountain, and Anza. 

Land bounded by the following 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527628, 

3703575; 527233, 3703541; 527233, 

3703541; 527232, 3703658; 527230, 

3703925; 527230, 3703934; 527229, 

3704074; 527228, 3704118; 527226, 

3704307; 526831, 3704287; 526824, 

3704287; 526813, 3704286; 526813, 

3704286; 526811, 3704467; 526806, 

3704812; 526803, 3705067; 527305, 

3705070; 527625, 3705073; 527626, 

3704522; 527626, 3704231; 527627, 

3703961; 527627, 3703809; 527627, 

3703725; 527627, 3703709; 527628, 

3703696; 527628, 3703575; thence 

returning to 527628, 3703575. Continue 

to 526311, 3703859; 526400, 3703866; 

526403, 3703470; 526403, 3703470; 

526365, 3703467; 526040, 3703439; 

525983, 3703434; 525980, 3703823; 

525980, 3703835; thence returning to 

526311, 3703859. Continue to 528328, 

3703573; 528328, 3703573; 528310, 

3703558; 528208, 3703471; 528051, 

3703364; 527873, 3703263; 527737, 

3703197; 527631, 3703161; 527630, 

3703161; 527630, 3703161; 527628, 

3703575; 527628, 3703575; 528134, 

3703574; 528153, 3703574; thence 

returning to 528328, 3703573. Continue 

to 526412, 3702730; 526363, 3702718; 

525995, 3702627; 525987, 3702626; 

525605, 3702584; 525588, 3702582; 

525588, 3702582; 525588, 3702696; 

525588, 3702696; 525854, 3702707; 

525986, 3702713; 526140, 3702719; 

526368, 3702728; thence returning to 

526412, 3702730. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Tule Peak) 

and Unit 7 (Bautista) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28851 

(8) Unit 7: Bautista Unit, Riverside 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Anza, Butterfly Peak, Blackburn 

Canyon, and Idyllwild. Land bounded 

by the following Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 

524940, 3714398; 524927, 3714405; 

524915, 3714413; 524912, 3714415; 

524909, 3714416; 524891, 3714427; 

524867, 3714442; 524861, 3714445; 

524843, 3714457; 524824, 3714470; 

524819, 3714473; 524796, 3714488; 

524773, 3714505; 524750, 3714521; 

524727, 3714538; 524704, 3714555; 

524702, 3714557; 524687, 3714568; 

524679, 3714573; 524654, 3714586; 

524629, 3714600; 524617, 3714607; 

524605, 3714614; 524580, 3714629; 

524556, 3714644; 524532, 3714659; 

524513, 3714671; 524509, 3714674; 

524492, 3714686; 524485, 3714690; 

524480, 3714693; 524481, 3714769; 

524482, 3715168; 524477, 3716096; 

524477, 3716098; 524477, 3716098; 

524477, 3716100; 524471, 3716251; 

524469, 3716299; 524465, 3716399; 

524461, 3716501; 524460, 3716518; 

524266, 3716521; 524066, 3716524; 

524027, 3716524; 523864, 3716521; 

523861, 3716521; 523854, 3716740; 

523656, 3716816; 523633, 3716826; 

523462, 3716890; 523431, 3716902; 

523428, 3716906; 523360, 3717007; 

523341, 3717034; 523361, 3717047; 

523540, 3717157; 523666, 3717226; 

523707, 3717229; 523748, 3717231; 

523775, 3717233; 523867, 3717239; 

523874, 3717240; 523880, 3717246; 

523937, 3717306; 523947, 3717323; 

523947, 3717323; 523970, 3717369; 

523961, 3717692; 523961, 3717716; 

523961, 3717716; 523960, 3717730; 

523983, 3717727; 524035, 3717723; 

524048, 3717721; 524066, 3717720; 

524069, 3717725; 524206, 3717824; 

524277, 3717924; 524258, 3717981; 

524258, 3718099; 524324, 3718142; 

524348, 3718208; 524249, 3718307; 

524196, 3718411; 524225, 3718430; 

524431, 3718538; 524632, 3718643; 

524731, 3718695; 524845, 3718714; 

524902, 3718643; 524906, 3718567; 

524864, 3718525; 524797, 3718482; 

524741, 3718468; 524807, 3718373; 

524873, 3718312; 524925, 3718302; 

524982, 3718350; 525058, 3718397; 

525081, 3718405; 525131, 3718553; 

525220, 3718672; 525468, 3718851; 

525745, 3719098; 525416, 3719350; 

525111, 3719584; 524566, 3719376; 

524430, 3719396; 524239, 3719425; 

523912, 3719713; 523615, 3719822; 

523367, 3719822; 523190, 3720727; 

523182, 3720746; 523189, 3720781; 

523152, 3720828; 523144, 3720939; 

523142, 3720964; 522899, 3721091; 

522836, 3721107; 522744, 3721130; 

522579, 3721130; 522394, 3721100; 

522200, 3721091; 521967, 3721149; 

521734, 3721139; 521510, 3721159; 

521365, 3721149; 521205, 3721194; 

521190, 3721198; 520928, 3721236; 

520850, 3721100; 520626, 3721120; 

520374, 3721275; 520189, 3721304; 

519995, 3721343; 519791, 3721460; 

519582, 3721532; 519574, 3721535; 

519479, 3721553; 519098, 3721695; 

518771, 3721772; 518561, 3721822; 

518505, 3721878; 518487, 3721892; 

518467, 3721909; 518364, 3721991; 

518293, 3722048; 518329, 3722089; 

518346, 3722109; 518477, 3722260; 

518335, 3722443; 518113, 3722392; 

517968, 3722358; 517956, 3722392; 

517925, 3722480; 517918, 3722500; 

517913, 3722512; 517756, 3722952; 

517601, 3723163; 517479, 3723317; 

517374, 3723450; 517333, 3723502; 

517919, 3723509; 517950, 3723509; 

518230, 3723509; 518526, 3723509; 

518809, 3723538; 519119, 3723580; 

519345, 3723580; 519570, 3723641; 

519712, 3723679; 520150, 3723679; 

520362, 3723622; 520419, 3723354; 

520334, 3723156; 520673, 3723086; 

521194, 3723178; 521273, 3723192; 

521570, 3723192; 521824, 3723135; 

521993, 3722895; 522318, 3722881; 

522445, 3722881; 522700, 3722796; 

522826, 3722686; 522926, 3722599; 

522949, 3722552; 523039, 3722373; 

523180, 3722147; 523392, 3722118; 

523674, 3722203; 523858, 3722132; 

524070, 3721836; 524211, 3721511; 

524310, 3721158; 524427, 3721017; 

524485, 3720947; 524487, 3720945; 

524515, 3720927; 524945, 3720678; 

525609, 3720409; 526076, 3720080; 

526329, 3719901; 526492, 3719823; 

526491, 3719804; 526480, 3719413; 

526509, 3719413; 526519, 3719413; 

526520, 3719365; 526884, 3719367; 

526885, 3719348; 526890, 3719196; 

526912, 3718594; 526923, 3718593; 

526923, 3718516; 527300, 3718525; 

527316, 3718184; 527316, 3718184; 

527316, 3718184; 527343, 3718185; 

527345, 3718115; 527707, 3718119; 

528111, 3718123; 528117, 3717769; 

528144, 3717769; 528505, 3717777; 

528510, 3717777; 528913, 3717788; 

528913, 3717618; 528912, 3717449; 

528914, 3717449; 528915, 3717385; 

529317, 3717395; 529323, 3717396; 

529719, 3717401; 529719, 3717427; 

529720, 3717427; 529718, 3717640; 

529717, 3717803; 529716, 3717803; 

529716, 3717836; 529714, 3718072; 

529749, 3718072; 529839, 3718072; 

530135, 3718199; 530263, 3718411; 

530503, 3718693; 530573, 3718891; 

530644, 3719188; 530921, 3719188; 

530969, 3719188; 531294, 3718934; 

531322, 3718679; 531322, 3718439; 

531251, 3718143; 531491, 3717888; 

531627, 3717821; 531717, 3717775; 

532000, 3717790; 532155, 3717719; 

532141, 3717521; 531957, 3717366; 

531816, 3717083; 532000, 3717055; 

532212, 3717069; 532593, 3717069; 

532664, 3717394; 532732, 3717483; 

532861, 3717648; 533144, 3717451; 

533341, 3717239; 533666, 3716999; 

533920, 3716759; 534274, 3716603; 

534347, 3716608; 534683, 3716631; 

534881, 3716815; 535149, 3716928; 

535516, 3716857; 535534, 3716835; 

535542, 3716823; 535700, 3716617; 

535815, 3716473; 535971, 3716278; 

535982, 3716264; 536051, 3716216; 

536103, 3716180; 536178, 3716127; 

536251, 3716077; 536265, 3716067; 

536326, 3716031; 536404, 3715985; 

536513, 3715922; 536527, 3715914; 

536604, 3715869; 536705, 3715667; 

536725, 3715627; 536731, 3715615; 

536731, 3715614; 537028, 3715276; 

537338, 3715276; 537391, 3715260; 

537443, 3715246; 537505, 3715228; 

537525, 3715222; 537635, 3715191; 

537925, 3715191; 538016, 3715191; 

538100, 3715186; 538120, 3715185; 

538203, 3715180; 538482, 3715163; 

538580, 3715082; 538722, 3714964; 

538737, 3714952; 538892, 3714824; 

539038, 3714870; 539245, 3714937; 

539434, 3714891; 539515, 3714872; 

539528, 3714869; 539717, 3714824; 

539895, 3714781; 539895, 3714777; 

539923, 3714762; 539922, 3714300; 

539919, 3713604; 539919, 3713579; 

539917, 3713220; 539923, 3712426; 

539923, 3712307; 539524, 3712228; 

539368, 3712239; 539033, 3712239; 

538609, 3712253; 538328, 3712372; 

538242, 3712409; 538327, 3712634; 

538327, 3712635; 538369, 3712974; 

538324, 3713016; 538322, 3713018; 

538214, 3713120; 538143, 3713185; 

537939, 3713208; 537928, 3713209; 

537922, 3713209; 537890, 3713213; 

537621, 3713242; 537084, 3713242; 

537024, 3713218; 537002, 3713210; 

536999, 3713209; 536973, 3713209; 

536963, 3713209; 536732, 3713207; 

