[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28776-28862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13800]



[[Page 28775]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha 
quino); Final Rule

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

[[Page 28776]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV23


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas editha quino)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
designating final revised critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Approximately 62,125 acres (ac) (25,141 
hectares (ha)) of habitat in San Diego and Riverside Counties, 
California, are being designated as critical habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. This final revised designation constitutes a 
reduction of approximately 109,479 ac (44,299 ha) from the 2002 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical 
habitat will be available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006 and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. 
Supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 
92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
in this final revised critical habitat designation. For more 
information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly, refer to the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), the original final 
critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on April 15, 
2002 (67 FR 18356); the Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot 
Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (Service 2003a); and the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register 
on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328).

New Information on Subspecies' Description, Life History, Ecology, 
Habitat, and Range

    We received little new information pertaining to the description, 
life history, distribution, ecology, or habitat of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly following the 2008 proposed rule to revise 
critical habitat for this subspecies. The following paragraphs discuss 
the new information that we received, including recent information 
about another host plant species brought to our attention, and 
clarification regarding the subspecies' likely expanded range and 
larval diapause. Please refer to the final listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), and the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register 
on January 17, 2008 (72 FR 3328), for an in-depth discussion of the 
subspecies' biology.
    In 2008, oviposition and larval development of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly were recorded for the first time on a native host 
plant, Collinsia concolor (Chinese houses). The Quino checkerspot 
butterfly was observed using numerous individual C. concolor plants at 
multiple locations in Riverside County (Pratt 2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 1; 
2008c, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. concolor commonly occurs in 
habitats with Plantago erecta (erect plantain), P. patagonica 
(Patagonian plantain), and Anterrhinum coulterianum (Coulter's 
snapdragon) (Pratt 2001, pp. 42-43; Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this 
plant is typically found on north-facing slopes in cooler and moister 
microclimates than where the other host plant species occur (Pratt 
2001, p. 40: Pratt 2008b, p. 1). Quino checkerspot butterflies readily 
oviposit on C. concolor in captivity (Pratt 2001, p. 40). Relatively 
heavy but previously undocumented use of C. concolor at multiple high-
elevation locations suggests that this host plant may become 
increasingly important for maintaining the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
population resilience as habitat conditions become warmer and drier 
(see below and the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section 
for additional discussion regarding climate change). If C. concolor is 
a novel host plant important for maintaining the resilience of 
established populations, it should also facilitate the subspecies' 
adaptation to environmental change that may result from climate change, 
including range shift (Pimm et al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas et al. 2001, 
pp. 577-581; Parmesan 2006, pp. 644, 645, 647). For example, increased 
preference for a novel host plant allowed the brown argus butterfly 
(Aricia agestis) to use habitats that were too cool for the host plants 
it already used, thus permitting the butterfly species to cross 
previously large geographic gaps in its distribution that lacked its 
formerly preferred host plant (Pimm et al. 2001, p. 531; Thomas et al. 
2001, pp. 577-581).
    Next, we did not discuss repeated diapause (the low-metabolic rate 
resting stage of the life cycle) in our January 17, 2008 (72 FR 3328) 
proposed revision to critical habitat. One peer reviewer suggested this 
was an important aspect of the subspecies' biology (see comment 9 
below); therefore, we are adding discussion here. Diapause occurs 
during the larval stage, primarily during summer and fall (Service 
2003a, pp. 7-8). Captive rearing and observation of Quino checkerspot 
butterfly larvae indicate repeated diapause is relatively common (over 
50 percent likelihood for the first year; Pratt 2006, p. 10) and larvae 
can re-enter diapause up to three times (four diapause periods), but 
more than three diapause periods during an individual's life span is 
unusual (Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13).
    Finally, the discussion of Edith's checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas editha; the Quino checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of 
Edith's checkerspot) range shift in our January 17, 2008 (72 FR 33808), 
proposed revision to critical habitat requires clarification. Although 
locally adapted subspecies may shift their distribution within the 
middle of a greater species distribution (which appears to be occurring 
with the Quino checkerspot butterfly's elevation range), the northward 
latitudinal range expansion of subspecies of Edith's checkerspot 
butterfly implied by Parmesan's (1996) study does not apply to the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Because the subspecies' current northern 
range edge is approximately 26 miles (mi) (42 kilometers (km)) south of 
the historical range edge, any northward expansion of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly's current range would

[[Page 28777]]

constitute recolonization within the subspecies' historical latitudinal 
range (San Bernardino and Ventura counties; see Service 2003a, pp. 1-
3).

Behavior and Population Structure

    The best available scientific data indicate that most Quino 
checkerspot butterfly populations have some degree of metapopulation 
structure (Service 2003a, p. 22) and display metapopulation dynamics 
characterized by highly variable habitat occupancy patterns and 
detectability, similar to most subspecies of Edith's checkerspot 
butterfly (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; Service 2003a, pp. 21-27). 
Edith's checkerspot butterfly metapopulation structure is described by 
Ehrlich and Murphy (1987, p. 123) as the subdivision of a population 
into subpopulations that occupy clusters of habitat patches and 
interact extensively. Harrison et al. (1988, p. 360) described Edith's 
checkerspot butterfly metapopulation structure as: ``a set of 
[subpopulations] that are interdependent over ecological time.'' 
Although subpopulations within a metapopulation may change in size 
independently, the probability of a subpopulation existing at a given 
time is not independent, because they are linked by an extirpation and 
mutual recolonization process that occurs every 10 to 100 generations 
(Harrison et al. 1988, p. 360).
    Rare high-density events and dispersal behavior are thought to be 
key elements of Edith's checkerspot butterfly population dynamics that 
structure populations. Harrison (1989, p. 1241) found that although 
dispersal direction from habitat patches seemed to be random in the bay 
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), dispersing 
butterflies were most likely to move into habitat patches when they 
passed within approximately 163 feet (ft) (50 meters (m)) of those 
habitat patches. Dispersing bay checkerspot butterflies tended to 
remain in habitat patches where existing butterfly density was low 
(Harrison 1989, p. 1241). Bay checkerspot butterfly occupancy patterns 
also suggested that unoccupied habitat separated from occupied habitat 
by hilly terrain was less likely to be colonized than habitat separated 
by flat ground (Harrison 1989, p. 1241).
    Harrison (1989, pp. 1241, 1242) concluded that the long-term 
habitat recolonization pattern of her study population was likely due 
to relatively large numbers of bay checkerspot butterflies having 
dispersed from persistent ``source'' subpopulations. Harrison (1989, p. 
1239) found bay checkerspot butterfly habitat within 0.6 mi (1 km) of a 
source subpopulation is 100 percent likely to be colonized by 
immigrants from the source subpopulation. Harrison (1989, p. 1239) also 
recaptured a significant number of individuals in habitat 0.6 mi (1 km) 
from their release point. Over a 5-day period, 5 percent of butterflies 
released at a single location were recaptured in an isolated ``target 
habitat patch'' 0.6 mi (1 km) away (Harrison 1989, p. 1239). Assuming 
mostly random initial movement direction from the release location at 
such a great release distance from the recapture site (Harrison 1989, 
p. 1241), many individuals likely traveled similar or further distances 
outside the study area.
    High habitat colonization rates probably only occur during rare 
outbreak years, when relatively high local densities combine with 
favorable establishment conditions in unoccupied habitat (Harrison 
1989, p. 1242). These rare outbreak events are also thought to play a 
crucial role in Quino checkerspot butterfly metapopulation resilience 
and the subspecies' survival (Murphy and White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich 
and Murphy 1987, p. 127). Therefore, protection and management of 
source subpopulations likely to provide immigrants to unoccupied 
habitat are required for conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly (Service 2003a, pp. 22, 25-26, 35, 94).
    Long-distance dispersal has been documented in the Edith's 
checkerspot butterfly, and dispersal propensity is affected by local 
environmental conditions and subspecies' adaptation. White and Levin 
(1981, pp. 348-357) conducted the only mark-recapture movement study 
that included the Quino checkerspot butterfly. White and Levin (1981, 
pp. 348-357) studied within-habitat patch movement of the Quino and bay 
checkerspot butterfly subspecies in southern San Diego County (male bay 
checkerspots were released into Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
late in the flight season when offspring survival was not considered 
possible). They concluded that patterns of dispersal changed 
``dramatically'' from year to year (White and Levin 1981, p. 348), and 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly was less sedentary than the more 
heavily studied bay checkerspot butterfly (White and Levin 1981, p. 
105). Although the average mark-recapture distance traveled by a Quino 
checkerspot butterfly in White and Levin's (1981, p. 349) study was 
only 305 ft (93 m), movement records were limited to the local study 
area. White and Levin (1981, p. 349) stated, ``It seems likely from the 
lower rate of return in 1972 and from the observed pattern of out-
dispersal that many marked animals dispersed beyond the area covered by 
our efforts that year. This out-dispersal might make the value for 
average distance [traveled] in 1972 an underestimate of significant 
magnitude.'' Long-distance movement in the bay checkerspot butterfly 
has been documented as far as 4 mi (6.4 km) (Murphy and Ehrlich 1980, 
p. 319) and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) (Harrison 1989, p. 1239).
    The above information indicates that, although Edith's checkerspot 
butterflies appear to be capable of long-distance dispersal, their 
movement propensity is variable and driven by external environmental 
factors. By extension, contiguous habitat between two butterflies 
observed 1.2 mi (2 km) from each other is within reasonable flight 
distance of both individuals and should be considered part of a shared 
home range. Therefore, based on typical long-distance recapture 
records, we conclude that Quino checkerspot butterflies observed within 
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) of each other in contiguous habitat belong 
to the same population, and contiguous habitat within at least 1.2 mi 
(2 km) of an observed Quino checkerspot butterfly is part of that 
individual's population distribution.
Delineating Population Distributions
    The best scientific data available to us for use in delineating 
Quino checkerspot butterfly population distributions consist of 
geographic information system (GIS)-based habitat information, 
subspecies observation locations, and subspecies movement data from 
mark-release-recapture studies. Population-scale occupancy (a 
population distribution) is defined as all areas used by adults during 
the persistence time of a population (years to decades; Service 2003a, 
p. 24). Focused distribution studies over multiple years are required 
to quantify Quino checkerspot butterfly population distributions. 
Therefore, the Recovery Plan described Quino checkerspot butterfly 
population locations in terms of ``occurrence complexes'' (Service 
2003a, p. 35), which were simple non-habitat-based estimators of 
population distributions (well-mixed or metapopulation structure) and 
population membership of observed butterflies. Occurrence complexes are 
mapped in the Recovery Plan using a 0.6-mi (1-km) movement radius from 
each butterfly observation and may be based on the observation of a 
single individual. Occurrence locations within at least 1.2 mi (2 km) 
of each other are considered to be part of the same occurrence complex, 
as these occurrences are proximal enough that

[[Page 28778]]

the observed butterflies were likely to have come from the same 
population (Service 2003a, p. 35).
    Occurrence complexes may expand due to new butterfly observations, 
or contract due to habitat loss (for example, mapped occurrence 
complexes were limited by development, see Service 2003a p. 78). 
According to recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly movement distances 
(Gilbert and Singer 1973, pp. 65, 66; Harrison et al. 1988, pp. 367-
380; Harrison 1989, pp. 1239, 1240), occurrence complexes appropriately 
describe the area within which a significant proportion of the habitat 
patch associated with individual observed butterflies is likely to 
occur (see above discussion and Service 2003a, p. 35).
    Some occurrence complexes were identified in the Recovery Plan 
(Service 2003a, p. 35) as ``core.'' Core occurrence complexes are those 
that appear to be centers of population density based on geographic 
size, number of reported individuals, repeated observations, and 
evidence of reproduction. Such population density centers are likely to 
contain ``source'' subpopulations for a Quino checkerspot butterfly 
metapopulation (Murphy and White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, 
p. 125; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 111; Service 2003a pp. 25-26), or 
``source'' populations for megapopulations (a group of populations also 
dependent on one another, but on a time scale greater than that of 
subpopulations; Service 2003a, pp. 21, 24, 25-26). A source 
subpopulation is one in which the emigration rate typically exceeds the 
immigration rate, and is thus a source of colonists for unoccupied 
habitat patches (Service 2003a, p. 166). Therefore, for the purposes of 
critical habitat designation, we defined a core occurrence complex as 
an area where at least two of the following criteria apply: (1) 
Surveyors reported 50 or more adults during a single survey at least 
once; (2) immature life stages were recorded; or (3) the geographic 
area within the occurrence complex (within 0.6 mi (1 km) of subspecies 
occurrences) is greater than 1,290 ac (522 ha; the size of the smallest 
Core Occurrence Complex where reproduction has been documented on 
multiple occasions and there are historical collection records 
indicating long-term resilience).
Status and Local Distribution of Populations in Riverside County
    Occurrence data collected in Riverside County since publication of 
the Recovery Plan in 2003 resulted in expansion of all core occurrence 
complexes and merging of some core occurrence complexes with non-core 
occurrence complexes (see discussion below). In particular, occurrence 
data collections in Riverside County since listing (62 FR 2313; January 
16, 1997) have continued almost annually to expand the known elevation 
limit of the subspecies' range (Pratt et al. 2001, pp. 169-171; Service 
2003a, p. 44; Goldberg 2005, pp. 8, 9; Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5, 
11-12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) GIS 
database). The Bautista Road Occurrence Complex (described as non-core 
in the Recovery Plan) is in a relatively high-elevation valley east of 
Temecula and north of the community of Anza, California. Multiple new 
observations have occurred within and around the Bautista Road 
Occurrence Complex (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Mooney Jones and Stokes 2005, p. 
10). Consistent with criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2003a, p. 35) and above, we now consider the Bautista Road Occurrence 
Complex to be a Core Occurrence Complex.
    From 2004 to 2006, multiple new occurrence locations were also 
reported in the community of Anza, and north and northwest of the 
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, Pine Grove Non-core Occurrence 
Complex, and Lookout Mountain Non-core Occurrence Complex. These new 
Non-core Occurrence Complexes are: (1) Cave Rocks within the community 
of Anza, just north of the intersection of Bautista Road and State 
Route (SR) 371 (AMEC 2004, p. 9); (2) Quinn Flat located between Fobes 
Ranch Road and Morris Ranch Road northeast of Quinn Flat and SR 74 
(Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5, 11-12; Pratt 2005, p. 1; SBNF GIS 
database); (3) Horse Creek adjacent to Bautista Road, southeast of 
Bautista Spring (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Malisch 2006, p. 1); and (4) North 
Rouse Ridge located on Rouse Ridge in the hills east of Bautista 
Canyon, near where Bautista Road exits the foothills (Goldberg 2005, 
pp. 8, 9; SBNF GIS database ). None of these new observation locations 
met two or more of the criteria needed to categorize them as a core 
occurrence complex. However, these new Non-core Occurrence Complexes 
resulted in: (1) An increased number of known occupied areas near the 
community of Anza; (2) an expansion of the subspecies' known geographic 
range at its northeastern extreme (where it had not been previously 
recorded, but within historical latitudinal limits of the subspecies' 
distribution); and (3) an increase in the subspecies' known elevation 
range (Service Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database).
    Recent monitoring information indicates the Tule Peak and Silverado 
Core Occurrence Complexes described in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2003a, p. 44) are part of a single high-density population distribution 
supporting periodic density increases, similar to historical outbreak 
events (Service 2003a, p. 29), such as the 1977 outbreak in San Diego 
County reported by Murphy and White (1984, p. 351) (see also Ehrlich 
and Murphy 1987, p. 127; Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO) 2004; 
Pratt 2004, p. 17). Occupancy in the Silverado Core Occurrence Complex 
was first documented in 1998 (Pratt 2001, p. 17), followed by the 
discovery of hundreds of Quino checkerspot adults in 2001 within the 
Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex (TeraCor 2002, p. 14). Such reports 
of hundreds of adults in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex were 
unprecedented since the 1970s, because, typically, five or fewer 
individuals are reported during project-based surveys (Service GIS 
database).
    In 2004, following a year of above-average host plant density in 
the Anza area (CFWO 2004), another Quino checkerspot butterfly outbreak 
event occurred with even higher abundance than was reported in 2001. An 
estimated 500 to 1000 adult Quino checkerspot butterflies were reported 
from the Silverado Core Occurrence Complex in a single day in 2004 
(Anderson 2007, p. 1; CFWO 2004; Pratt 2004, pp. 16, 17). Additionally, 
more than 30 new occurrence locations with high adult densities were 
reported in 2004 in the vicinity of Tule Peak Road (92 to more than 100 
observations in a single day) south of the Cahuilla Band of Mission 
Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, California (Cahuilla Band of 
Indians), and the community of Anza (Osborne 2004, pp. 1-6, 8-10; 
Anderson 2007, p. 5; CFWO 2004; Osborne 2007, pp. 13-16). Based on 
these new observations, it is appropriate to merge the Tule Peak 
(core), Silverado (core), and Southwest Cahuilla (non-core) occurrence 
complexes to form a single, expanded Tule Peak/Silverado Core 
Occurrence Complex. This population contains higher densities and 
likely produces more emigrants than any other population within the 
subspecies' range.
    The best available scientific data (including recent outbreaks in 
the closest core occurrence complex) suggest the new Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex supports ongoing range shift for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly upslope in elevation, and other non-core 
occurrence complexes north of the community of Anza may be the result 
of recent colonization events.

[[Page 28779]]

Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that the average (not actual) 
position of known Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations had shifted 
north and up in elevation, likely due to a warming, drying climate 
(conclusion supported by the technical recovery team, Service 2003a, 
pp. 64, 65). Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) compared the distribution of 
the Edith's checkerspot butterfly in the early part of the 20th century 
to its distribution from 1994 to 1996 using historical records and 
field surveys. This study identified a rangewide pattern of local 
Edith's checkerspot butterfly extirpations and noted that 80 percent of 
historically recorded populations in the southern part of the range 
were extinct at the time of the re-census in the mid-1990s (with the 
majority being Quino checkerspot butterfly populations). In contrast, 
historically recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations in the 
mid-latitude part of the species' range experienced only 40 percent 
extirpations, and the extirpation rate in the northern part was as low 
as 20 percent (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766). Fewer than 15 percent of 
the Edith's checkerspot butterfly extirpations occurred in the highest 
elevation band (above 7,874 ft (2,400 m)) (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766).
    Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that this pattern of 
extirpation indicates contraction of the southern boundary of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly's overall distribution by almost 100 mi (160 km) 
and a shift in the average location of an Edith's checkerspot butterfly 
occurrence northward by 57 mi (92 km). A parallel elevation gradient in 
extirpations shifted the mean location of Edith's checkerspot butterfly 
populations upward by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint in the pattern of 
extirpations occurred at approximately 7,874 ft (2,400 m), with about 
40 percent of all populations below the breakpoint recorded as 
extirpated in suitable habitats, while less than 15 percent were 
extirpated above the breakpoint. This pattern matched trends in 
snowpack dynamics in the Sierra Nevada (where the high-elevation 
populations are found) over the same period as the butterfly study, 
with significant trends toward lighter snowpack and earlier melt date 
below 7,874 ft (2400 m), and heavier snowpack and a (non-significant) 
trend toward later melt date above 7,874 ft (2400 m) (Johnson et al. 
1999, pp. 63-70). This range shift closely matched shifts in mean 
yearly temperature (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766; Karl et al. 1996, pp. 
279-292). Parmesan's study found extirpations to be most common at 
lower elevations and latitudes, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly's 
range includes both the lower elevation and lower latitude range 
extremes for Edith's checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly may be the subspecies of Edith's checkerspot 
experiencing the greatest effects associated with changes in climate.
    Studies have demonstrated a correlation of population distribution 
and phenology changes with climate change for many other butterfly and 
insect species in California and around the world (Parmesan et al. 
1999, p. 580; Forister and Shapiro 2003, p. 1130; Parmesan and Yohe 
2003, pp. 38, 39; Karban and Strauss 2004, pp. 251-254; Thomas et al. 
2004, pp. 146-147; Osborne and Ballmer 2006, p. 1; Parmesan 2006, pp. 
646-647; Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 415-416). Metapopulation viability 
analyses of other endangered nymphalid butterfly species indicate that 
current climate trends pose a major threat to butterfly metapopulations 
by reducing butterfly growth rates and increasing subpopulation 
extirpation rates (Schtickzelle and Baguette 2004, p. 277; Schtickzelle 
et al. 2005, p. 89). Most recently, Preston et al. (2008, p. 2506) 
incorporated biotic interactions into niche models to predict suitable 
habitat for species under the range of climate conditions predicted for 
southern California in recent climate change models (see also Hayhoe et 
al. 2004, pp. 12422-12427; IPCC 2007, p. 9).
    Preston et al. (2008, p. 2508) found that Quino checkerspot 
butterfly habitat decreased and became fragmented under altered climate 
conditions based on the climate-only model. For increasing temperatures 
and 110 percent precipitation, there was a shift in habitat to the 
eastern portion of the currently occupied range corresponding with an 
upslope movement of the species to higher elevations in adjacent 
mountains (Preston et al. 2008, p. 2508). The abiotic-biotic model 
(better-performing model) predicted 98 to 100 percent loss of suitable 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat when the temperature increased 1.7 
and 2.8 [deg]C (1.5 and 2.5 [deg]F) and when the precipitation was 50 
percent or 150 percent of current levels (Preston et al. 2008, p. 
2508). An increase of less than 1 [deg]C (1.1 [deg]F) with no change in 
current precipitation resulted in no predicted habitat shift, although 
there was an eastward (upslope) shift within the current distributional 
footprint at 110 percent precipitation (Preston et al. 2008, p. 2508). 
Similar climate response patterns in modeled habitat and related and 
co-occurring insect species further support the validity of Parmesan's 
(1996, pp. 765-766) Quino checkerspot butterfly observations and 
conclusions (Preston et al. 2008, pp. 2511, 2512). Therefore, the 
hypothesis of range shift driven by changing climate and precipitation 
patterns occurring in the foothills north of the community of Anza is 
well supported by the best available scientific information.
    Documented environmental changes that have already occurred in 
California (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 124; Croke et al. 1998, pp. 
2128, 2130; Davis et al. 2002, p. 820; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 
15144), future drought predictions for the state (such as Field et al. 
1999, pp. 8-10; Brunell and Anderson 2003, p. 21; Lenihen et al. 2003, 
p. 1667; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Breshears et al. 2005, p. 15144; 
Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9), and 
extirpation of Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations following 
extreme climatic events (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. 101-105; Singer and 
Ehrlich 1979, pp. 53-60; Singer and Thomas 1996, pp. 9-39) model and 
predict that prolonged drought and other environmental changes related 
to changing climate patterns will continue into the near future, and 
these changes may affect Quino checkerspot butterfly populations. 
Thomas et al. (2004, p. 147) estimated that 29 percent of species in 
scrublands (habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly) face eventual 
extinction, and 7 (with dispersal) to 9 (without dispersal) percent of 
butterfly species in Mexico will become extinct (mid-range climate 
predictions; Thomas et al. 2004, p. 146). During drought conditions in 
2007, surveyors noted that, for the first time since the subspecies was 
listed, no Quino checkerspot butterflies were observed during Riverside 
County surveys or core occurrence complex monitoring (CFWO 2007). 
Therefore, recent subspecies field evidence corresponds with the 
hypothesis that changing environmental conditions throughout the 
subspecies' range is resulting in reduced densities at lower 
elevations.
    Maintenance of the Tule Peak/Silverado and Bautista Road core 
occurrence complexes and habitat connectivity to higher elevation non-
core occurrence complexes is needed to prevent an increase in the 
subspecies' extinction probability and support range shift resulting 
from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (Service 
2003a, pp. 46, 47; Osborne 2007, pp. 9-10). The Anza/Mount San Jacinto 
foothills area (in and adjacent to the Bautista Road Core Occurrence 
Complex) is proximal to what is likely the highest density