536712, 3713207; 536326, 3713211; 

536104, 3713213; 536087, 3713214; 

536086, 3713214; 536072, 3713200; 

536030, 3713158; 535993, 3713121; 

535965, 3713119; 535889, 3713112; 

535844, 3713108; 535753, 3713089; 

535577, 3713167; 535565, 3713177; 

535543, 3713196; 535461, 3713264; 

535419, 3713298; 535402, 3713313; 

535343, 3713362; 535202, 3713459; 

535132, 3713508; 535090, 3713537; 

534887, 3713657; 534804, 3713706; 

534693, 3713771; 534677, 3713790; 

534649, 3713822; 534550, 3713934; 

534375, 3714083; 534261, 3714142; 

534173, 3714187; 534056, 3714213; 

533907, 3714343; 533857, 3714382; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

533725, 3714486; 533690, 3714520; 

533523, 3714681; 533348, 3714837; 

533192, 3714909; 533165, 3714935; 

533114, 3714987; 533075, 3715344; 

532860, 3715448; 532735, 3715539; 

532672, 3715585; 532528, 3715650; 

532423, 3715698; 532386, 3715715; 

532326, 3715725; 532237, 3715740; 

532230, 3715741; 532149, 3715797; 

532106, 3716045; 532030, 3716121; 

532029, 3716122; 532010, 3716141; 

531908, 3716243; 531589, 3716251; 

531547, 3716135; 531543, 3716125; 

531541, 3716120; 531525, 3716075; 

531609, 3715995; 531878, 3715737; 

531878, 3715737; 531712, 3715735; 

531577, 3715733; 531511, 3715732; 

531321, 3715730; 531309, 3715732; 

531302, 3715733; 531207, 3715747; 

531107, 3715762; 531087, 3715765; 

530947, 3715786; 530698, 3715760; 

530680, 3715758; 530607, 3715727; 

530454, 3715659; 530329, 3715726; 

530289, 3715748; 530257, 3715765; 

530080, 3715751; 529885, 3715735; 

529820, 3715730; 529736, 3715723; 

529608, 3715714; 529480, 3715720; 

529473, 3715720; 529402, 3715723; 

529304, 3715728; 529281, 3715775; 

529226, 3715884; 529078, 3715890; 

529069, 3715890; 529064, 3715891; 

529065, 3715917; 529069, 3715977; 

529070, 3716008; 529049, 3716018; 

528908, 3716092; 528869, 3716112; 

528776, 3716112; 528684, 3716112; 

528446, 3716112; 528446, 3716120; 

528433, 3716352; 528421, 3716352; 

528320, 3716352; 528303, 3716352; 

528297, 3716138; 528199, 3716131; 

528199, 3716119; 528198, 3716105; 

528193, 3715962; 528093, 3715970; 

527969, 3715979; 527770, 3715995; 

527770, 3716116; 527771, 3716519; 

527771, 3716525; 527766, 3716525; 

527558, 3716535; 527558, 3716519; 

527560, 3716315; 527560, 3716221; 

527561, 3716130; 527561, 3716125; 

527155, 3716125; 527153, 3716125; 

526959, 3716125; 526853, 3716124; 

526753, 3716124; 526621, 3716124; 

526539, 3716123; 526540, 3716116; 

526549, 3715911; 526549, 3715911; 

526648, 3715908; 526751, 3715906; 

526886, 3715902; 526932, 3715901; 

526939, 3715690; 526946, 3715476; 

526760, 3715480; 526655, 3715482; 

526551, 3715483; 526550, 3715483; 

526547, 3715571; 526543, 3715682; 

526543, 3715689; 526439, 3715689; 

526343, 3715689; 526343, 3715678; 

526342, 3715569; 526341, 3715534; 

526340, 3715474; 526237, 3715468; 

526138, 3715462; 526138, 3715449; 

526138, 3715227; 526138, 3715029; 

526138, 3714927; 526138, 3714911; 

526139, 3714828; 526139, 3714627; 

526139, 3714428; 526139, 3714417; 

526136, 3714417; 526124, 3714417; 

526125, 3714112; 526121, 3714112; 

526052, 3714115; 526036, 3714116; 

526017, 3714118; 525989, 3714122; 

525972, 3714124; 525961, 3714125; 

525933, 3714129; 525929, 3714130; 

525905, 3714133; 525878, 3714138; 

525857, 3714139; 525828, 3714140; 

525800, 3714142; 525791, 3714142; 

525772, 3714144; 525744, 3714146; 

525725, 3714148; 525716, 3714149; 

525687, 3714152; 525670, 3714154; 

525659, 3714156; 525631, 3714160; 

525603, 3714164; 525576, 3714169; 

525549, 3714174; 525548, 3714174; 

525520, 3714179; 525516, 3714180; 

525492, 3714185; 525465, 3714192; 

525437, 3714198; 525410, 3714206; 

525403, 3714207; 525383, 3714213; 

525355, 3714221; 525328, 3714229; 

525301, 3714238; 525297, 3714239; 

525287, 3714243; 525286, 3714243; 

525275, 3714247; 525248, 3714256; 

525243, 3714258; 525221, 3714266; 

525195, 3714276; 525172, 3714286; 

525169, 3714287; 525143, 3714298; 

525117, 3714309; 525091, 3714321; 

525065, 3714333; 525040, 3714345; 

525035, 3714348; 525014, 3714358; 

524989, 3714371; 524964, 3714385; 

thence returning to 524940, 3714398. 

Excluding land bounded by 525336, 

3717346; 525538, 3717338; 525526, 

3717651; 525245, 3717656; 525259, 

3717478; 525275, 3717451; and 

excluding land bounded by 525483, 

3717132; 525482, 3717132; 525478, 

3717134; 525478, 3717134; 525473, 

3717137; 525473, 3717137; 525468, 

3717139; 525468, 3717139; 525463, 

3717142; 525463, 3717142; 525459, 

3717145; 525458, 3717145; 525454, 

3717148; 525454, 3717148; 525449, 

3717151; 525449, 3717151; 525445, 

3717154; 525445, 3717154; 525440, 

3717157; 525440, 3717157; 525436, 

3717160; 525436, 3717160; 525431, 

3717164; 525431, 3717164; 525427, 

3717167; 525427, 3717167; 525423, 

3717170; 525423, 3717171; 525419, 

3717174; 525418, 3717174; 525414, 

3717178; 525414, 3717178; 525410, 

3717181; 525410, 3717181; 525406, 

3717185; 525406, 3717185; 525402, 

3717189; 525402, 3717189; 525398, 

3717193; 525398, 3717193; 525395, 

3717197; 525394, 3717197; 525391, 

3717201; 525391, 3717201; 525387, 

3717205; 525387, 3717205; 525384, 

3717209; 525383, 3717209; 525380, 

3717213; 525380, 3717213; 525377, 

3717217; 525376, 3717218; 525373, 

3717222; 525373, 3717222; 525370, 

3717226; 525370, 3717226; 525367, 

3717231; 525366, 3717231; 525363, 

3717235; 525363, 3717235; 525360, 

3717240; 525360, 3717240; 525357, 

3717244; 525357, 3717244; 525354, 

3717249; 525354, 3717249; 525351, 

3717254; 525255, 3717419; 525269, 

3717240; 525299, 3716874; 525328, 

3716873; 525366, 3716908; 525367, 

3716909; 525367, 3716909; 525368, 

3716910; 525368, 3716910; 525369, 

3716911; 525369, 3716911; 525370, 

3716911; 525370, 3716912; 525371, 

3716912; 525371, 3716913; 525372, 

3716913; 525372, 3716914; 525372, 

3716914; 525373, 3716914; 525373, 

3716915; 525374, 3716915; 525374, 

3716916; 525375, 3716916; 525375, 

3716917; 525376, 3716917; 525376, 

3716917; 525377, 3716918; 525377, 

3716918; 525378, 3716919; 525378, 

3716919; 525379, 3716919; 525379, 

3716920; 525380, 3716920; 525380, 

3716921; 525381, 3716921; 525381, 

3716921; 525382, 3716922; 525382, 

3716922; 525383, 3716923; 525383, 

3716923; 525384, 3716923; 525384, 

3716924; 525385, 3716924; 525385, 

3716925; 525386, 3716925; 525386, 

3716925; 525387, 3716926; 525387, 

3716926; 525388, 3716927; 525388, 

3716927; 525389, 3716927; 525389, 

3716928; 525390, 3716928; 525390, 

3716929; 525391, 3716929; 525392, 

3716929; 525392, 3716930; 525393, 

3716930; 525393, 3716930; 525394, 

3716931; 525394, 3716931; 525395, 

3716932; 525395, 3716932; 525396, 

3716932; 525396, 3716933; 525397, 

3716933; 525397, 3716933; 525398, 

3716934; 525398, 3716934; 525399, 

3716935; 525399, 3716935; 525400, 

3716935; 525400, 3716936; 525401, 

3716936; 525402, 3716936; 525402, 

3716937; 525403, 3716937; 525403, 

3716937; 525404, 3716938; 525404, 

3716938; 525405, 3716938; 525405, 

3716939; 525406, 3716939; 525406, 

3716939; 525407, 3716940; 525408, 

3716940; 525408, 3716940; 525409, 

3716941; 525409, 3716941; 525410, 

3716941; 525410, 3716942; 525411, 

3716942; 525411, 3716942; 525412, 

3716943; 525412, 3716943; 525413, 

3716943; 525414, 3716944; 525414, 

3716944; 525415, 3716944; 525415, 

3716945; 525416, 3716945; 525416, 

3716945; 525417, 3716946; 525418, 

3716946; 525418, 3716946; 525419, 

3716947; 525419, 3716947; 525420, 

3716947; 525420, 3716948; 525421, 

3716948; 525421, 3716948; 525422, 

3716948; 525423, 3716949; 525423, 

3716949; 525424, 3716949; 525424, 

3716950; 525425, 3716950; 525425, 

3716950; 525426, 3716950; 525427, 

3716951; 525427, 3716951; 525428, 

3716951; 525428, 3716952; 525429, 

3716952; 525430, 3716952; 525430, 

3716952; 525431, 3716953; 525431, 

3716953; 525432, 3716953; 525432, 

3716954; 525433, 3716954; 525434, 

3716954; 525434, 3716954; 525435, 

3716955; 525435, 3716955; 525436, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28853 