[[Page 28780]]

population that produces the most emigrants within the subspecies' 
range (Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex) and supports the 
greatest elevation gradient within the extant range of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. Regardless of range-shift dynamics, this area 
likely supports the most resilient populations within the subspecies' 
current range (see above discussion of recent observations in this 
area). As discussed above, evidence of range shift resulting from 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns includes the 
following: (1) Parmesan's (1996) subspecies-specific study; (2) Preston 
et al.'s (2008, pp. 2501-2505) subspecies-specific habitat model 
predictions; (3) recent documented Quino checkerspot butterfly outbreak 
events (discussed above); (4) the complete lack of Quino checkerspot 
butterfly observations in Riverside County during 2007 monitoring; (5) 
documented drought conditions and the likelihood that recurrent drought 
conditions will persist into the near future (see above discussion); 
and (6) the discovery of new non-core occurrence complexes in the most 
northern, highest elevation habitat areas (see above discussion of 
recent observations in this area). Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766) 
range-shift statistics and Preston et al.'s habitat models (2008, pp. 
2501-2505) predict the following Quino checkerspot butterfly population 
changes: (1) Declines in, and loss of, the southernmost and lowest 
elevation populations (lowest elevation range edge already retracted 
likely due to a combination of development and the 1980s drought), 
especially in drier areas where rainfall is most variable (such as 
southwest Riverside County; Anderson 2000, pp. 3, 6); (2) increases in 
the density in the highest elevation populations, especially in wetter 
areas (such as the Anza area; Service 2003a, p. 44); and (3) 
establishment of new populations higher in elevation where range shift 
is least impeded by habitat loss due to land-use changes (such as the 
Mount San Jacinto foothills; Service GIS database and satellite 
imagery).
    The highest elevation core occurrence complexes (Tule Peak/
Silverado and Bautista Road) also support the highest (co-occurring) 
diversity of host plant species (Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum 
coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus (rigid bird's 
beak), and Castilleja exserta (purple owl's-clover)) within the range 
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a factor known to increase 
population resilience (Service 2003a, p. 17) and mitigate the effects 
of climate extremes on Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations 
(Hellman 2002, p. 925). Therefore, prudent design of reserves and other 
managed habitats near the community of Anza, where the subspecies' 
range is likely expanding upslope in elevation, should include 
landscape connectivity to other habitat patches and ecological 
connectivity (habitat patches linked by dispersal areas; Service 2003a, 
p. 162) to accommodate such range shift (Service 2003a, p. 64).
Status and Local Distribution of Populations in San Diego County
    New Quino checkerspot butterfly observations (Service GIS database) 
between occurrence complexes identified in the Recovery Plan have 
resulted in merging of the Otay Valley (core), West Otay Mountain 
(core), Otay Lakes (core), Proctor Valley (non-core), Dulzura (non-
core), and Honey Springs (non-core) occurrence complexes into a single, 
expanded Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex. This merging of 
occurrence complexes in the Otay area was anticipated in the Recovery 
Plan, as authors noted that occupied habitat in the vicinity of Otay 
Lakes and Rancho Jamul appeared to be an area of key landscape 
connectivity for all subpopulations in southwest San Diego County 
(Service 2003a, pp. 53, 54).
    Several widely distributed new observation locations have been 
reported since 2002 in central San Diego County (Dudek 2005, p. 1; 
Faulkner 2005, p. 1; Tierra Environmental Services 2005, p. 4), and 
between Interstate 8 and State Route 94 (TRC 2008, pp. 33-38) resulting 
in four new San Diego County non-core occurrence complexes (Fanita 
Ranch, Sycamore Canyon, and Mission Trails Park, and Barrett Lake). The 
proximity of these occurrence complexes to historical collection 
locations (compare above-cited documents to Service 2003a, p. 3) 
indicates recent detections may reflect short-term increases in 
population densities; however, it is not likely that increasing 
densities will persist, given observed and predicted environmental 
shifts associated with changing climate patterns (see above 
discussion), increasing nonnative plant invasion, and the relative 
isolation of these non-core occurrence complexes from core occurrence 
complexes. Therefore, the best available data indicate that these new 
observation locations may be the result of surveys in areas not 
previously searched and likely represent residual, relatively low-
density populations experiencing a long-term trend of decreasing 
abundance.
    Multiple new Quino checkerspot butterfly observation locations have 
been reported in south-central San Diego County since 2002 east of the 
community of Campo (Dicus 2005a, pp. 1-2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 
2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 2006, pp. 2-4). This cluster of occurrence 
complexes near Campo is over 7 mi (11 km) from the closest previously 
identified core occurrence complex near the community of Jacumba 
(Service 2003a, p. 52; Service GIS satellite imagery and database) and 
over 12 mi (19 km) from the Tecate (non-core) Occurrence Complex 
(Service 2003a, p. 47; Service GIS satellite imagery and database). We 
believe the Quino checkerspot butterfly distribution east of the 
community of Campo is under-documented because of: (1) The small number 
of surveys conducted in this area (Service survey report files); (2) 
the existence of contiguous habitat between observation locations 
(Service GIS vegetation database and satellite imagery); and (3) the 
presence of relatively high densities of Antirrhinum coulterianum and 
Collinsia cocolor host plants in occupied habitat (Bureau of Indian 
Affairs 1992, p. c-5; Allen and Kurnow 2005, pp. 10, 13-16; Dicus 
2005a, pp. 1-2; b, p. 1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 
2006, pp. 1-4, Science Applications International Corporation 2006, pp. 
33, 34, 37).
    Methods used in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 35) to 
determine membership of occurrence locations in an occurrence complex 
using the sparse available occurrence data would likely underestimate 
the population distribution associated with this obviously independent 
population near the communities of La Posta and Campo. Therefore, 
although not quite proximal enough to be considered a single occurrence 
complex based on overlapping 0.6-mi (1-km) movement distances (Service 
2003a, p. 35), we consider this cluster of new observations near Campo 
to belong to a single new La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex.
    Quino checkerspot butterflies were recently observed in a new 
location in southeast San Diego County that resulted in expansion of 
the Jacumba Occurrence Complex (Essex and Osborne 2005, p. 82). 
Additionally, data collected from the Jacumba Occurrence Complex since 
publication of the Recovery Plan led us to reclassify the Jacumba 
complex as a core occurrence complex. The Jacumba Occurrence Complex 
was not classified as a core occurrence complex in the Recovery Plan 
(Service 2003a, p. 52) due to its relatively small geographic size.

[[Page 28781]]

However, adult Quino checkerspot butterflies are consistently observed 
in the area, even during drought years and under difficult survey 
conditions (high winds) (CFWO 2002-2007; Klein 2007, p. 1). An 
estimated 50 individuals were observed in a single day near Jacumba 
Peak (Pratt 2007b, p. 1). Furthermore, reproduction was documented in 
the Jacumba Occurrence Complex in 1998 and again in 2004 (Pratt 2007c, 
p. 1). Therefore, given ongoing documentation of occupancy (Service 
2004, 2005, 2008), documented reproduction over multiple years (Pratt 
2007c, p. 1), reported observations of large numbers of individuals 
(50; Pratt 2007b, p. 1), and an increased occurrence complex area 
(approximately 522 ac (1,290 ha)), we now consider the Jacumba 
Occurrence Complex to be a core occurrence complex associated with what 
appears to be a relatively resilient population.
    The prediction that drought conditions are likely to continue into 
the near future (Service 2003a, pp. 63, 64; see above discussion) 
highlights the importance of conserving populations locally adapted to 
drier climates and diverse habitat types (Service 2003a, p. 76). The La 
Posta/Campo and Jacumba core occurrence complex habitats are warmer and 
drier than the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex and differ 
substantially in other habitat characteristics (Service 2003a, pp. 36-
54; O'Conner 2006, p. 4). Therefore, maintenance of these core 
occurrence complexes is essential for recovery and survival of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly in San Diego County. These new core 
occurrence complexes were also the only complexes in the subspecies' 
southern range not affected by the 2003 and 2005 fires. Therefore, new 
information indicates the La Posta/Campo and Jacumba Core Occurrence 
Complexes contribute significantly to reducing the subspecies' 
extinction probability.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Homebuilders Association of Northern California, et al., filed 
suit against the Service in March 2005 challenging the merits of the 
final critical habitat designations for several taxonomic entities, 
including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. A settlement was reached in 
March 2006 that required the Service to re-evaluate five final critical 
habitat designations, including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 
settlement stipulated that proposed revisions to the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly designation would be submitted for publication to the Federal 
Register by December 7, 2007, and final revisions would be submitted by 
December 7, 2008. In accordance with a court-approved amendment to the 
settlement agreement, dated December 5, 2007, the proposed revisions 
were published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 
3328). Subsequently, a court-approved amendment to the settlement 
agreement dated November 6, 2008, stipulated the Service deliver the 
final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by 
June 6, 2009. For more information on previous Federal actions 
concerning the Quino checkerspot butterfly, refer to the proposed 
revisions to critical habitat published in the Federal Register on 
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule 
to revise critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly during 
two comment periods. The first comment period opened with the 
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 17, 
2008 (73 FR 3328), and closed on March 17, 2008. The second comment 
period opened with the publication of the notice of availability of the 
Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on December 19, 
2008 (73 FR 77568) and closed on January 20, 2009. During both public 
comment periods, we contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposed rule to revise critical habitat 
for this subspecies and the associated DEA. During the comment periods, 
we requested all interested parties submit comments or information 
related to the proposed revisions to critical habitat, including (but 
not limited to) the following: unit boundaries; species occurrence 
information and distribution; land use designations that may affect 
critical habitat; potential economic effects of the proposed 
designation; benefits associated with critical habitat designation; 
areas proposed for designation and associated rationale for the non-
inclusion or considered exclusion of these areas; and methods used to 
designate critical habitat.
    During the first comment period, we received 17 comment letters (15 
letters addressing the proposed revision of critical habitat, and 2 
letters from a single commenter that were not related to proposed 
revisions to critical habitat): two from peer reviewers, three from 
Federal agencies, six from representatives of five Native American 
tribes, and six from public organizations or individuals. During the 
second comment period, we received nine comments addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation and the DEA. Of these latter 
comments, two were from peer reviewers, two from Federal agencies, two 
from Native American tribes, and three from public organizations or 
individuals. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species 
Act Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited 
expert opinions from 10 knowledgeable individuals with scientific 
expertise that included familiarity with the subspecies, the geographic 
region in which it occurs, and conservation biology principles. Four 
peer reviewers submitted responses. They provided additional 
information, clarifications, and suggestions that we incorporated into 
the rule to improve the final revised critical habitat rule.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 
All comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated 
into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment 1: One peer reviewer stated they had recently communicated 
with residents in and around the community of Anza and concluded that 
residents moved to this area based on an appreciation of nature and the 
outdoors. The peer reviewer suggested the Service should inform 
residents on how to improve Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat. The 
peer reviewer also asserted that residents of Anza are suspicious of 
government intervention and value their personal freedom more than 
endangered species preservation. The peer reviewer expressed 
willingness to help organize a meeting that would provide private 
landowners from Anza with information on how to preserve the 
subspecies. The peer reviewer concluded that, because of their 
appreciation for nature, Anza residents would be willing to improve 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat on their lands, but that 
willingness would be decreased by critical habitat designation; 
therefore, we should exclude any lands in the vicinity of Anza from our 
revised critical habitat designation.

[[Page 28782]]

    Our Response: We agree that species conservation benefits provided 
by landowner partnerships to conserve federally listed species may 
minimize the conservation benefits of designating privately owned lands 
as critical habitat, and we appreciate the peer reviewer's interest in 
participating in such an endeavor. We encourage the peer reviewer to 
continue to communicate and work with residents of Anza (Units 6 and 7) 
to conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly, within and outside of 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Should residents of 
Anza or surrounding areas be interested in developing a partnership to 
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly, Service biologists are 
available to participate and provide information on such partnership 
programs as Safe Harbor Agreements for private landowners. Safe Harbor 
Agreements provide assurances to landowners under the Act that no 
additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed if 
conservation practices on their land attract or perpetuate federally 
listed species. At this time, there is no formal partnership between 
the peer reviewer, residents of Anza, or the Service to conserve the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly or its habitat, other than the Western 
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western 
Riverside County MSHCP; Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003), under which 
some areas south of the community of Anza are already excluded (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
    Comment 2: One peer reviewer observed Quino checkerspot butterflies 
``by the 100s'' near the community of Anza during a subspecies 
``outbreak.'' The peer reviewer observed several unique behaviors in 
the Anza area in 2004 (they stated 2006 but our records indicate 2004), 
including a female deep within a stand of Adenostoma sparsifolium 
(redshank), likely searching for sites to deposit eggs. Despite 
extensive survey efforts prior to this 2004 observation, the peer 
reviewer had never observed Quino checkerspot butterflies in dense A. 
sparsifolium, and previously assumed the subspecies never went into 
such areas.
    The peer reviewer asserted that Quino checkerspot butterflies move 
many more miles during periods of high subspecies density than observed 
during average density years. The peer reviewer hypothesized that, 
under certain environmental conditions, hormonal changes could be 
responsible for the behavioral changes he observed. The peer reviewer 
also noted that, during historical ``outbreaks,'' Quino checkerspot 
butterflies were observed in downtown San Diego. The peer reviewer 
hypothesized this movement behavior may be unique to the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly among Edith's checkerspot subspecies, and 
movement between populations may be important for replacing extirpated 
populations and maintaining gene flow between extant populations. 
Finally, the peer reviewer stated a lack of conserved ``intermediate 
habitat'' between populations may cause extirpation of populations and, 
eventually, subspecies extinction.
    Our Response: We were aware of the peer reviewers' observations and 
had incorporated those observations into our analysis (for example, 
inclusion of closed-woody canopy areas in Primary Constituent Element 
(PCE) 2; see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below). We 
appreciate the peer reviewers' insights and contributions to our 
knowledge of the subspecies' biology.
    Although we are not aware of any recorded long-distance movements 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, the one within-habitat patch 
movement study completed at Otay Lakes (White and Levin 1981, pp. 350, 
355) concluded that Quino checkerspot butterflies were ``less 
sedentary'' than bay checkerspot butterflies and may disperse greater 
distances. Plasticity and variability of movement behavior is typical 
among Euphydryas spp. (Service 2003a, pp. 10-13), as demonstrated by 
the historical observations of Quino checkerspot butterflies in 
downtown San Diego that were cited by the peer reviewer. These 
observations indicate that, when many individuals were dispersing 
during at least one unusually high-density historical event, developed 
areas did not prevent such movement. Therefore, because the best 
available scientific information supports the need for within-
population movement areas, but does not support the necessity or 
identification of ``intermediate habitat'' for dispersal between 
populations, we included only movement areas within habitat-based 
population distributions in our critical habitat designation (see 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below).
    Comment 3: Based on personal experience maintaining captive 
populations, the peer reviewer asserted that Quino checkerspot 
butterfly populations are more susceptible to inbreeding depression 
than most other butterfly species. The peer reviewer stated that, when 
closely related Quino checkerspot butterfly individuals are bred ``for 
some time'' without out-crossing, they observe greater egg and larval 
mortality than generally observed in butterfly species in the family 
Lycaenidae (coppers and blues). The peer reviewer concluded the Service 
should consider assisting genetic exchange between populations that 
appear to be losing genetic variability, such as the small population 
in Unit 1 (Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex). The peer 
reviewer stated they suspected low genetic diversity was a primary 
cause of the Gavilan Hills/Lake Mathews population extirpation.
    Our Response: We recognize that the increased mortality observed 
during captive rearing could be indicative of inbreeding depression; 
however, we have no basis upon which to determine whether or not 
populations of the Quino checkerspot butterfly outside of a laboratory 
setting experience inbreeding depression. We agree with the commenter's 
recommendation that an evaluation of the population genetics of this 
butterfly could assist its recovery, and we discussed the possible 
effects of genetic drift and inbreeding depression in the listing rule 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Service 1997, pp. 2319-2320). We 
appreciate this information; however, we do not believe it is relevant 
to our final revised critical habitat designation.
    Comment 4: One peer reviewer stated that populations in Units 6 and 
7 near the community of Anza are ``continuous and not actually 
separate.'' The peer reviewer indicated that extensive suitable habitat 
exists between these two units (especially in Terwilliger Valley), 
which is probably occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 
Additionally, the peer reviewer noted there are multiple public land 
parcels in the area and some have extensive stands of the food plant 
Antirrhinum coulterianum.
    Our Response: While landscape connectivity does exist between Units 
6 and 7 in the Anza area, and some occupied habitat exists in the area 
that was not included in our proposed revised critical habitat units 
(Cave Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core occurrence complexes), habitat 
within the community of Anza is fragmented, and large areas of 
landscape connectivity occur outside our mapped habitat-based 
population distributions (that is, not occupied). Our habitat-based 
population distributions are the best estimate of population occupancy 
based on the best available scientific data. Because the habitat-based 
population distributions are not continuous, we must assume the 
Bautista Road and Tule Peak/Silverado core occurrence complexes and the 
Cave Rocks and Cahuilla Creek non-core

[[Page 28783]]

occurrence complexes are not part of a single population. We determined 
that habitat captured by the core occurrence complex habitat-based 
population distributions in Units 6 and 7 provide the PCEs laid out in 
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies. Our criteria used to identify critical 
habitat focused on core occurrence complex habitat-based population 
distributions designed to capture all habitats likely to support 
resilient metapopulations, including those likely to support local 
source or mainland populations (also called subpopulations) and 
movement areas between habitat patches required for metapopulation 
resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term definitions). 
Finally, Terwilliger Valley is not located between Units 6 and 7, it is 
located east of Unit 6 (Unit 7 is north). Please see ``Criteria Used To 
Identify Critical Habitat'' section below for further discussion.
    Comment 5: Two peer reviewers stated the Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex was probably occupied at the time of listing, but 
occupancy was not documented because that area was not adequately 
surveyed at that time. The second peer reviewer asserted that, prior to 
1998, butterfly experts did not know much about habitats near the 
community of Anza, and all high-elevation observations were thought to 
be dispersing individuals because the only known primary host plant, 
Plantago erecta, did not occur above 3,000 ft (914 m) in elevation. The 
second peer reviewer noted that Dr. John Emmel observed a Quino 
checkerspot butterfly [near the community of Anza] along Bautista Road 
in the 1970s. The second peer reviewer also suggested that surveys be 
conducted in higher elevation areas where the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly may eventually colonize to determine if the subspecies is 
absent and to document possible establishment of new populations in the 
future. Finally, the second peer reviewer asserted that movement of 
this subspecies into new areas will not be easy because of inbreeding 
depression (see Comment 3 above), and suggested the subspecies may move 
by local and gradual movements and eventually expand into higher 
elevation sites.
    Our Response: We agree that it is possible that the Bautista Road 
Core Occurrence Complex was occupied at the time of listing; however, 
we have insufficient documentation to support that assertion. We 
received subsequent confirmation of Dr. Emmel's historical Quino 
checkerspot butterfly observation referenced by the peer reviewer. Dr. 
Emmel (2008, p. 1) stated that, on March 26, 1988, he observed what 
appeared to be a single female Quino checkerspot butterfly at the 
intersection of Bautista Road and Tripp Flats Road at 3,840 ft (1,170 
m) elevation. Dr. Emmel (2008, p. 1) further stated that this 
historical observation within the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex 
may have been of a dispersing individual from a more southern 
population, and the subspecies may have almost exclusively used 
Plantago spp. in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore, we are uncertain when 
the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex was initially colonized; 
however (as stated above in the ``Background'' section), we believe it 
currently provides colonists to higher elevations and, through this 
mechanism, likely facilitates range shift resulting from environmental 
changes that degrade suitable habitat conditions.
    Inbreeding depression may slow colonization of new areas. However, 
when gene flow is restricted (for example, by mountainous terrain; 
Service 2003a, p. 13), local adaptation can occur quickly because 
peripheral populations are not swamped by genes adapted to 
environmental conditions specific to the range core (Zakharov and 
Hellman 2008, p. 199). Higher rates of local adaptation at a species' 
range edge may counteract any negative effects of inbreeding depression 
on colonization rate. Therefore, we did not base any of our conclusions 
on the hypothesis that inbreeding depression slows colonization of new 
areas in this subspecies.
    Comment 6: One peer reviewer asserted the use of host plant species 
other than Plantago spp. and Antirrhinum coulterianum in Riverside 
County should be investigated before assuming they are not used. The 
peer reviewer stated that the western San Diego County populations may 
also use many undocumented host plants, including Castilleja affinis 
(coast Indian paintbrush), Castilleja foliolosa (woolly paintbrush), 
Collinsia heterophylla, and Antirrhinum nuttallianum (Nuttall's 
snapdragon).
    Finally, the peer reviewer expressed the opinion that Penstemon 
centranthifolius (scarlet bugler) may also be an important Quino 
checkerspot host plant near the community of Anza. The peer reviewer 
stated that they observed Quino checkerspot butterflies in early spring 
near the community of Anza and that subspecies' presence appears to be 
positively correlated with relatively heavy feeding damage on P. 
centranthifolius by an as-yet-undetected herbivore. The peer reviewer 
hypothesized the feeding damage on P. centranthifolius could be caused 
by late-instar Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae because they had 
difficulty detecting Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae on host plants 
other than Plantago spp. The peer reviewer concluded that P. 
centranthifolius might be important for post-diapause larval feeding 
because it is the only potential host plant species available for adult 
egg deposition and post-diapause larval feeding during periods of 
drought. Therefore, the peer reviewer believes P. centranthifolius may 
be an important food source for the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae 
in high-elevation sites during drought.
    Our Response: We agree the Quino checkerspot butterfly may use 
different host plant species across its range. We provided a list of 
all host plant species where egg deposition has been documented in our 
``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below, including Collinsia 
concolor, documented in 2008 to be used in the field by the Quino 
checkerspot. We appreciate information on potential use of Penstemon 
centranthifolius as a host plant; however, Quino checkerspot butterfly 
use of this potential hostplant species has not been documented, and 
any related changes to this final revised critical habitat designation 
would not be appropriate.
    Comment 7: One peer reviewer noted that, based on his experience, 
Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), Chaenactis glabriuscula (pinchusion 
flower), and Ericameria linearifolia (narrowleaf goldenbush) are 
important nectar sources for Quino checkerspot butterfly survival. The 
peer reviewer stated some of the nectar sources on page 3335 of the 
proposed revised critical habitat rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008) 
are not important because they are rarely visited by females and, 
therefore, do not contribute to increased production of eggs or 
subspecies survival.
    Our Response: We appreciate this information based on the peer 
reviewer's experience and have revised our list of nectar source 
examples in the PCEs to include the species named by the peer reviewer. 
The peer reviewer did not specify which nectar sources on the existing 
PCE list they did not believe were important. Our list of nectar 
sources is not exhaustive, and nectar source importance can be site 
specific. Therefore, we believe our current PCE nectar source list is 
appropriate (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below).
    Comment 8: One peer reviewer stated that overcollection did not 
play a role in