3716955; 525436, 3716955; 525437, 

3716956; 525438, 3716956; 525438, 

3716956; 525439, 3716957; 525439, 

3716957; 525440, 3716957; 525441, 

3716957; 525441, 3716958; 525442, 

3716958; 525442, 3716958; 525443, 

3716958; 525444, 3716959; 525444, 

3716959; 525445, 3716959; 525445, 

3716959; 525446, 3716960; 525447, 

3716960; 525447, 3716960; 525448, 

3716960; 525448, 3716960; 525449, 

3716961; 525449, 3716961; 525450, 

3716961; 525450, 3716961; 525451, 

3716961; 525451, 3716962; 525452, 

3716962; 525452, 3716962; 525453, 

3716962; 525453, 3716962; 525454, 

3716963; 525455, 3716963; 525455, 

3716963; 525456, 3716963; 525456, 

3716963; 525457, 3716964; 525457, 

3716964; 525458, 3716964; 525458, 

3716964; 525459, 3716965; 525459, 

3716965; 525460, 3716965; 525460, 

3716965; 525461, 3716965; 525461, 

3716966; 525462, 3716966; 525462, 

3716966; 525463, 3716966; 525463, 

3716967; 525464, 3716967; 525464, 

3716967; 525465, 3716967; 525466, 

3716968; 525466, 3716968; 525467, 

3716968; 525467, 3716968; 525468, 

3716969; 525468, 3716969; 525469, 

3716969; 525469, 3716969; 525470, 

3716970; 525470, 3716970; 525471, 

3716970; 525471, 3716970; 525472, 

3716971; 525472, 3716971; 525473, 

3716971; 525473, 3716971; 525474, 

3716972; 525474, 3716972; 525475, 

3716972; 525475, 3716972; 525476, 

3716973; 525476, 3716973; 525477, 

3716973; 525477, 3716974; 525478, 

3716974; 525478, 3716974; 525479, 

3716974; 525479, 3716975; 525480, 

3716975; 525480, 3716975; 525481, 

3716976; 525481, 3716976; 525482, 

3716976; 525482, 3716976; 525483, 

3716977; 525483, 3716977; 525484, 

3716977; 525484, 3716978; 525485, 

3716978; 525485, 3716978; 525486, 

3716979; 525486, 3716979; 525487, 

3716979; 525487, 3716979; 525487, 

3716980; 525488, 3716980; 525488, 

3716980; 525489, 3716981; 525489, 

3716981; 525490, 3716981; 525490, 

3716982; 525491, 3716982; 525491, 

3716982; 525492, 3716983; 525492, 

3716983; 525493, 3716983; 525493, 

3716984; 525494, 3716984; 525494, 

3716984; 525495, 3716984; 525495, 

3716985; 525496, 3716985; 525496, 

3716985; 525496, 3716986; 525497, 

3716986; 525497, 3716986; 525498, 

3716987; 525498, 3716987; 525499, 

3716987; 525499, 3716988; 525500, 

3716988; 525500, 3716989; 525501, 

3716989; 525501, 3716989; 525502, 

3716990; 525502, 3716990; 525502, 

3716990; 525503, 3716991; 525503, 

3716991; 525504, 3716991; 525504, 

3716992; 525505, 3716992; 525505, 

3716992; 525506, 3716993; 525506, 

3716993; 525506, 3716993; 525507, 

3716994; 525507, 3716994; 525508, 

3716995; 525508, 3716995; 525509, 

3716995; 525509, 3716996; 525510, 

3716996; 525510, 3716996; 525510, 

3716997; 525511, 3716997; 525511, 

3716997; 525512, 3716998; 525512, 

3716998; 525513, 3716999; 525513, 

3716999; 525513, 3716999; 525514, 

3717000; 525514, 3717000; 525515, 

3717001; 525515, 3717001; 525516, 

3717001; 525516, 3717002; 525516, 

3717002; 525517, 3717002; 525517, 

3717003; 525518, 3717003; 525518, 

3717004; 525518, 3717004; 525519, 

3717004; 525519, 3717005; 525520, 

3717005; 525520, 3717006; 525520, 

3717006; 525521, 3717006; 525521, 

3717007; 525522, 3717007; 525522, 

3717008; 525522, 3717008; 525523, 

3717008; 525523, 3717009; 525524, 

3717009; 525524, 3717010; 525524, 

3717010; 525525, 3717011; 525525, 

3717011; 525526, 3717011; 525526, 

3717012; 525526, 3717012; 525527, 

3717013; 525527, 3717013; 525528, 

3717013; 525528, 3717014; 525528, 

3717014; 525529, 3717015; 525529, 

3717015; 525530, 3717016; 525530, 

3717016; 525530, 3717016; 525531, 

3717017; 525531, 3717017; 525531, 

3717018; 525532, 3717018; 525532, 

3717019; 525533, 3717019; 525533, 

3717019; 525533, 3717020; 525534, 

3717020; 525534, 3717021; 525534, 

3717021; 525535, 3717022; 525535, 

3717022; 525535, 3717023; 525536, 

3717023; 525536, 3717023; 525536, 

3717024; 525537, 3717024; 525537, 

3717025; 525538, 3717025; 525538, 

3717026; 525538, 3717026; 525539, 

3717027; 525539, 3717027; 525539, 

3717027; 525540, 3717028; 525540, 

3717028; 525540, 3717029; 525541, 

3717029; 525541, 3717030; 525541, 

3717030; 525542, 3717031; 525542, 

3717031; 525542, 3717032; 525543, 

3717032; 525543, 3717033; 525543, 

3717033; 525544, 3717033; 525544, 

3717034; 525544, 3717034; 525545, 

3717035; 525545, 3717035; 525545, 

3717036; 525546, 3717036; 525546, 

3717037; 525546, 3717037; 525547, 

3717038; 525547, 3717038; 525547, 

3717039; 525548, 3717039; 525548, 

3717040; 525548, 3717040; 525548, 

3717041; 525549, 3717041; 525549, 

3717042; 525549, 3717042; 525550, 

3717043; 525550, 3717043; 525550, 

3717043; 525551, 3717044; 525551, 

3717044; 525551, 3717045; 525551, 

3717045; 525552, 3717046; 525552, 

3717046; 525552, 3717047; 525553, 

3717047; 525553, 3717048; 525553, 

3717048; 525553, 3717049; 525554, 

3717049; 525554, 3717050; 525554, 

3717050; 525555, 3717051; 525555, 

3717051; 525555, 3717052; 525555, 

3717052; 525556, 3717053; 525556, 

3717053; 525556, 3717054; 525557, 

3717054; 525557, 3717055; 525557, 

3717055; 525557, 3717056; 525558, 

3717056; 525558, 3717057; 525558, 

3717057; 525558, 3717058; 525559, 

3717058; 525559, 3717059; 525559, 

3717059; 525559, 3717060; 525560, 

3717060; 525560, 3717061; 525560, 

3717061; 525560, 3717062; 525561, 

3717063; 525561, 3717063; 525561, 

3717064; 525561, 3717064; 525562, 

3717065; 525562, 3717065; 525562, 

3717066; 525562, 3717066; 525563, 

3717067; 525563, 3717067; 525563, 

3717068; 525563, 3717068; 525564, 

3717069; 525564, 3717069; 525564, 

3717070; 525564, 3717070; 525564, 

3717071; 525565, 3717071; 525565, 

3717072; 525565, 3717072; 525565, 

3717073; 525565, 3717074; 525566, 

3717074; 525566, 3717075; 525566, 

3717075; 525566, 3717076; 525567, 

3717076; 525567, 3717077; 525567, 

3717077; 525567, 3717078; 525567, 

3717078; 525568, 3717079; 525568, 

3717079; 525568, 3717080; 525568, 

3717080; 525568, 3717081; 525569, 

3717082; 525569, 3717082; 525570, 

3717091; 525560, 3717105; 525560, 

3717105; 525555, 3717106; 525555, 

3717106; 525550, 3717107; 525550, 

3717107; 525544, 3717109; 525544, 

3717109; 525539, 3717110; 525539, 

3717110; 525534, 3717111; 525534, 

3717111; 525529, 3717113; 525528, 

3717113; 525523, 3717115; 525523, 

3717115; 525518, 3717117; 525518, 

3717117; 525513, 3717118; 525513, 

3717118; 525508, 3717120; 525508, 

3717120; 525503, 3717122; 525503, 

3717123; 525498, 3717125; 525497, 

3717125; 525493, 3717127; 525492, 

3717127; 525488, 3717129; 525487, 

3717129; and excluding land bounded 

by 525380, 3716871; 525388, 3716870; 

525389, 3716878; 525375, 3716878; 

525372, 3716871; and excluding land 

bounded by 525434, 3716924; 525433, 

3716924; 525433, 3716924; 525432, 

3716923; 525432, 3716923; 525431, 

3716923; 525431, 3716923; 525430, 

3716922; 525430, 3716922; 525429, 

3716922; 525429, 3716921; 525428, 

3716921; 525428, 3716921; 525427, 

3716921; 525427, 3716920; 525426, 

3716920; 525426, 3716920; 525425, 

3716919; 525425, 3716919; 525424, 

3716919; 525424, 3716918; 525423, 

3716918; 525423, 3716918; 525422, 

3716918; 525422, 3716917; 525421, 

3716917; 525421, 3716917; 525420, 

3716916; 525420, 3716916; 525419, 

3716916; 525419, 3716915; 525418, 

3716915; 525418, 3716915; 525417, 

3716915; 525417, 3716914; 525416, 

3716914; 525416, 3716914; 525415, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3716913; 525415, 3716913; 525414, 