[[Page 28784]]

the loss of Quino checkerspot butterfly populations.
    Our Response: The listing rule (62 FR 2313; January 16, 1997) 
identified over-collection as a threat to the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. The Service has initiated a 5-year review on this subspecies 
and is re-evaluating the magnitude and extent of all threats. We 
appreciate this information; however, we do not believe it is relevant 
to our final revised critical habitat designation.
    Comment 9: One peer reviewer stated that they believe all areas 
containing low shrubs should be included in the PCEs because diapause 
constitutes the majority of the Quino checkerspot butterfly's annual 
life cycle, and larvae diapause in low shrubs such as Eriogonum 
fasciculatum (California buckwheat).
    Our Response: This critical habitat designation includes all 
habitat-based population distributions associated with core occurrence 
complexes (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section 
below), and the PCEs include all vegetation with an open woody canopy, 
including shrublands (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section 
below). Therefore, habitat containing low shrubs essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies, such as Eriogonum fasciculatum, is 
included in this final revised critical habitat designation.
    Comment 10: One peer reviewer maintained that the availability of 
prominent hilltops should be ``weighed carefully in any decision 
relating to the possible exclusion of critical habitat and associated 
conservation plans'' because the loss of such courtship areas could 
result in the loss of populations even if other PCEs are present in 
designated critical habitat.
    Our Response: This peer reviewer is apparently concerned that 
exclusion of areas from critical habitat will result in the loss of the 
excluded habitat, especially habitat containing hilltops. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to designate critical 
habitat after taking into consideration the economic impacts, national 
security impacts, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from 
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designating a particular area as critical 
habitat, unless the failure to designate will result in the extinction 
of the species. We believe the exclusions made in this final revised 
rule are legally supported under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
scientifically justified. The peer reviewer specifically commented on 
exclusions where conservation plans are in place. Areas excluded under 
section 4(b)(2) based on completed habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or 
other Service-approved management plans receive long-term protection 
and conservation; therefore, areas excluded from critical habitat 
designation should not result in the loss of the excluded habitat,. As 
discussed below, we fully considered and weighed the benefits to the 
conservation of the subspecies from including the specific areas we 
determined contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly (including 
prominent hilltops used for mating) within the habitat conservation 
plan areas, in light of our determination that these areas will be 
adequately protected on lands covered by the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP and the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program 
(MSCP), City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section 
below).
    Comment 11: One peer reviewer stated, ``Although annual surveys for 
the presence of [Quino checkerspot] butterfly adults are important * * 
* a population can be represented for several consecutive bad years by 
diapausing larval clusters that have been shown to survive for at least 
4 years.'' The peer reviewer added that other butterfly and moth 
species have adapted to drought conditions in the western United States 
and are capable of diapausing for up to 30 years.
    Our Response: We are aware Quino checkerspot butterflies can 
diapause for multiple years (Service 2003a, pp. 8-9), and under extreme 
drought conditions, no larvae in a surveyed area may have metamorphosed 
into adults. We are also aware that captive rearing and observations of 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae indicate that repeated diapause 
is relatively common (over 50 percent likelihood for the first year; 
Pratt 2006, p. 10). Larvae can re-enter diapause up to three times 
(four diapause periods), but more than three diapause periods during an 
individual's lifespan is unusual (Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Captive-
rearing and field data indicate that larvae typically undergo extended 
diapause when environmental conditions are not favorable for growth 
(Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Negative surveys are not considered credible 
if unfavorable weather, such as drought, limits Quino checkerspot 
butterfly detectability (Service 2002, p. 6). Therefore, we have 
confidence in the quality of surveys conducted by individuals with 
recovery permits under section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Act and the relative 
rarity of spurious results. We did not base any of our criteria on 
negative surveys, and included contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km) 
of all documented observations within a core occurrence complex (see 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below), 
therefore we believe the apparent concerns of this peer reviewer have 
been adequately addressed in this rule.
    Comment 12: One peer reviewer suggested the analysis of Quino 
checkerspot butterfly nectar resources in the proposed revisions to 
critical habitat was not sufficient. The peer reviewer maintained that 
nectar plant availability can vary to a large degree among occupied 
areas, and the relative importance of nectar plant species will change 
over the flight period of the butterfly and from year-to-year. The peer 
reviewer emphasized that it is important to consider the contribution 
of nectar to increased female longevity and egg production.
    Our Response: We agree that a more detailed nectar-resource-needs 
analysis would be desirable. However, we are not aware of any 
quantitative nectar-use data specific to the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly that would further inform our analysis. Consequently, we 
determined that the peer-reviewed scientific publications that 
characterize Quino checkerspot butterfly nectar resources are the best 
scientific and commercial information available. Furthermore, 
variability in nectar source availability is not relevant to this final 
revised critical habitat designation because the PCE description 
relevant to nectar resources is not dependent on temporal variability 
(for example, many herbaceous plants are not detectable or identifiable 
during the fall or winter seasons).
    Comment 13: One peer reviewer (A) asserted that, although climate 
change may affect insect distributions globally, the hypothesis that it 
is affecting the Quino checkerspot butterfly is not supported by 
``sound'' biological evidence. Peer reviewer A recommended removing the 
climate change discussion to save taxpayer dollars, suggesting that 
this modification would not affect the proposed or final revised 
critical habitat designation. Peer reviewer A further asserted that our 
suggestion that the newly identified colonies of Quino checkerspot 
butterflies (unspecified location, presumed north of the community of 
Anza) are a result of climate change is speculative. Peer reviewer A 
noted that Parmesan's (1996)

[[Page 28785]]

study did not find new northern or higher elevation populations. 
Additionally, the peer reviewer claimed Parmesan's (1996) range shift 
results were a ``statistical artifact'' of the apparent loss of low-
lying southern populations, and that her negative occupancy data might 
have been the result of surveys conducted during ``bad'' years when all 
individuals were diapausing larvae.
    Conversely, two other peer reviewers (B and C) expressed support 
for use of evidence and predictions of range shift resulting from 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns to determine 
what lands meet the definition of critical habitat. Peer reviewer B 
noted that Quino checkerspot butterfly populations show dramatic 
changes in abundance from year to year, including responses to yearly 
patterns of precipitation and temperature. Peer reviewers B and C noted 
that, because the Edith's checkerspot species is known to respond 
strongly to climate, the species would also be expected to respond to 
climate change. Peer reviewer B further stated there is no reason to 
expect the Quino checkerspot butterfly to respond to ongoing climate 
change differently from other insects, and every reason to expect it to 
respond similarly to other climate-sensitive species. Peer reviewer C 
stated specifically, ``The summary of likely impacts of climate change 
for the near and long-term future of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
(largely on page 3332 [of the proposed revised rule]) is well thought 
out. I fully agree with the recommendations outlined for revision and 
expansion of protected areas. The recommendations represent a rational 
adaptation plan to allow the Quino checkerspot butterfly to persist in 
the face of on-going climate change which is affecting habitat 
suitability in the region.'' Peer reviewer C further stated that shifts 
upslope in elevation are more probable than latitudinal shifts because 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly's historical range was bounded on the 
northern and eastern sides by desert habitat, and elevation shifts 
require less adaptation than latitudinal shifts.
    Peer reviewer C described two possible drivers of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly's upslope range shift: (1) The main host plant 
species may shift upslope; or (2) the subspecies could switch to other 
host plant species occurring higher in elevation as that habitat 
becomes more suitable with climate change. They noted that rapid 
evolution toward use of novel hosts was documented for several 
subspecies of Edith's checkerspot. Both peer reviewers argued that new 
scientific information (citing several sources) has further supported 
Parmesan's (1996) conclusion that the range of Edith's checkerspot 
butterfly has retracted at lower elevations and more southern 
latitudes, and is likely expanding at higher elevations and more 
northern latitudes.
    Our Response: As detailed below, we agree with the opinions of peer 
reviewers B and C. We agree with peer reviewer A that removing the 
issue of climate change would not affect the proposed or final revised 
critical habitat designation; however, we do not agree it is not a 
relevant criterion for inclusion in critical habitat (see ``Criteria 
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below). Unit 7 is designed 
to capture the habitat occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
population that is likely one of the two most resilient in existence, 
and also most likely to provide colonists to higher elevation habitat 
in the process of range shift resulting from environmental changes due 
to changing climate patterns (See ``Background'' section above and 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below).
    Furthermore, in response to Peer Reviewer A's concerns, we 
acknowledge that inherent uncertainty exists in all conclusions drawn 
exclusively from correlative ecological field studies and qualitative 
observations (Peet 1991, p. 605). Nonetheless, case studies in complex 
natural systems are a foundation of ecological science, and conclusions 
should be drawn from generalizations based on comparison of other 
systems and as much specific local information as possible (Peet 1991, 
p. 605). Within the context of this critical habitat designation, we 
considered all available data concerning the likelihood of elevation 
range shift in the Quino checkerspot butterfly including: (1) Well-
documented loss of lower-elevation populations occurring in this 
species (Edith's checkerspot) rangewide, and upslope elevation range-
shifts (including new higher-elevation populations) in related 
butterfly species around the world (Parmesan et al. 1999 pp. 579-583; 
Parmesan and Yohe 2003, pp. 37-42; Parmesan 2006, pp. 648-649); (2) 
significantly earlier butterfly species emergence times (Parmesan 2007, 
p. 1860, 1864); (3) widening phenological asynchrony between butterfly 
maturation and host plant availability (Parmesan 2007; pp. 1860, 1864, 
1868, 1870); and (4) habitat-based model predictions of pronounced 
future upslope subspecies range shift resulting from environmental 
changes due to changing climate patterns (Preston et al. 2008, p. 
2508). The best available scientific data indicate that the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly is undergoing range shift and inclusion of 
unoccupied habitat and non-core occurrence complexes in Unit 7 
encompasses habitat that is essential for the conservation of the 
species in light of this documented range shift regardless of causation 
or correlation. However, our interpretation of the data documenting and 
supporting apparent range shift in the Quino checkerspot butterfly is 
associated with environmental changes due to changing climate patterns.
    We acknowledge that Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766) study was 
restricted to known historical occupancy locations and, as a result, 
did not document any new higher elevation populations. However, we are 
not aware of any peer-reviewed or other data contradicting Parmesan's 
(1996) upslope range shift conclusions, and the conclusions are 
supported by the findings of Preston et al. (2008, p. 2512). The peer-
reviewed scientific publications and original data we relied on in this 
critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
constitute the best available scientific or commercial data.
    Recent qualitative field observations of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly further support the reality of range shift associated with 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns. These 
observations include: (1) Multiple habitat-occupancy documentations at 
new elevation records; (2) new early emergence records indicating an 
extended breeding period at higher elevations; (3) higher abundance in 
populations on the edge of the subspecies' upper elevational range 
relative to lower elevations; and (4) use of a likely novel host plant 
species, Collinsia concolor, growing in cooler, wetter micro-habitats 
than known preferred host plant species (see ``Background'' section 
above). Although new occupancy sites have also been reported at 
intermediate elevations, these areas were more likely to have been 
extirpated by the 1980s drought (and subsequently recolonized) than 
habitats above the subspecies' known elevation range where higher 
average precipitation and cooler temperatures would have made habitat 
more suitable. Intermediate elevation sites were also already within 
the subspecies' known range and, therefore, more likely to have been 
occupied in the past. Lepidopterists have been searching for Quino 
checkerspot butterflies where C. concolor occurs for as long as they 
have been collecting butterflies. C. concolor is common in most 
habitats occupied by the butterfly (see ``Background'' section above); 
however, no lepidopterists had