3716913; 525414, 3716912; 525413, 

3716912; 525413, 3716912; 525412, 

3716911; 525412, 3716911; 525412, 

3716911; 525411, 3716910; 525411, 

3716910; 525410, 3716910; 525410, 

3716909; 525409, 3716909; 525409, 

3716909; 525408, 3716908; 525408, 

3716908; 525407, 3716908; 525407, 

3716907; 525406, 3716907; 525406, 

3716907; 525405, 3716906; 525405, 

3716906; 525405, 3716906; 525404, 

3716905; 525404, 3716905; 525403, 

3716905; 525403, 3716904; 525402, 

3716904; 525402, 3716904; 525402, 

3716885; 525419, 3716876; 525435, 

3716876; 525471, 3716881; 525472, 

3716881; 525473, 3716881; 525473, 

3716881; 525474, 3716881; 525474, 

3716881; 525475, 3716881; 525476, 

3716880; 525476, 3716880; 525477, 

3716880; 525477, 3716880; 525478, 

3716879; 525478, 3716879; 525479, 

3716879; 525479, 3716879; 525480, 

3716878; 525480, 3716878; 525481, 

3716877; 525481, 3716877; 525482, 

3716877; 525482, 3716876; 525483, 

3716876; 525483, 3716875; 525483, 

3716875; 525484, 3716874; 525484, 

3716874; 525485, 3716873; 525485, 

3716873; 525485, 3716872; 525486, 

3716872; 525486, 3716871; 525486, 

3716871; 525486, 3716870; 525487, 

3716870; 525487, 3716869; 525487, 

3716868; 525487, 3716868; 525487, 

3716867; 525487, 3716867; 525715, 

3716858; 526066, 3716845; 526065, 

3716845; 526061, 3716847; 526061, 

3716847; 526057, 3716849; 526057, 

3716849; 526052, 3716850; 526052, 

3716850; 526048, 3716852; 526048, 

3716852; 526044, 3716854; 526044, 

3716854; 526039, 3716856; 526039, 

3716856; 526035, 3716858; 526035, 

3716858; 526031, 3716860; 526031, 

3716860; 526027, 3716862; 526027, 

3716863; 526023, 3716865; 526022, 

3716865; 526019, 3716867; 526018, 

3716867; 526014, 3716869; 526014, 

3716870; 526010, 3716872; 526010, 

3716872; 526007, 3716875; 526006, 

3716875; 526003, 3716877; 526002, 

3716877; 525999, 3716880; 525999, 

3716880; 525995, 3716883; 525995, 

3716883; 525991, 3716885; 525991, 

3716886; 525987, 3716888; 525987, 

3716888; 525984, 3716891; 525984, 

3716891; 525980, 3716894; 525980, 

3716894; 525977, 3716897; 525976, 

3716897; 525973, 3716901; 525973, 

3716901; 525970, 3716904; 525969, 

3716904; 525966, 3716907; 525966, 

3716907; 525963, 3716910; 525963, 

3716910; 525960, 3716914; 525959, 

3716914; 525956, 3716917; 525956, 

3716917; 525953, 3716921; 525953, 

3716921; 525950, 3716924; 525950, 

3716924; 525947, 3716928; 525947, 

3716928; 525944, 3716931; 525944, 

3716932; 525941, 3716935; 525941, 

3716935; 525938, 3716939; 525938, 

3716939; 525935, 3716943; 525935, 

3716943; 525933, 3716947; 525933, 

3716947; 525930, 3716951; 525930, 

3716951; 525927, 3716954; 525927, 

3716955; 525925, 3716958; 525925, 

3716959; 525923, 3716962; 525922, 

3716963; 525920, 3716967; 525920, 

3716967; 525918, 3716971; 525918, 

3716971; 525916, 3716975; 525916, 

3716975; 525914, 3716978; 525912, 

3716981; 525909, 3716985; 525906, 

3716989; 525902, 3716992; 525899, 

3716996; 525896, 3716999; 525892, 

3717003; 525889, 3717006; 525886, 

3717010; 525882, 3717013; 525878, 

3717016; 525875, 3717019; 525871, 

3717023; 525867, 3717026; 525863, 

3717029; 525860, 3717031; 525856, 

3717034; 525852, 3717037; 525848, 

3717040; 525844, 3717042; 525840, 

3717045; 525835, 3717047; 525831, 

3717050; 525827, 3717052; 525823, 

3717055; 525818, 3717057; 525814, 

3717059; 525810, 3717061; 525805, 

3717063; 525801, 3717065; 525796, 

3717067; 525792, 3717068; 525787, 

3717070; 525783, 3717072; 525778, 

3717073; 525773, 3717074; 525769, 

3717076; 525764, 3717077; 525759, 

3717078; 525755, 3717079; 525750, 

3717080; 525745, 3717081; 525740, 

3717082; 525736, 3717083; 525731, 

3717083; 525724, 3717084; 525612, 

3717098; 525596, 3717085; 525595, 

3717076; 525595, 3717075; 525594, 

3717074; 525594, 3717073; 525594, 

3717073; 525594, 3717072; 525593, 

3717071; 525593, 3717071; 525593, 

3717070; 525593, 3717069; 525592, 

3717069; 525592, 3717068; 525592, 

3717068; 525592, 3717067; 525592, 

3717066; 525591, 3717066; 525591, 

3717065; 525591, 3717065; 525591, 

3717064; 525590, 3717063; 525590, 

3717063; 525590, 3717062; 525590, 

3717062; 525589, 3717061; 525589, 

3717060; 525589, 3717060; 525589, 

3717059; 525588, 3717059; 525588, 

3717058; 525588, 3717057; 525588, 

3717057; 525587, 3717056; 525587, 

3717056; 525587, 3717055; 525587, 

3717055; 525586, 3717054; 525586, 

3717053; 525586, 3717053; 525585, 

3717052; 525585, 3717052; 525585, 

3717051; 525585, 3717050; 525584, 

3717050; 525584, 3717049; 525584, 

3717049; 525583, 3717048; 525583, 

3717047; 525583, 3717047; 525583, 

3717046; 525582, 3717046; 525582, 

3717045; 525582, 3717045; 525581, 

3717044; 525581, 3717043; 525581, 

3717043; 525581, 3717042; 525580, 

3717042; 525580, 3717041; 525580, 

3717041; 525579, 3717040; 525579, 

3717039; 525579, 3717039; 525578, 

3717038; 525578, 3717038; 525578, 

3717037; 525577, 3717037; 525577, 

3717036; 525577, 3717036; 525576, 

3717035; 525576, 3717034; 525576, 

3717034; 525575, 3717033; 525575, 

3717033; 525575, 3717032; 525574, 

3717032; 525574, 3717031; 525574, 

3717031; 525573, 3717030; 525573, 

3717029; 525573, 3717029; 525572, 

3717028; 525572, 3717028; 525572, 

3717027; 525571, 3717027; 525571, 

3717026; 525571, 3717026; 525570, 

3717025; 525570, 3717024; 525570, 

3717024; 525569, 3717023; 525569, 

3717023; 525569, 3717022; 525568, 

3717022; 525568, 3717021; 525567, 

3717021; 525567, 3717020; 525567, 

3717020; 525566, 3717019; 525566, 

3717019; 525566, 3717018; 525565, 

3717018; 525565, 3717017; 525564, 

3717016; 525564, 3717016; 525564, 

3717015; 525563, 3717015; 525563, 

3717014; 525563, 3717014; 525562, 

3717013; 525562, 3717013; 525561, 

3717012; 525561, 3717012; 525561, 

3717011; 525560, 3717011; 525560, 

3717010; 525559, 3717010; 525559, 

3717009; 525559, 3717009; 525558, 

3717008; 525558, 3717008; 525557, 

3717007; 525557, 3717007; 525557, 

3717006; 525556, 3717006; 525556, 

3717005; 525555, 3717005; 525555, 

3717004; 525555, 3717004; 525554, 

3717003; 525554, 3717003; 525553, 

3717002; 525553, 3717002; 525553, 

3717001; 525552, 3717001; 525552, 

3717000; 525551, 3717000; 525551, 

3716999; 525550, 3716999; 525550, 

3716998; 525550, 3716998; 525549, 

3716997; 525549, 3716997; 525548, 

3716996; 525548, 3716996; 525547, 

3716995; 525547, 3716995; 525547, 

3716994; 525546, 3716994; 525546, 

3716993; 525545, 3716993; 525545, 

3716992; 525544, 3716992; 525544, 

3716992; 525543, 3716991; 525543, 

3716991; 525542, 3716990; 525542, 

3716990; 525542, 3716989; 525541, 

3716989; 525541, 3716988; 525540, 

3716988; 525540, 3716987; 525539, 

3716987; 525539, 3716986; 525538, 

3716986; 525538, 3716986; 525537, 

3716985; 525537, 3716985; 525537, 

3716984; 525536, 3716984; 525536, 

3716983; 525535, 3716983; 525535, 

3716982; 525534, 3716982; 525534, 

3716982; 525533, 3716981; 525533, 

3716981; 525532, 3716980; 525532, 

3716980; 525531, 3716979; 525531, 

3716979; 525530, 3716979; 525530, 

3716978; 525529, 3716978; 525529, 

3716977; 525528, 3716977; 525528, 

3716976; 525527, 3716976; 525527, 

3716976; 525526, 3716975; 525526, 

3716975; 525525, 3716974; 525525, 

3716974; 525524, 3716974; 525524, 

3716973; 525523, 3716973; 525523, 

3716972; 525522, 3716972; 525522, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28855 

3716971; 525521, 3716971; 525521, 

3716971; 525520, 3716970; 525520, 

3716970; 525519, 3716969; 525519, 

3716969; 525518, 3716969; 525518, 

3716968; 525517, 3716968; 525517, 

3716967; 525516, 3716967; 525516, 

3716967; 525515, 3716966; 525515, 

3716966; 525514, 3716966; 525514, 

3716965; 525513, 3716965; 525513, 

3716964; 525512, 3716964; 525512, 

3716964; 525511, 3716963; 525510, 

3716963; 525510, 3716963; 525509, 

3716962; 525509, 3716962; 525508, 

3716961; 525508, 3716961; 525507, 

3716961; 525507, 3716960; 525506, 

3716960; 525506, 3716960; 525505, 

3716959; 525505, 3716959; 525504, 

3716959; 525504, 3716958; 525503, 

3716958; 525502, 3716957; 525502, 

3716957; 525501, 3716957; 525501, 

3716956; 525500, 3716956; 525500, 

3716956; 525499, 3716955; 525499, 

3716955; 525498, 3716955; 525498, 

3716954; 525497, 3716954; 525496, 

3716954; 525496, 3716953; 525495, 

3716953; 525495, 3716953; 525494, 

3716952; 525494, 3716952; 525493, 

3716952; 525492, 3716951; 525492, 

3716951; 525491, 3716951; 525491, 

3716950; 525490, 3716950; 525490, 

3716950; 525489, 3716950; 525489, 

3716949; 525488, 3716949; 525487, 

3716949; 525487, 3716948; 525486, 

3716948; 525486, 3716948; 525485, 

3716947; 525485, 3716947; 525484, 

3716947; 525483, 3716946; 525483, 

3716946; 525482, 3716946; 525482, 

3716946; 525481, 3716945; 525480, 

3716945; 525480, 3716945; 525479, 

3716944; 525479, 3716944; 525478, 

3716944; 525478, 3716944; 525477, 

3716943; 525476, 3716943; 525476, 

3716943; 525475, 3716943; 525475, 

3716942; 525474, 3716942; 525473, 

3716942; 525473, 3716941; 525472, 

3716941; 525472, 3716941; 525471, 

3716941; 525471, 3716940; 525470, 

3716940; 525469, 3716940; 525469, 

3716940; 525468, 3716939; 525468, 

3716939; 525467, 3716939; 525466, 

3716939; 525466, 3716938; 525465, 

3716938; 525465, 3716938; 525464, 

3716938; 525463, 3716937; 525463, 

3716937; 525462, 3716937; 525462, 

3716937; 525461, 3716936; 525460, 

3716936; 525460, 3716936; 525459, 

3716936; 525458, 3716936; 525458, 

3716935; 525457, 3716935; 525457, 

3716935; 525456, 3716935; 525456, 

3716935; 525455, 3716934; 525455, 

3716934; 525454, 3716934; 525454, 

3716934; 525453, 3716934; 525453, 

3716933; 525452, 3716933; 525452, 

3716933; 525451, 3716933; 525451, 

3716932; 525450, 3716932; 525450, 

3716932; 525449, 3716932; 525449, 

3716931; 525448, 3716931; 525448, 

3716931; 525447, 3716931; 525446, 

3716931; 525446, 3716930; 525445, 

3716930; 525445, 3716930; 525444, 

3716930; 525444, 3716929; 525443, 

3716929; 525443, 3716929; 525442, 

3716929; 525442, 3716928; 525441, 

3716928; 525441, 3716928; 525440, 

3716928; 525440, 3716927; 525439, 

3716927; 525439, 3716927; 525438, 

3716927; 525438, 3716926; 525437, 

3716926; 525437, 3716926; 525436, 

3716926; 525436, 3716925; 525435, 

3716925; 525435, 3716925; and 

excluding land bounded by 526091, 

3716237; 526123, 3716234; 526132, 

3716233; 526136, 3716233; 526136, 

3716292; 526136, 3716423; 526136, 

3716548; 526166, 3716550; 526362, 

3716559; 526366, 3716559; 526374, 

3716741; 526380, 3716866; 526386, 

3716992; 526278, 3716986; 526183, 

3717080; 526131, 3717037; 526131, 

3717037; 526125, 3717031; 526122, 

3716959; 526119, 3716866; 526118, 

3716843; 526104, 3716453; 525716, 

3716463; 525596, 3716466; 525300, 

3716473; 525291, 3716474; 525289, 

3716474; 525223, 3716474; 525115, 

3716474; 525115, 3716382; 525115, 

3716378; 525076, 3716378; 525084, 

3716279; 524986, 3716282; 524885, 

3716286; 524875, 3716286; 524875, 

3716101; 524875, 3716084; 524875, 

3716082; 525714, 3716048; 525704, 

3716201; 525927, 3716254; and 

excluding land bounded by 525777, 

3717434; 526121, 3717419; 526120, 

3717641; 525770, 3717647. 

(ii) Note: Unit 7 (Bautista) for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly is depicted 

on the map in paragraph (10)(ii) of this 

entry. 

(8) Unit 8: Otay Unit, San Diego 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Jamul Mountains, Dulzura, Otay Mesa, 

Otay Mountain, and Tecate. Land 

bounded by the following Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 

coordinates (E, N): 505693, 3606447; 

505703, 3606427; 505702, 3606427; 

505702, 3606426; 505693, 3606046; 

505691, 3605963; 505687, 3605768; 

505677, 3605363; 505668, 3604969; 

505635, 3604959; 505560, 3604935; 

505239, 3604836; 505150, 3604808; 

505147, 3604807; 505125, 3604572; 

505124, 3604564; 504912, 3604574; 

504650, 3604587; 504549, 3604707; 

504464, 3604807; 503596, 3604788; 

503441, 3604784; 503423, 3604784; 

502983, 3604518; 502810, 3604205; 

502732, 3604207; 502715, 3605000; 

502151, 3605003; 502141, 3605216; 

502141, 3605222; 502335, 3605289; 

502913, 3605488; 502919, 3605481; 

502922, 3605478; 503260, 3605591; 

503260, 3605593; 503257, 3605604; 

503255, 3605606; 503274, 3605613; 

503537, 3605704; 503545, 3605706; 

503856, 3605814; 503909, 3605832; 

503935, 3605840; 504176, 3605924; 

504337, 3605979; 504546, 3606052; 

504617, 3606076; 504799, 3606141; 

505139, 3606262; 505378, 3606338; 

505594, 3606413; 505692, 3606446; 

505693, 3606447; thence returning to 

505693, 3606447. Continue to 506421, 

3607499; 506490, 3607502; 506512, 

3607503; 506510, 3607549; 506510, 

3607549; 506489, 3607885; 506564, 

3607917; 506564, 3607917; 506776, 

3608010; 506859, 3608047; 506976, 

3608221; 507010, 3608271; 507025, 

3608294; 507168, 3608518; 507452, 

3608739; 507453, 3608758; 507569, 

3608830; 507852, 3608932; 507977, 

3608971; 508040, 3609097; 508040, 

3609363; 508199, 3609449; 508324, 

3609517; 508518, 3609622; 508714, 

3609755; 508740, 3609897; 508745, 

3609928; 508824, 3610006; 508996, 

3610006; 509114, 3610061; 509177, 

3610137; 509190, 3610152; 509192, 

3610155; 509333, 3610179; 509420, 

3610202; 509490, 3610163; 509537, 

3610108; 509537, 3610202; 509553, 

3610351; 509725, 3610390; 509984, 

3610508; 510011, 3610531; 510039, 

3610555; 510149, 3610563; 510305, 

3610500; 510517, 3610469; 510666, 

3610508; 510713, 3610641; 510792, 

3610822; 510828, 3610885; 510909, 

3611025; 510930, 3611061; 511066, 

3611284; 511301, 3611402; 511497, 

3611417; 511497, 3611226; 511497, 

3611221; 511676, 3611260; 511787, 

3611284; 512102, 3611553; 512218, 

3611653; 512210, 3611672; 512171, 

3611755; 512265, 3612060; 512273, 

3612311; 512352, 3612421; 512508, 

3612507; 512610, 3612531; 512691, 

3612505; 512759, 3612484; 512785, 

3612488; 512844, 3612496; 512872, 

3612501; 512916, 3612507; 513018, 

3612593; 513049, 3612664; 513144, 

3612719; 513261, 3612742; 513266, 

3612803; 513267, 3612819; 513269, 

3612844; 513295, 3612845; 513313, 

3612846; 513418, 3612851; 513457, 

3612852; 513567, 3612758; 513567, 

3612664; 513567, 3612523; 513620, 

3612383; 513653, 3612295; 513880, 

3612084; 513953, 3612024; 514096, 

3611906; 514147, 3611864; 514249, 

3611966; 514177, 3611992; 514163, 

3611998; 514139, 3612068; 513990, 

3612209; 513888, 3612217; 513786, 

3612350; 513763, 3612499; 513810, 

3612617; 513833, 3612627; 513935, 

3612672; 514006, 3612774; 514147, 

3612876; 514148, 3612877; 514232, 

3612971; 514280, 3613025; 514335, 

3613158; 514406, 3613236; 514471, 

3613282; 514539, 3613330; 514546, 

3613351; 514552, 3613367; 514610, 

3613526; 514798, 3613636; 514939, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3613730; 515036, 3613762; 515127, 