[[Page 28786]]

documented use of this plant by the butterfly prior to 2008. 
Furthermore, Dr. Gordon Pratt has been personally searching for Quino 
checkerspot butterfly larvae on C. concolor at the microhabitat scale 
for approximately 10 years, since 1999 or earlier (Pratt 2001; pp. 34-
43, 60-61), but 2008 was the first time he was able to document use by 
the subspecies; therefore, it is likely this host plant was not used 
historically.
    In summary, while acknowledging some inherent uncertainty, we 
believe our conclusion--that newly identified high-elevation occurrence 
complexes (such as Quinn Flats Non-core Occurrence Complex) are likely 
a result of range shift associated with environmental changes due to 
changing climate patterns--is based on sound scientific information. We 
agree with the opinion of peer reviewers B and C that our use of 
evidence and predictions of climate change-driven range shift in 
determining what lands meet the definition of critical habitat is 
valid. The data documenting and supporting apparent range shift in the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly support our inclusion of unoccupied habitat 
adjacent to known occupied habitat and non-core occurrence complexes in 
Unit 7 as essential for the conservation of this subspecies.
    Comment 14: One peer reviewer stated that our conclusion that 
observations in central San Diego County represent residual low-density 
populations with decreasing abundance is speculative. The peer reviewer 
maintained that the importance of these populations cannot be assessed 
without knowing the status of possible diapausing larval clusters in 
the area.
    Our Response: We did not conclude in the proposed revised rule that 
Quino checkerspot butterfly observations in central San Diego County 
represent residual low-density populations with decreasing abundance; 
we stated, ``we cannot determine whether these new non-core occurrence 
complexes represent: (1) Residual, low-density populations decreasing 
in abundance; (2) resilient, low-density populations increasing in 
abundance; or (3) recent colonization events.'' We then specified the 
most likely status is residual, low-density populations decreasing in 
abundance. These statements do not address apparent short-term 
abundance or presence trends attributable to diapausing larvae that 
cannot be detected. Therefore, we edited the ``Background'' section of 
this final rule to specify that observations in central San Diego 
County likely represent a long-term (not short-term) decreasing 
abundance trend.
    Assessment of populations using direct detection of diapausing 
larvae is not possible. Although a preliminary study of diapause site 
preference was recently undertaken (Pratt 2006, pp. 1-11), field 
surveys for diapausing larvae are not feasible given the current 
biological knowledge of the subspecies.
    Comment 15: One peer reviewer (A) expressed concern that heavy use 
of metapopulation terminology in the proposed rule may be confusing to 
members of the public. Additionally, the peer reviewer said that it 
would be valuable to think of Quino checkerspot butterfly populations 
as actual populations with mostly diapausing larval clusters waiting 
for a good year, rather than what the peer reviewer interprets the 
Service describing as a hypothetical [meta]population model involving 
periodic extirpation of local populations. Conversely, two other peer 
reviewers (B and C) expressed support for the use of metapopulation 
ecology as a basis for determining what lands meet the definition of 
critical habitat. Peer reviewer A pointed out that relatively isolated 
habitat patches have a much lower conservation value because natural 
extinctions there are not likely to be ``rescued'' by natural 
recolonization. Peer reviewer A stated metapopulation ecology applies 
to the subfamily to which the Quino checkerspot butterfly belongs 
(Melitaeine butterflies) and to the subspecies, citing numerous peer-
reviewed, published studies of related species. Peer reviewer A 
emphasized that, in the absence of direct studies of population 
structure in this subspecies, it would be unwise to assume 
metapopulation ecology does not apply to the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Peer reviewer C agreed that scientific evidence supports the 
conclusions that the structure of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
is inherently patchy, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly has a 
slightly higher typical dispersal distance than its close relative, the 
bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis); both are indicators of 
metapopulation structure.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's concern that use of 
scientific terminology associated with complex population models can be 
confusing. As a result, we tried to minimize the use of scientific 
terminology and simplified our explanations of metapopulation theory in 
this final revised critical habitat rule, and referred simply to 
``populations'' wherever metapopulation structure was irrelevant (the 
language applied to any population structure). We did not receive any 
additional comments indicating that our use of metapopulation 
terminology was confusing or that a reader could not understand the 
basic model concepts.
    We agree with the peer reviewers who supported the use of 
metapopulation dynamics in our population structure analysis. Our 
critical habitat units are core occurrence complex habitat-based 
population distributions designed to capture networks of habitat 
patches occupied by metapopulations. These units would also protect the 
next most-likely type of Quino checkerspot butterfly population--
diffuse but well-mixed populations that may also have shifting 
densities and population ``footprints'' (see ``Background'' section 
above). Because at least some elements of metapopulation dynamics 
models apply to Quino checkerspot butterfly populations, the technical 
recovery team authors of the Recovery Plan agreed that metapopulation 
models should be a foundation of the recovery strategy (Service 2003a, 
pp. 21-31). Nevertheless, the concepts of shifting population 
distributions and the need to protect areas of temporarily unoccupied 
habitat that apply to metapopulations also apply to any large 
population and, therefore, also support critical habitat units based on 
habitat-based population distributions regardless of specific 
population dynamics (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
section below). The best available scientific data (Service 2003a, pp. 
21-31) indicate that local populations within a metapopulation or 
similar geographically defined sections of Quino checkerspot butterfly 
populations are periodically extirpated, and these habitats within 
population distributions are generally recolonized at some future time. 
Therefore, our consideration of metapopulation dynamics in this 
critical habitat revision is appropriate.
    Peer reviewer A seems to conclude that very few Quino checkerspot 
butterfly individuals in a population mature to adulthood during any 
given ``flight season.'' Available captive-rearing data on the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly's repeated diapause indicate that, in a typical 
year, approximately 50 percent of a given population does not return to 
diapause (Pratt 2006, p. 10). The best available scientific data 
(laboratory observations) indicate that, in a presumably a typical or 
average growth year, approximately half the post-diapause larvae in a 
Quino checkerspot butterfly population will mature to adulthood. We are 
not aware of any other data that contradict our conclusions regarding 
Quino checkerspot butterfly population dynamics.

[[Page 28787]]

    Comment 16: One peer reviewer stated that fritillaries (various 
butterflies of the family Nymphalidae, especially of the genera 
Speyeria and Boloria, having brownish wings marked with black or 
silvery spots on the underside) are no longer included in the subfamily 
Melitaeinae and that most recent publications place fritillaries in the 
subfamily Heliconiinae.
    Our Response: In the proposed revised critical habitat rule, we 
mentioned that fritillaries were one type of butterfly belonging to the 
same subfamily as the Quino checkerspot butterfly. While the 
information provided by the peer reviewer is appreciated, such a 
taxonomic change does not affect Quino checkerspot butterfly taxonomy 
and, therefore, does not need to be addressed in this final rule.
    Comment 17: One peer reviewer offered several technical editorial 
suggestions with regard to our discussion of Parmesan's (1996) study 
and climate change-driven range shift. The peer reviewer stated that 
the methods used by Parmesan (1996) were slightly different than 
described in the proposed revised critical habitat rule and suggested 
the following specific corrections. The first year of the field census 
was actually 1992, not 1994 as stated in the proposed revised rule. The 
historical records ranged from 1860 to 1982, with most dating from 
1930-1975. The re-census of these records began in mid-season 1992 and 
continued through the April field season of 1996 (thus 1996 included 
the southern populations, but not those in the high-latitude and high-
elevation sites in the Sierra Nevada and Canada that don't fly until 
July and August). The peer reviewer stated that none of Parmesan's 
(1996) re-censusing included wet El Ni[ntilde]o or drought years; 
therefore, the skewed patterns of extirpations are not attributable to 
climatic or geographic bias across census years.
    The peer reviewer stated that the phrase ``experienced 80 percent 
of all recorded local extirpations'' on page 3331 of the proposed 
revised rule is not accurate. The peer reviewer suggested replacing 
this phrase with: ``* * * and noted that 80 percent of historically 
recorded populations in the southern part of the range were currently 
extinct at the time of the re-census in the mid-1990s, while other 
areas of Edith's checkerspot butterfly further north experienced only 
40 percent in the mid-latitudes to as low as 20 percent extirpations 
along the northern range boundary, and with fewer than 15 percent 
extirpations in the highest elevation band (above 2,400 m).''
    The peer reviewer recommended adding the documentation of upward 
elevational shift in Edith's checkerspot butterfly from Parmesan (1996) 
to the description of the northward shift in population distributions 
on page 3331 of the proposed revised rule. The peer reviewer suggested 
the following text to be inserted after the statement, ``This shift in 
range closely matched shifts in mean yearly temperature (Parmesan 1996, 
pp. 765-766): A parallel elevational gradient in extirpations shifted 
the mean location of Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations upward 
by 407 ft (124 m). A breakpoint in the pattern of extirpations occurred 
at 7,874 ft (2,400 m), with about 40 percent of all populations below 
7,874 ft (2,400 m) recorded as extirpated in otherwise suitable 
habitats, while less than 15 percent were extirpated above 7,874 ft 
(2,400 m; up to the highest known population at 11,319 ft (3,450 m)). 
This pattern matched trends in snowpack dynamics in the Sierra Nevada 
(where the high-elevation populations are found) over the same time 
period as the butterfly study, with significant trends toward lighter 
snowpack and earlier melt date below 7,874 ft (2,400 m), and heavier 
snowpack and a (non-significant) trend toward later melt date above 
7,874 ft (2,400 m; Johnson et al. 1999).'' Furthermore, the peer 
reviewer stated that Karl et al. 1996 should be added to the latter 
statement as a citation for the temperature shift over the 20th century 
across the Edith's checkerspot butterfly's range.
    The peer reviewer suggested we add Ehrlich et al. 1980; Singer and 
Ehrlich 1979; and Singer and Thomas 1996 to the list of citations on 
page 3332 supporting the statement ``Documentation of climate-related 
changes that have already occurred in California'' as examples of 
Edith's checkerspot butterfly population extirpations following extreme 
climatic events.
    The peer reviewer stated that, on page 3331 of the proposed revised 
rule, ``Thomas, et al. 2006, pp. 146-147'' should be the year 2004, and 
this paper is properly cited as discussing projected population 
extinctions and species range shifts, not observed shifts as all the 
other cited papers.
    Our Response: We edited the above ``Background'' section to reflect 
these technical corrections.
    Comment 18: One peer reviewer noted the statement ``The hundreds of 
adults observed during surveys in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex 
in 2001 were unprecedented'' (p. 3331 of the proposed revised rule) is 
not accurate and cited historical precedents.
    Our Response: We agree this statement was in error. We are aware of 
greater magnitude historical Quino checkerspot butterfly ``outbreaks'' 
than those observed in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex (see 
``Background'' section above). We meant that such outbreaks were 
unprecedented since the 1970s, starting with the 1980s drought and 
subsequent subspecies decline. The paper we intended to cite was 
Thomas, et al. 2006, pp. 146-147 (not 2004). We have edited the above 
``Background'' section to accurately characterize this information.