3613793; 515179, 3613793; 515192, 

3613793; 515292, 3613793; 515354, 

3613848; 515235, 3613960; 515225, 

3613970; 515221, 3613973; 515228, 

3613982; 515252, 3614011; 515292, 

3614059; 515297, 3614078; 515307, 

3614110; 515322, 3614162; 515331, 

3614193; 515389, 3614212; 515410, 

3614219; 515519, 3614255; 515707, 

3614342; 515935, 3614420; 516107, 

3614428; 516264, 3614420; 516405, 

3614420; 516562, 3614420; 516686, 

3614366; 516687, 3614365; 516716, 

3614316; 516746, 3614265; 516797, 

3614177; 516837, 3614113; 516853, 

3614086; 516860, 3614075; 516861, 

3614075; 516945, 3614047; 516977, 

3614036; 517103, 3614036; 517346, 

3614028; 517487, 3613942; 517491, 

3613951; 517496, 3613962; 517496, 

3613962; 517498, 3613967; 517565, 

3614114; 517565, 3614271; 517518, 

3614451; 517377, 3614436; 517197, 

3614451; 517024, 3614404; 516899, 

3614467; 516711, 3614530; 516687, 

3614544; 516475, 3614671; 516409, 

3614712; 516391, 3614722; 516370, 

3614735; 516347, 3614749; 516309, 

3614772; 516281, 3614789; 516256, 

3614804; 515982, 3614812; 515903, 

3614828; 515793, 3614867; 515648, 

3614946; 515605, 3614969; 515480, 

3615118; 515413, 3615147; 515370, 

3615165; 515369, 3615155; 515354, 

3615024; 515322, 3614927; 515315, 

3614906; 515221, 3614843; 515237, 

3614734; 515307, 3614593; 515323, 

3614451; 515252, 3614279; 515158, 

3614224; 515043, 3614170; 515041, 

3614169; 515020, 3614135; 514994, 

3614091; 514923, 3614005; 514839, 

3613953; 514781, 3613916; 514759, 

3613903; 514737, 3613812; 514737, 

3613811; 514727, 3613769; 514637, 

3613726; 514580, 3613699; 514563, 

3613691; 514536, 3613673; 514414, 

3613589; 514312, 3613495; 514218, 

3613370; 514188, 3613266; 514177, 

3613225; 514163, 3613174; 514100, 

3613056; 514022, 3613017; 513928, 

3612938; 513818, 3612821; 513801, 

3612835; 513783, 3612852; 513747, 

3612883; 513637, 3613025; 513583, 

3613059; 513490, 3613118; 513488, 

3613119; 513421, 3613141; 513371, 

3613158; 513366, 3613135; 513347, 

3613056; 513285, 3612993; 513120, 

3613072; 513034, 3612931; 512900, 

3612907; 512806, 3612852; 512704, 

3612695; 512553, 3612659; 512540, 

3612656; 512391, 3612570; 512226, 

3612531; 512140, 3612413; 512124, 

3612295; 512148, 3612123; 512116, 

3611958; 512044, 3611864; 512038, 

3611856; 512037, 3611856; 511981, 

3611841; 511930, 3611826; 511842, 

3611802; 511764, 3611668; 511682, 

3611550; 511677, 3611543; 511513, 

3611551; 511262, 3611512; 511121, 

3611425; 510870, 3611253; 510827, 

3611065; 510827, 3611062; 510815, 

3611010; 510799, 3610997; 510643, 

3610869; 510509, 3610845; 510376, 

3610900; 510334, 3610910; 510236, 

3610934; 510180, 3610947; 510101, 

3610938; 509976, 3610924; 509929, 

3610918; 509906, 3610916; 509608, 

3610767; 509563, 3610759; 509562, 

3610759; 509294, 3610712; 508996, 

3610712; 508800, 3610775; 508773, 

3610776; 508675, 3610783; 508637, 

3610786; 508581, 3610790; 508564, 

3610802; 508385, 3610931; 508369, 

3611080; 508361, 3611159; 508354, 

3611160; 508344, 3611162; 508226, 

3611186; 508126, 3611206; 508079, 

3611300; 508094, 3611508; 508095, 

3611512; 507961, 3611676; 507679, 

3611786; 507350, 3611778; 507136, 

3611739; 507067, 3611726; 507052, 

3611723; 506926, 3611943; 506853, 

3612078; 506774, 3612225; 506770, 

3612233; 506683, 3612319; 506527, 

3612374; 506370, 3612609; 506363, 

3612643; 506357, 3612669; 506346, 

3612719; 506354, 3612797; 506383, 

3612873; 506346, 3612867; 506269, 

3612995; 506217, 3613021; 506166, 

3613008; 506094, 3613153; 506050, 

3613240; 506054, 3613375; 506054, 

3613388; 506058, 3613539; 506063, 

3613717; 506075, 3613744; 506153, 

3613914; 506176, 3613964; 506269, 

3614165; 506282, 3614194; 506326, 

3614368; 506360, 3614505; 506427, 

3614773; 506437, 3614812; 506449, 

3615804; 506449, 3615986; 506449, 

3615998; 506617, 3616036; 506765, 

3616066; 507068, 3616127; 507175, 

3616245; 507215, 3616290; 507300, 

3616384; 507442, 3616642; 507472, 

3616667; 507738, 3616887; 507686, 

3617093; 507738, 3617389; 507825, 

3617489; 507918, 3617596; 507934, 

3617618; 508086, 3617840; 508315, 

3617902; 508421, 3617931; 508726, 

3617837; 508923, 3617776; 509132, 

3617601; 509478, 3617312; 509563, 

3617128; 509748, 3616732; 509779, 

3616310; 509813, 3615856; 509392, 

3615485; 509271, 3615379; 509234, 

3615102; 509184, 3614742; 509155, 

3614529; 509236, 3614331; 509401, 

3613929; 509461, 3613782; 509571, 

3613835; 509579, 3613838; 509813, 

3613727; 509982, 3613676; 510097, 

3613641; 510615, 3613752; 510972, 

3613542; 511465, 3613197; 511580, 

3613165; 511711, 3613129; 511838, 

3613094; 511884, 3613081; 511909, 

3613074; 511954, 3613137; 512144, 

3613407; 512183, 3613549; 512214, 

3613664; 512279, 3613900; 512345, 

3613974; 512575, 3614233; 512579, 

3614376; 512588, 3614689; 512574, 

3614758; 512501, 3615146; 512378, 

3615158; 512588, 3615441; 512711, 

3615565; 512945, 3615799; 513026, 

3615830; 513204, 3615898; 513401, 

3615676; 513447, 3615669; 513512, 

3615659; 513765, 3615620; 513871, 

3615620; 513890, 3615620; 513907, 

3615634; 514157, 3615839; 514190, 

3615994; 514215, 3616189; 514286, 

3616328; 514299, 3616355; 514300, 

3616356; 514188, 3616418; 514111, 

3616472; 514046, 3616517; 513875, 

3616716; 513840, 3616758; 513526, 

3617123; 513365, 3617321; 513236, 

3617480; 513229, 3617488; 513293, 

3617543; 513417, 3617650; 513458, 

3617686; 513526, 3617695; 513786, 

3617729; 513897, 3617788; 513928, 

3617804; 513945, 3617803; 514207, 

3617798; 514893, 3617785; 514900, 

3617785; 515006, 3617796; 515058, 

3617801; 515165, 3617812; 515236, 

3617819; 515478, 3617844; 515630, 

3617859; 515611, 3618107; 515481, 

3618107; 515438, 3618107; 515482, 

3618290; 515544, 3618554; 515611, 

3618837; 515605, 3618955; 515593, 

3619214; 515528, 3619360; 515478, 

3619473; 515450, 3619536; 515478, 

3619550; 515541, 3619583; 515679, 

3619654; 515772, 3619658; 515872, 

3619662; 516094, 3619672; 516178, 

3619572; 516230, 3619510; 516354, 

3619363; 516425, 3619358; 516661, 

3619344; 516663, 3619344; 517047, 

3619350; 517124, 3619367; 517210, 

3619385; 517337, 3619412; 517334, 

3619334; 517329, 3619217; 517319, 

3618961; 517571, 3618934; 517757, 

3618937; 517982, 3618940; 518000, 

3618925; 518000, 3618875; 518012, 

3618865; 518045, 3618837; 518090, 

3618817; 518100, 3618795; 518108, 

3618778; 518121, 3618751; 518169, 

3618720; 518234, 3618738; 518243, 

3618756; 518252, 3618771; 518306, 

3618751; 518445, 3618664; 518451, 

3618660; 518458, 3618544; 518463, 

3618469; 518231, 3618151; 518231, 

3618151; 518187, 3618129; 518103, 

3617942; 518229, 3617848; 518229, 

3617766; 518232, 3617753; 518303, 

3617445; 518430, 3617371; 518451, 

3617359; 518685, 3617100; 518661, 

3616792; 518661, 3616582; 518664, 

3616578; 518833, 3616360; 519129, 

3616225; 519232, 3616173; 519425, 

3616077; 519610, 3616089; 519795, 

3616184; 519850, 3616212; 520042, 

3616311; 520216, 3616298; 520237, 

3616289; 520308, 3616194; 520313, 

3616187; 520364, 3616142; 520422, 

3616027; 520537, 3615912; 520556, 

3615822; 520556, 3615804; 520556, 

3615669; 520563, 3615490; 520581, 

3615472; 520646, 3615406; 520646, 

3615406; 520665, 3615323; 520627, 

3615272; 520590, 3615249; 520544, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28857 