Public Comments

Comments Related To Primary Constituent Elements and Criteria Used To 
Identify Critical Habitat
    Comment 19: One commenter requested that we designate Wright's 
Field in the community of Alpine as revised critical habitat because: 
(1) Adult Quino checkerspot butterflies were observed for 3 years at a 
site within approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) of Wright's Field; (2) habitat 
at Wright's field appears to be ``ideal;'' (3) Wright's Field provides 
``connectivity'' for core Quino checkerspot butterfly populations to 
the south (populations not otherwise identified by commenter); (4) 
designation of Wright's Field would facilitate recovery; and (5) the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly (not currently known from this location) 
could be discovered at Wright's Field.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that some areas not included in this 
final revised critical habitat designation may contain suitable habitat 
and be proximal to occupied areas. We also acknowledge that management 
of some habitat areas not designated or proposed as revisions to 
critical habitat would likely contribute to the conservation (recovery) 
of this subspecies. However, the Act defines critical habitat as: (1) 
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time it is listed on which are found those physical and 
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species, 
and (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination 
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Not all areas that may contribute to a species' recovery 
are necessarily essential for conservation of the species. The best 
available data (including the information provided by the commenter) do 
not demonstrate that

[[Page 28788]]

the Wright's Field area is essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies.
    We delineated proposed revised critical habitat using criteria 
based on the conservation and biological needs of the subspecies 
according to the best available science. Areas proposed as critical 
habitat are: (1) Currently occupied, core occurrence complex habitat-
based population distributions (contiguous habitat within 1.2 mi (2 km) 
of Quino checkerspot butterfly occurrence records); (2) consistent with 
recommendations in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 35, 165); and 
(3) designed to include additional habitat contiguous with the Bautista 
Road Core Occurrence Complex habitat-based population distribution 
needed to support core occurrence complex resiliency and range shift 
resulting from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns. 
These criteria determine the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of this subspecies, as identified by the PCEs in 
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement, and capture the areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly at the time of listing that are essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies (see the ``Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat'' section below). Therefore, we believe our proposed 
designation and this final designation accurately describe all specific 
areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly, and we did not propose Wright's Field for 
designation as revised critical habitat.
    Comment 20: One commenter requested increasing the extent of the 
proposed critical habitat designation to include all recovery units, 
all occurrence complexes outside of recovery units, and sufficient 
habitat for dispersal (Service 2003a, pp. 31, 34, 35, 71, 73-76).
    Our Response: The Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 75) states 
``Recovery units include lands both essential and not essential to the 
long-term conservation of the butterfly, and comprise a variety of 
habitat types.'' Therefore, designation of all land within all recovery 
units, and all occurrence complexes as revised critical habitat is not 
appropriate. Moreover, critical habitat designations do not signal that 
habitat outside of the designation is unimportant or may not contribute 
to recovery (see response to Comment 19 above). Occupied habitat 
outside the final revised critical habitat designation will continue to 
be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act, and regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) 
jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.
    According to 50 CFR 424.12(e), the Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied 
by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would 
be inadequate to ensure conservation of the species. Accordingly, when 
the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that 
limiting designation of critical habitat to areas within the 
geographical area presently occupied by the species is adequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species, we will not designate critical 
habitat outside those areas. In this designation, we did include 
habitat in Unit 7 that is outside the geographical area currently known 
to be occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly because available 
data support a determination that this habitat is essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies. However, we are not aware of any data 
supporting the commenter's request to include all recovery units, all 
occurrence complexes outside of recovery units, and unoccupied habitat 
as critical habitat. For discussions of areas for movement and 
dispersal that meet the definition of critical habitat, see responses 
to comments 2 and 4 above.
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that the proposed revised rule did 
not consider inclusion of the higher-elevation habitat needed to 
accommodate the subspecies ability to respond to a changing climate in 
any units except Unit 7, and requested expansion of the critical 
habitat designation to include all ``stepping stone'' habitat patches 
that would facilitate dispersal into unoccupied habitat patches at 
higher elevations (cited Service 2003a, p. 65).
    Our Response: We believe our criteria capture all areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat. Vegetation and host plant 
distribution data and new distribution information (see response to 
Comment 20 above) indicate the Bautista Road Core Occurrence complex is 
part of a greater population distribution, which also shows evidence of 
supporting range expansion to areas outside of this unit resulting from 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns in this area. 
Hence, we are designating areas between occurrence complexes in Unit 7 
where occupancy is expected but has not been documented, but not as 
stepping-stone habitat patches to facilitate dispersal into unoccupied 
habitat patches at higher elevations.
    We are not aware of any specific data supporting the commenter's 
request to expand critical habitat to include all possible ``stepping 
stone'' habitat patches that would facilitate dispersal into unoccupied 
habitat patches at higher elevations. The recovery plan describes 
``stepping stone'' movement areas in reference to landscape 
connectivity between local habitat patches within a metapopulation 
distribution (Service 2003a, pp. 13, 162); these movement areas were 
captured by proposed revised critical habitat units (see also the 
discussion of movement and dispersal areas in response to comments 2 
and 4 above).
    Comment 22: One commenter asserted the specificity of PCEs were 
over-restrictive. The commenter maintained having host plant species as 
required PCEs creates the risk that critical habitat will not be 
identified when plants do not germinate under dry environmental 
conditions.
    Our Response: The PCEs include known nutritional and physiological 
requirements and sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of 
offspring. Presence of a host plant is an appropriate PCE because the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly requires host plants for reproduction and 
rearing of offspring. We list all known host plants within PCE 1(B) and 
1(C). Designation of critical habitat is a regulatory process that 
results in hard-line boundaries, so the only lands ``excluded'' by text 
are small, developed areas such as roads and single-family homes. 
Regardless of regulatory implications, large numbers of host plants 
(usually more than one species) are required during most years to 
support continued occupancy. Therefore, some host plants should always 
be detectible in habitat supporting a core occurrence complex, even in 
drought years when a majority of seeds fail to germinate and most 
larvae return to diapause. Furthermore, areas can be determined to 
support PCE 1 by the presence of nectar sources alone within open woody 
canopy vegetation (see ``Primary Constituent Elements for the Quino 
Checkerspot Butterfly'' section below). Therefore, suitable habitat 
within critical habitat units should be identifiable, no matter how low 
densities of germinating host plants are.
    Comment 23: One commenter requested that we amend PCE 2 to include 
areas beyond 656 ft (200 m) of a habitat patch to facilitate movement 
within and among habitat patches in a metapopulation distribution. The 
commenter asserted that PCE 2 describes features that only allow for 
within-habitat patch movement of Quino checkerspot butterflies, not 
among-patch movement. In support of

[[Page 28789]]

their request, the commenter cited White and Levin's (1981, pp. 350-
351) findings that adult Quino checkerspot butterfly within-patch 
movement often exceeded 656 ft (200 m).
    Our Response: The term ``habitat patch'' within the context of 
Quino checkerspot butterfly population dynamics and movement refers to 
a set of host plant ``micro-patches'' within the typical flight range 
of adult butterflies (about 160 to 660 ft (50 to 200 m)) (Service 
2003a, p. 22), and all nectar sources within the same distance of these 
host plant ``micro-patches'' (Service 2003a, p. 19) in areas of 
contiguous, open woody canopy vegetation (Service 2003a, pp. 10-11). A 
habitat patch defines either the entire distribution of a ``well-
mixed'' (non-metapopulation or typical) population, or the distribution 
of a subpopulation (also called a local population) within a 
metapopulation (Service 2003a, p. 27). We did not map habitat patches 
because no such detailed measurements were conducted for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. The critical habitat units in this designation 
were designed using the best available scientific or commercial data to 
capture population-scale distributions for either a metapopulation or a 
well-mixed population.
    Areas between habitat patches occupied by subpopulations of a 
metapopulation within a critical habitat unit should be connected to 
other habitat patches by open-woody canopy areas with at least one PCE. 
Movement areas within population distributions are already captured by 
PCEs 1, 2 and 3; therefore, PCE 2 need not be amended to capture 
movement within habitat patches or between habitat patches occupied by 
subpopulations of a metapopulation (see also the discussion of movement 
and dispersal areas in response to comments 2 and 4 above).
    The purpose of PCE 2 is to capture closed-woody canopy vegetation 
on the periphery of a habitat patch that is used by adults and is also 
likely to deter adult dispersal out of the habitat patch under typical 
environmental conditions (Service 2003a, p. 10). All movements recorded 
during White and Levin's (1981, p. 349) study occurred in contiguous, 
open-woody canopy areas containing host plants and nectar sources 
already captured by PCE 1. Therefore, areas where movement distances 
greater than 656 ft (200 m) were recorded by White and Levin (1981, p. 
349) near Otay Lakes occurred at locations that do not need to be 
captured by PCE 2. Furthermore, although White and Levin (1981, pp. 
350-352) did record a number of Quino checkerspot butterfly within-
habitat patch movement distances greater than 656 ft (200 m), it is not 
appropriate to apply a study of within-habitat movement to a 
determination of areas required for between-patch movement.
    Comment 24: A commenter owns 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of land near Vail 
Lake in Riverside County (much of which falls within proposed revised 
critical habitat). The commenter asserted that the proposed revisions 
are not valid based on a study conducted by Helix Environmental 
Planning that the commenter claimed showed no evidence of Quino 
occupancy on the commenter's land.
    Our Response: We did not receive a copy of the cited study from the 
commenter. However, we have a survey report in our files submitted by 
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. in 2003 documenting the occurrence 
of adult Quino checkerspot butterfly on the commenter's Vail Lake 
property. Surveyors made only three visits (a protocol-level survey 
requires at least 5) to areas distributed over a 7,500 ac (3,035 ha) 
area completely surrounding Vail Lake (Helix Environmental Planning 
2003, p. 1). Surveyors reported over 145 adult Quino checkerspot 
butterfly observations from 16 sites broadly distributed across the 
property (Helix Environmental Planning 2003, pp. 1-2). Surveyors also 
described large populations of host plants and abundant nectar sources 
(Helix Environmental Planning 2003, pp. 1-2). Furthermore, all areas 
proposed as revised critical habitat within Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak 
Mountain) are also within our core occurrence complex habitat-based 
population distribution (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat'' section below). Therefore, we believe the inclusion of the 
property in question in the proposed revised critical habitat unit is 
valid.
Comments Related To Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Exclusions
    Comment 25: One commenter stated that the designation of critical 
habitat on lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP is 
inappropriate because these lands do not require special management 
considerations or protection; management and protection are already 
provided by the regional HCP. A second commenter asserted that all 
lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area boundary should be 
excluded because this regional HCP adequately conserves the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. Conversely, a third commenter claimed that lands 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP should not be excluded from 
critical habitat because habitat within the HCP boundaries meets the 
definition of critical habitat per Center for Biological Diversity et 
al. v. Norton (CV 01-409, District of Arizona, January 13, 2002), where 
Judge David C. Bury stated, ``The fact that a habitat is already under 
some sort of management for its conservation is absolute proof that 
habitat is `critical.'''
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) provides requirements for identifying 
(defining) critical habitat, in part, as areas that require special 
management considerations or protection, while section 4(b)(2) directs 
the Secretary to consider the impacts of designating such areas as 
critical habitat and provides the Secretary with discretion to exclude 
particular areas if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. In this rule, we do not state that areas do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because 
they are being adequately managed. Rather, we considered the management 
of particular areas that do meet the definition of critical habitat in 
our exclusion analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under 
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact to 
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. In accordance with 50 CFR 424.19, 
in conducting an impact analysis of critical habitat, the Secretary 
shall identify any significant activities that would either affect an 
area considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be 
affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing designation of 
such an area, consider the probable economic and other impacts of the 
designation on proposed or ongoing activities. The Secretary may 
exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to 
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species concerned. Therefore, consistent with the Act and our 
implementing regulations, we must consider the relevant impacts of 
designating areas that meet the definition of critical habitat prior to 
finalizing a critical habitat designation.