3615221; 520460, 3615112; 520358, 

3615080; 520269, 3614984; 520246, 

3614963; 520166, 3614888; 520083, 

3614735; 519981, 3614619; 519891, 

3614543; 519880, 3614539; 519821, 

3614517; 519674, 3614524; 519610, 

3614485; 519622, 3614402; 519712, 

3614319; 519643, 3614219; 519642, 

3614216; 519386, 3614216; 519386, 

3614219; 519405, 3614383; 519285, 

3614385; 519148, 3614387; 519034, 

3614389; 519028, 3614285; 519027, 

3614262; 519021, 3614159; 519122, 

3614154; 519149, 3614152; 519148, 

3614093; 519143, 3613551; 519166, 

3613553; 519253, 3613560; 519349, 

3613567; 519392, 3613570; 519447, 

3613531; 519501, 3613493; 519532, 

3613370; 519539, 3613340; 519533, 

3613270; 519528, 3613264; 519469, 

3613193; 519398, 3613116; 519290, 

3613026; 519304, 3613009; 519315, 

3612994; 519374, 3612994; 519386, 

3612994; 519394, 3612990; 519437, 

3612969; 519522, 3612849; 519533, 

3612835; 519622, 3612822; 519680, 

3612854; 519744, 3612879; 519750, 

3612869; 519802, 3612777; 519816, 

3612712; 519827, 3612662; 519895, 

3612614; 519921, 3612595; 519947, 

3612552; 519962, 3612526; 519999, 

3612465; 520035, 3612405; 520085, 

3612322; 520188, 3612073; 520193, 

3612060; 520233, 3611964; 520277, 

3611901; 520294, 3611876; 520360, 

3611781; 520392, 3611736; 520405, 

3611716; 520430, 3611680; 520455, 

3611471; 520559, 3611311; 520640, 

3611187; 520686, 3611192; 520899, 

3611212; 521086, 3611255; 521219, 

3611286; 521276, 3611358; 521332, 

3611382; 521379, 3611376; 521427, 

3611360; 521473, 3611356; 521502, 

3611354; 521619, 3611301; 521669, 

3611290; 521760, 3611257; 521773, 

3611251; 521827, 3611224; 521833, 

3611173; 521869, 3611162; 521933, 

3611109; 521952, 3611059; 521950, 

3611026; 521983, 3611026; 522008, 

3610962; 522002, 3610909; 521922, 

3610915; 521925, 3610905; 521938, 

3610856; 521994, 3610865; 521992, 

3610842; 521983, 3610767; 522005, 

3610678; 522066, 3610623; 522089, 

3610542; 522086, 3610499; 522086, 

3610489; 522032, 3610498; 522005, 

3610503; 522000, 3610498; 521983, 

3610481; 521938, 3610489; 521937, 

3610478; 521933, 3610425; 521899, 

3610436; 521714, 3610428; 521710, 

3610428; 521699, 3610219; 521713, 

3610183; 521728, 3610183; 521778, 

3610181; 521801, 3610181; 521813, 

3610180; 521809, 3610177; 521766, 

3610133; 521705, 3610125; 521676, 

3610087; 521632, 3610030; 521524, 

3609777; 521505, 3609759; 521488, 

3609744; 521477, 3609719; 521469, 

3609701; 521454, 3609669; 521452, 

3609613; 521463, 3609521; 521463, 

3609396; 521457, 3609341; 521452, 

3609293; 521470, 3609254; 521474, 

3609246; 521478, 3608968; 521480, 

3608854; 521447, 3608850; 521393, 

3608843; 521393, 3608793; 521413, 

3608717; 521418, 3608695; 521454, 

3608676; 521491, 3608590; 521499, 

3608523; 521500, 3608522; 521559, 

3608438; 521566, 3608428; 521619, 

3608395; 521691, 3608348; 521752, 

3608309; 521758, 3608306; 521759, 

3608301; 521769, 3608247; 521776, 

3608196; 521777, 3608189; 521777, 

3608181; 521774, 3608092; 521758, 

3608019; 521713, 3607983; 521660, 

3607967; 521566, 3607975; 521557, 

3608025; 521613, 3608092; 521474, 

3608122; 521491, 3608067; 521418, 

3607914; 521251, 3607978; 521229, 

3607922; 521146, 3607936; 521137, 

3607903; 521087, 3607908; 521086, 

3607904; 521073, 3607852; 521123, 

3607833; 521146, 3607823; 521193, 

3607802; 521257, 3607772; 521327, 

3607752; 521368, 3607752; 521385, 

3607722; 521407, 3607702; 521482, 

3607691; 521482, 3607585; 521515, 

3607583; 521533, 3607581; 521552, 

3607580; 521557, 3607700; 521558, 

3607701; 521577, 3607789; 521584, 

3607796; 521645, 3607867; 521652, 

3607875; 521678, 3607895; 521730, 

3607936; 521730, 3607936; 521797, 

3607928; 521866, 3607944; 521911, 

3607967; 521914, 3607966; 521944, 

3607961; 522005, 3607947; 522083, 

3607925; 522125, 3607916; 522161, 

3607903; 522208, 3607900; 522269, 

3607894; 522320, 3607894; 522322, 

3607894; 522406, 3607889; 522500, 

3607908; 522561, 3607883; 522586, 

3607862; 522600, 3607850; 522659, 

3607844; 522728, 3607844; 522756, 

3607847; 522762, 3607853; 522765, 

3607857; 522790, 3607883; 522842, 

3607894; 522887, 3607880; 522910, 

3607879; 523001, 3607872; 523011, 

3607872; 523020, 3607872; 523077, 

3607872; 523082, 3607872; 523122, 

3607900; 523146, 3607916; 523184, 

3607935; 523213, 3607936; 523482, 

3607950; 523517, 3607944; 523877, 

3607876; 523877, 3607682; 523877, 

3607679; 523766, 3607383; 523766, 

3607278; 523766, 3607136; 523824, 

3606885; 523852, 3606766; 523803, 

3606520; 523921, 3606493; 524081, 

3606456; 524234, 3606421; 524481, 

3606347; 524690, 3606220; 524765, 

3606175; 524765, 3606016; 524765, 

3605928; 524683, 3605828; 524543, 

3605657; 524530, 3605361; 524650, 

3605138; 524671, 3605101; 524777, 

3604904; 525282, 3604806; 525578, 

3604806; 526035, 3604695; 526230, 

3604670; 526516, 3604633; 526910, 

3604411; 527231, 3604029; 527255, 

3603647; 526225, 3603542; 524690, 

3603385; 524297, 3603345; 523949, 

3603310; 523903, 3603328; 523826, 

3603359; 523716, 3603410; 523605, 

3603418; 523436, 3603359; 523266, 

3603322; 523106, 3603322; 523097, 

3603322; 522942, 3603314; 522817, 

3603233; 522669, 3603241; 522603, 

3603263; 522456, 3603300; 522213, 

3603336; 522043, 3603359; 521851, 

3603329; 521586, 3603373; 521484, 

3603416; 521409, 3603447; 521345, 

3603523; 521328, 3603543; 521122, 

3603565; 520975, 3603646; 520739, 

3603720; 520709, 3603808; 520677, 

3603808; 520628, 3603808; 520540, 

3603712; 520400, 3603543; 520334, 

3603432; 520334, 3603410; 520334, 

3603300; 520385, 3603115; 520385, 

3603114; 520385, 3603113; 520464, 

3603111; 520464, 3603113; 520474, 

3603233; 520584, 3603292; 520761, 

3603381; 520953, 3603432; 521100, 

3603395; 521196, 3603336; 521321, 

3603189; 521439, 3603138; 521490, 

3603117; 521606, 3603071; 521491, 

3603059; 520456, 3602953; 520365, 

3602944; 520029, 3602910; 519965, 

3602946; 519875, 3602981; 519759, 

3603027; 519509, 3603020; 519398, 

3603049; 519317, 3603182; 519221, 

3603292; 519182, 3603349; 519155, 

3603388; 519140, 3603491; 519133, 

3603587; 519079, 3603707; 519185, 

3603751; 519567, 3603838; 519740, 

3604109; 519866, 3604132; 520085, 

3604171; 520274, 3604282; 520295, 

3604294; 520295, 3604553; 520272, 

3604567; 520011, 3604726; 519849, 

3604862; 519616, 3605059; 519843, 

3605118; 520085, 3605182; 520086, 

3605197; 520140, 3605842; 520155, 

3605855; 520275, 3606158; 520282, 

3606387; 520231, 3606578; 520105, 

3606689; 519958, 3606814; 519910, 

3606867; 519828, 3606956; 519789, 

3606998; 519663, 3607212; 519612, 

3607448; 519612, 3607683; 519634, 

3607809; 519744, 3608030; 519832, 

3608198; 519847, 3608229; 519870, 

3608347; 519865, 3608495; 519862, 

3608604; 519833, 3608645; 519796, 

3608697; 519783, 3608702; 519441, 

3608846; 519253, 3608924; 519089, 

3608934; 519050, 3609038; 518903, 

3609193; 518903, 3609321; 518903, 

3609331; 518920, 3609478; 518936, 

3609609; 518830, 3609666; 518749, 

3609690; 518724, 3609690; 518664, 

3609617; 518651, 3609601; 518561, 

3609584; 518504, 3609690; 518439, 

3609764; 518341, 3609837; 518264, 

3609849; 518178, 3609861; 518047, 

3609764; 517933, 3609698; 517786, 

3609723; 517705, 3609804; 517566, 

3609861; 517509, 3609919; 517436, 

3609992; 517370, 3610049; 517352, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
28858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3610083; 517305, 3610171; 517150, 

3610277; 516946, 3610343; 516710, 

3610326; 516660, 3610326; 516555, 

3610326; 516473, 3610351; 516482, 

3610473; 516473, 3610579; 516514, 

3610734; 516596, 3610791; 516571, 

3610864; 516490, 3611028; 516433, 

3611240; 516433, 3611313; 516367, 

3611427; 516270, 3611460; 516188, 

3611460; 516074, 3611525; 515878, 

3611533; 515826, 3611533; 515770, 

3611533; 515584, 3611582; 515263, 

3611582; 515167, 3611555; 515092, 

3611611; 515087, 3611615; 514997, 

3611634; 514932, 3611647; 514810, 

3611696; 514688, 3611753; 514590, 

3611770; 514508, 3611639; 514440, 

3611602; 514418, 3611590; 514263, 

3611566; 514141, 3611419; 513970, 

3611354; 513774, 3611174; 513766, 

3611052; 513766, 3610954; 513760, 

3610898; 513660, 3610830; 513636, 

3610721; 513574, 3610447; 513417, 

3610447; 513216, 3610447; 512859, 

3610238; 512575, 3609966; 512608, 

3609861; 512723, 3609486; 512255, 

3609486; 512057, 3609424; 511687, 

3609288; 511661, 3609247; 511515, 

3609017; 511515, 3608758; 511626, 

3608413; 511665, 3608355; 511733, 

3608254; 511835, 3608104; 511659, 

3607857; 511589, 3607759; 511239, 

3607768; 511108, 3607771; 510454, 

3607845; 510023, 3608043; 509996, 

3608030; 509560, 3607827; 509708, 

3607543; 509814, 3607452; 509979, 

3607309; 510004, 3607259; 510115, 

3607038; 510312, 3606766; 510300, 

3606629; 510288, 3606483; 510522, 

3606199; 510732, 3606027; 510584, 

3605755; 510670, 3605484; 510769, 

3605213; 510892, 3605077; 510898, 

3605077; 510933, 3605028; 511000, 

3604987; 511089, 3604934; 511191, 

3604871; 511191, 3604777; 511207, 

3604746; 511325, 3604730; 511427, 

3604691; 511591, 3604542; 511623, 

3604416; 511656, 3604360; 511595, 

3604177; 511690, 3604061; 511829, 

3603893; 511989, 3603560; 512187, 

3603474; 512433, 3603412; 512483, 

3603178; 512483, 3602808; 512544, 

3602549; 512882, 3602163; 511729, 

3602052; 511703, 3602049; 511655, 

3602045; 510059, 3601876; 509854, 

3601854; 509239, 3601789; 509184, 

3601783; 509184, 3601818; 509184, 

3601962; 509153, 3602049; 509148, 

3602120; 509145, 3602158; 509145, 

3602237; 509011, 3602455; 509012, 

3602480; 508989, 3602528; 508918, 

3602676; 508894, 3602699; 508810, 

3602802; 508785, 3602833; 508696, 

3602926; 508636, 3602989; 508447, 

3603021; 508392, 3603076; 508361, 

3603107; 508306, 3603201; 508328, 

3603322; 508330, 3603334; 508377, 

3603515; 508377, 3603544; 508377, 

3603571; 508377, 3603732; 508377, 

3603742; 508397, 3603792; 508413, 

3603831; 508494, 3604032; 508491, 

3604051; 508476, 3604148; 508471, 

3604181; 508314, 3604244; 508110, 

3604424; 508043, 3604558; 508024, 

3604597; 508061, 3604667; 508087, 

3604714; 508133, 3604841; 508162, 

3604919; 508173, 3604949; 508162, 

3604969; 508118, 3605051; 508157, 

3605263; 508094, 3605379; 508071, 

3605420; 508173, 3605530; 508165, 

3605694; 508165, 3605993; 508165, 

3606000; 508146, 3606094; 508126, 

3606196; 508118, 3606197; 508024, 

3606209; 507875, 3606227; 507577, 

3606220; 507415, 3606091; 507391, 

3606108; 507277, 3606189; 507137, 

3606288; 507023, 3606407; 506982, 

3606450; 506870, 3606566; 506836, 

3606600; 506834, 3606602; 506825, 

3606607; 506777, 3606635; 506582, 

3606751; 506581, 3606753; 506641, 

3606774; 506671, 3606784; 506619, 

3606934; 506589, 3607018; 506430, 

3607474; thence returning to 506421, 

3607499. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8 (Otay) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28859 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.006</GPH>
28860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(13) Unit 9: La Posta/Campo Unit, San 

Diego County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Cameron Corners, Live Oak Springs, 

Campo, Tierra Del Sol. Land bounded 

by the following Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 

555235, 3612703; 555266, 3612642; 

555282, 3612538; 555299, 3612347; 

555299, 3612204; 555289, 3612185; 

555286, 3612179; 555258, 3612122; 

555255, 3612116; 555250, 3612113; 

555196, 3612065; 555167, 3612040; 

555141, 3612041; 554992, 3612051; 

554790, 3612076; 554773, 3612078; 

554750, 3612088; 554644, 3612135; 

554616, 3612172; 555239, 3612178; 

thence returning to 555235, 3612703. 