[[Page 28790]]

    After determining which areas met the definition of critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly under section 3(5)(A) of 
the Act, we took into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. In this final designation, we recognize that designating 
critical habitat in areas where we have partnerships with landowners 
that have led to conservation or management of listed species on non-
Federal lands has a relevant, perceived impact to landowners and a 
relevant impact to future partnerships and conservation efforts on non-
Federal lands. These impacts are described in detail in the 
``Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section below. Based 
on these impacts, we evaluated the benefits of designating areas as 
critical habitat against the benefits of excluding these areas from the 
critical habitat designation. Please see the ``Exclusions under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final rule for a detailed 
discussion of the benefits of excluding lands covered by management 
plans versus the benefits of including these areas in a critical 
habitat designation. Upon weighing the benefits of inclusion against 
benefits of exclusion, we determined the benefits of excluding all 
lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 outweigh the benefits of 
including these areas in the final revised critical habitat 
designation. Further, we determined exclusion of these areas will not 
result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we 
excluded all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees 
of the HCP in Units 1 through 6 from this final revised critical 
habitat designation (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other 
Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
    At the time the Western Riverside County MSHCP permit was issued, 
Units 1 through 6 were known to contain core occurrence complexes, and 
over 90 percent of the total area of these units was already designated 
critical habitat; therefore, the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
populations within these units are addressed by this regional HCP. 
However, the new information regarding Quino checkerspot butterfly 
distribution in Unit 7 was not known at the time the HCP was developed 
and the permit was issued; therefore, we agree the importance of 
habitat in this area to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly is not addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This 
area was not designated as critical habitat in 2002. We now have much 
additional distribution information in this area and determined that 
designation of Unit 7 is warranted to: (1) Maintain core population 
resilience, (2) support subspecies range shift to higher elevation 
habitats due to changing climate patterns that affect the environment, 
and (3) educate the public about this new distributional data. 
Therefore, land within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area in 
Unit 7 is included in our final revised designation of critical habitat 
because the conservation benefits to the subspecies of inclusion of 
this unique unit outweigh the conservation partnership-related benefits 
of exclusion (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant 
Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below for more 
information).
    Comment 26: One commenter expressed concern that Federal lands 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area were not being 
considered for exclusion. The commenter further stated that any 
designation of critical habitat within the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP boundary would be a violation of the plan's associated 
Implementing Agreement (IA), citing language in section 6.9 of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and Associated Inc. 2003) and 
section 14.10 of the IA.
    Our Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, section 14.10 
of the IA does not preclude critical habitat designation within the 
plan area (Dudek and Associated Inc. 2003). Consistent with our 
commitment under the IA, and after public review and comment on the 
proposed revision to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly, we determined through our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act that the maximum extent of allowable exclusions under the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP was limited to the exclusion of lands 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6.
    With regard to the Federal lands within the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP plan area, we determined that National Forest lands 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and therefore, meet 
the definition of critical habitat (see ``Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat'' section below). We acknowledge that the San 
Bernardino National Forest (Forest Service) has a Land Resource 
Management Plan (LRMP) that will benefit the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat. The LRMP contains general provisions for 
species conservation and suggests specific management and conservation 
actions that will benefit this species and the physical and biological 
features essential to its conservation. Implementation of the LRMP 
should address known threats to this species on Forest Service lands. 
We appreciate and commend the efforts of the Forest Service to conserve 
federally listed species on its lands.
    We considered the request from the commenter that we exclude Forest 
Service lands from the designation because it would unnecessarily add 
work in the future to determine the effect regarding critical habitat 
for actions on its lands and the fact that it had already completed 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act on an LRMP. Based on the 
record before us, we decided not to exclude these lands and are 
designating National Forest lands that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We will continue to 
consider on a case-by-case basis in future critical habitat rules 
whether to exclude particular Federal lands from such designation when 
we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of their inclusion.
    Comment 27: One commenter claimed that lands within the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP should not be excluded from critical habitat 
because this regional HCP does not adequately protect the subspecies 
and, therefore, the benefits of inclusion outweigh the benefits of 
exclusion. The commenter provided specific examples of how they believe 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP does not adequately protect the 
subspecies, including: (1) Approximately 10 percent of critical habitat 
in the proposed revised critical habitat rule falls entirely outside 
any targeted reserve system (outside criteria cells); (2) conservation 
is not likely (``only optional'') for the 14 percent of proposed 
revised critical habitat that is within criteria cells but not the 
conceptual reserve design; (3) the Western Riverside County MSHCP is 
not being properly implemented; (4) the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
does not have adequate funding for implementation; and (5) effects of 
global warming on covered species was never reviewed or addressed by 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
    Our Response: When we issued the permit for the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP, we determined that it provides

[[Page 28791]]

adequate protection for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 
within the plan area boundary. We are monitoring the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP implementation and the subspecies' status and have not 
altered this determination. Additionally, we have not determined the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP to be improperly implemented or 
inadequately funded. We will evaluate the information submitted by the 
commenter and consider it in our ongoing assessments of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP, and continue to work with permittees to make 
sure the HCP is adequately funded. If during our ongoing assessments of 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP we determine the HCP does not 
adequately protect the subspecies, is not being properly implemented, 
or does not have adequate funding based on all available information, 
we will take appropriate action with regard to the HCP permit, and may 
again revise designated critical habitat, subject to available funding 
and other conservation priorities.
    Given specific Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation actions 
(for example, conservation of habitat in a reserve system, maintenance 
of core populations, enhancement of habitat), avoidance and 
minimization measures, and management for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat, the additional conservation value that may 
be afforded through a critical habitat designation in Units 1 through 6 
is minimal. Furthermore, as demonstrated by comments received from 
Western Riverside County MSHCP partners, designation of critical 
habitat would negatively impact our existing working relationships and 
partnerships that we have developed. The information provided by the 
commenter does not change our determination that the benefits of 
excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 from revised 
critical habitat outweigh the minimal benefits of including these lands 
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a complete discussion of 
this exclusion).
    It is true that approximately 15 percent of critical habitat in the 
proposed revised critical habitat rule owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
occurs entirely outside of land targeted for reserve assembly (4,020 ac 
(1,627 ha), only 4 percent of entire area proposed), and effects of 
climate change on covered species were not specifically reviewed or 
addressed by the HCP. The majority of proposed revised critical habitat 
that is outside of criteria cells occurs in large contiguous areas 
within Unit 7 (approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha)), the remainder is in 
small land parcels on the periphery of Unit 2 (approximately 319 ac 
(129 ha)). The inclusion of Unit 7 in revised critical habitat is in 
part to protect habitat needed to support range shift resulting from 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns. In areas 
outside lands targeted for reserve assembly by the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP, the additional conservation benefits of critical habitat 
designation are not minimized by the HCP in Unit 7, so the benefits of 
inclusion are greater than those in Units 1 through 6. Therefore, we 
determined the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion in Unit 7 and did not exclude lands owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in 
that unit from this revised critical habitat designation (see 
additional discussion in the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other 
Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
    Comment 28: One commenter requested that lands within the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP not be excluded from critical habitat based on 
conservation benefits. The commenter stated the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP permittees opposition to the designation of critical 
habitat suggests they believe the designation would result in a greater 
conservation burden on them, and therefore would result in a higher 
level of conservation for the subspecies than will occur under the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that stakeholder and permittee comment 
letters indicate opposition to designation of lands covered by the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP; however, these opinions are based on 
perception, and as such should not be the basis for determining the 
conservation value of critical habitat designation (benefits of 
inclusion). Our analysis of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
provides a more informed measure of the benefits of critical habitat 
designation than permittee and stakeholder opposition. Conversely, 
comments received from Western Riverside County MSHCP partners do 
indicate designation of critical habitat would negatively affect our 
existing positive working relationships and partnerships, thereby 
discouraging future HCP participation. See response to Comment 27 above 
for a discussion of the benefits of inclusion of lands within the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area in the revised critical 
habitat designation (see additional discussion in the ``Application of 
Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' 
section).
    Comment 29: One commenter believes that we should not exclude lands 
covered by HCPs because HCPs do not provide as much protection as 
critical habitat. The commenter cited Taylor et al. (2005) as having 
found that species with critical habitat are less likely to decline, 
and over twice as likely to recover as those without critical habitat. 
The commenter also cited Kareiva et al. (1999) as finding that most 
HCPs fail to adequately protect species.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that HCPs provide less 
protection than critical habitat designation. The Western Riverside 
County MSHCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan incorporate on-going 
management and protection for the Quino checkerspot butterfly that will 
benefit the long-term conservation of the subspecies. The protection 
and long-term management provided by these HCPs to Quino checkerspot 
butterfly habitat extend to private lands that otherwise lack a Federal 
nexus under which consultation could be triggered. These two regional 
HCPs provide for proactive monitoring and management of conserved lands 
important to the survival and recovery of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Such conservation needs are typically not addressed through 
application of the statutory prohibition on destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    We also note that exclusions are not based on the difference 
between protection measures provided by critical habitat designation or 
HCPs in isolation, but how the redundancy of protections provided by an 
HCP with those provided by critical habitat designation minimizes the 
overall conservation value of designation, and how the remaining 
benefits of designation are negated by the benefits of exclusion 
(maintaining partnerships and fostering future HCPs). Conservation 
benefits provided by existing HCPs are not considered a benefit of 
exclusion because they would remain in place regardless of critical 
habitat designation; however, they do minimize the benefits of 
inclusion to the extent they are redundant with protection measures 
that would be provided by critical habitat designation.
    The primary benefit of a critical habitat designation is the 
requirement that Federal agencies do not fund,

[[Page 28792]]

authorize, or carry out actions on designated lands that adversely 
modify or destroy critical habitat. Therefore, where there is a Federal 
nexus, Federal agencies consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act. Based on the conservation benefits provided by the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP (in proposed Units 1 through 6) and the Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan, we believe the additional protection provided to 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by critical habitat designation 
would be minimal. Therefore, we are excluding most lands within the 
plan areas of these HCPs based on the benefits of maintaining our 
conservation partnerships.
    We also disagree with the commenter that the cited studies are 
applicable to the exclusion of lands under the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan under the MSCP regarding Quino 
checkerspot butterfly conservation. The results of Taylor et al. (2005, 
pp. 360-367) do indicate a significant conservation benefit of critical 
habitat designation; however, that study did not analyze or discuss the 
effects of HCP-based exclusions. The benefits of exclusion for any 
particular HCP must be analyzed independently and balanced against the 
benefits of inclusion because HCPs: (1) Are variable in scope; (2) 
contain variable conservation and management planning efforts; and (3) 