Continue to 556851, 3611831; 556851, 

3611792; 556854, 3611388; 556857, 

3610862; 556857, 3610859; 556859, 

3610589; 556859, 3610438; 556861, 

3609806; 556861, 3609643; 556862, 

3608972; 556862, 3608918; 556767, 

3608971; 556662, 3609029; 556154, 

3609661; 556051, 3609942; 555876, 

3610417; 555985, 3610583; 556046, 

3610677; 556107, 3610771; 556044, 

3611140; 556015, 3611311; 556008, 

3611382; 555969, 3611769; 556037, 

3611820; 556037, 3611884; 556041, 

3611885; 556101, 3611901; 556214, 

3611905; 556239, 3611937; 556313, 

3611993; 556440, 3612043; 556442, 

3612043; 556511, 3612053; 556578, 

3611968; 556613, 3611912; 556684, 

3611841; 556758, 3611806; 556815, 

3611806; 556832, 3611806; thence 

returning to 556851, 3611831. Continue 

to 559269, 3608184; 559129, 3608366; 

558512, 3608706; 557788, 3608752; 

557674, 3608729; 557672, 3608729; 

557672, 3608979; 557672, 3608979; 

557793, 3608980; 558433, 3608985; 

559266, 3608992; 559267, 3608896; 

559267, 3608810; 559267, 3608809; 

559268, 3608585; 559268, 3608448; 

559268, 3608441; thence returning to 

559269, 3608184. Continue to 551183, 

3617445; 551182, 3617374; 550771, 

3617373; 550851, 3617445; 551067, 

3617445; thence returning to 551183, 

3617445. Continue to 551992, 3617445; 

552177, 3617445; 552670, 3617384; 

552673, 3617382; 552808, 3617319; 

552870, 3617290; 552901, 3617276; 

552934, 3617205; 552977, 3617113; 

553009, 3617045; 553009, 3617022; 

553009, 3616930; 553009, 3616705; 

553009, 3616544; 553009, 3616397; 

553101, 3616282; 553194, 3616166; 

553285, 3616149; 553340, 3616138; 

553348, 3616137; 553528, 3615859; 

553528, 3615738; 553210, 3615735; 

553209, 3616137; 553101, 3616137; 

552875, 3616135; 552874, 3616544; 

552873, 3616927; 552873, 3616929; 

552873, 3616929; 552872, 3616985; 

552810, 3616984; 552398, 3616983; 

552252, 3616983; 551991, 3616983; 

thence returning to 551992, 3617445. 

Continue to 556827, 3615793; 556828, 

3615737; 556830, 3615408; 556831, 

3614590; 556831, 3614555; 556816, 

3614517; 556830, 3614504; 556831, 

3614197; 556833, 3613792; 556834, 

3613792; 556835, 3613521; 556835, 

3613453; 556837, 3613299; 556840, 

3612986; 556840, 3612930; 556842, 

3612930; 556843, 3612929; 556844, 

3612929; 556844, 3612927; 556844, 

3612927; 556802, 3612921; 556740, 

3612911; 556636, 3612867; 556619, 

3612703; 556553, 3612654; 556515, 

3612626; 556479, 3612608; 556444, 

3612590; 556423, 3612580; 556416, 

3612577; 556521, 3612314; 556400, 

3612275; 556307, 3612263; 556206, 

3612250; 556186, 3612248; 556121, 

3612242; 556039, 3612202; 556022, 

3612193; 556018, 3612187; 555967, 

3612111; 555748, 3612067; 555710, 

3612089; 555707, 3612183; 555704, 

3612270; 555660, 3612423; 555647, 

3612445; 555602, 3612514; 555590, 

3612533; 555584, 3612544; 555577, 

3612572; 555545, 3612703; 555507, 

3612900; 555458, 3613294; 555375, 

3613607; 555290, 3613781; 555280, 

3613802; 555260, 3614054; 555275, 

3614501; 555306, 3614948; 555310, 

3614990; 555337, 3615287; 555386, 

3615398; 555506, 3615673; 555626, 

3615927; 555679, 3616039; 555707, 

3616099; 555753, 3616197; 556016, 

3616272; 556184, 3616320; 556215, 

3616306; 556416, 3616218; 556437, 

3616209; 556570, 3616151; thence 

returning to 556827, 3615793. Continue 

to 551599, 3614195; 551570, 3614263; 

551570, 3614263; 551526, 3614370; 

551520, 3614383; 551521, 3614511; 

551527, 3615370; 551528, 3615536; 

551160, 3615550; 551160, 3615696; 

551159, 3616111; 551186, 3616112; 

551566, 3616122; 551567, 3615699; 

551568, 3615371; 551570, 3614568; 

551600, 3614567; 551600, 3614481; 

551600, 3614370; 551599, 3614263; 

thence returning to 551599, 3614195. 

Continue to 554425, 3615730; 554441, 

3615730; 554522, 3615639; 554643, 

3615503; 554669, 3615392; 554705, 

3615241; 554703, 3615200; 554693, 

3614945; 554663, 3614637; 554666, 

3614487; 554669, 3614396; 554795, 

3614111; 554836, 3614027; 554844, 

3614011; 554957, 3613779; 555058, 

3613574; 555093, 3613469; 555125, 

3613372; 554837, 3613372; 554834, 

3613779; 554437, 3613777; 554435, 

3613777; 554434, 3613580; 554432, 

3613580; 554433, 3613380; 554434, 

3613175; 554435, 3613041; 554435, 

3612974; 554436, 3612795; 554436, 

3612774; 554437, 3612565; 554439, 

3612565; 554440, 3612406; 554440, 

3612406; 554408, 3612449; 554411, 

3612565; 554418, 3612773; 554419, 

3612804; 554427, 3613038; 554432, 

3613175; 554433, 3613218; 554175, 

3613196; 554175, 3613378; 554175, 

3613578; 554175, 3613771; 554102, 

3613775; 554103, 3613775; 554432, 

3613777; 554433, 3613777; 554429, 

3614501; 554429, 3614578; 554425, 

3615390; 554421, 3615720; 554425, 

3615720; thence returning to 554425, 

3615730. Continue to 551780, 3613764; 

551611, 3614166; 552008, 3614166; 

552272, 3614167; 552418, 3614167; 

552419, 3613766; 552275, 3613766; 

552008, 3613765; thence returning to 

551780, 3613764. Continue to 553772, 

3613773; 553780, 3613744; 553775, 

3613536; 553615, 3613536; 553617, 

3613402; 553617, 3613401; 553617, 

3613344; 553549, 3613376; 553194, 

3613222; 552815, 3613352; 552815, 

3613352; 552819, 3613767; 553417, 

3613772; 553612, 3613773; 553772, 

3613774; thence returning to 553772, 

3613773. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 9 (La Posta/ 

Campo) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28861 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2ER17JN09.007</GPH>
28862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(14) Unit 10: Jacumba Unit, San Diego 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Jacumba, and Jacumba OE S. Land 

bounded by the following Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 

coordinates (E, N): 573863, 3613297; 

574023, 3613274; 574161, 3613286; 

574253, 3613292; 574396, 3613303; 

574510, 3613303; 574638, 3613245; 

574759, 3613218; 574955, 3613176; 

575272, 3612817; 575656, 3612485; 

575643, 3612410; 575643, 3612410; 

575586, 3612080; 575458, 3612014; 

575458, 3612014; 575439, 3612004; 

575439, 3612004; 575245, 3611903; 

575131, 3611815; 575017, 3611638; 

575017, 3611608; 575017, 3611608; 

575017, 3611404; 574935, 3611182; 

575207, 3610803; 575428, 3610462; 

575453, 3610310; 575637, 3610253; 

575798, 3610029; 575798, 3610029; 

575801, 3610025; 575696, 3609704; 

575637, 3609610; 575634, 3609606; 

575431, 3609284; 575322, 3609111; 

575204, 3608925; 575204, 3608842; 

575204, 3608780; 575204, 3608757; 

575204, 3608606; 575204, 3608573; 

575204, 3608558; 575172, 3608561; 

574790, 3608586; 574711, 3608610; 

574601, 3608645; 574490, 3608679; 

574390, 3608710; 574377, 3608716; 

574203, 3608800; 574198, 3608803; 

574018, 3608889; 573950, 3608954; 

573770, 3609124; 573586, 3609379; 

573412, 3609620; 573227, 3609838; 

573109, 3609978; 573149, 3610253; 

573259, 3610819; 573038, 3611122; 

573002, 3611221; 572980, 3611281; 

572926, 3611429; 572872, 3611577; 

572831, 3611688; 572824, 3611763; 

572807, 3611925; 572803, 3611958; 

572762, 3612351; 572770, 3612391; 

572850, 3612772; 572860, 3612821; 

573028, 3613163; 573037, 3613182; 

573049, 3613205; 573238, 3613440; 

573433, 3613566; 573668, 3613480; 

573731, 3613440; 573737, 3613337; 

thence returning to 573863, 3613297. 

(ii) Note: Unit 10 (Jacumba) for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly is depicted 

on the map in paragraph (13)(ii) of this 

entry. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 8, 2009, 

Jane Lyder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E9–13800 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES2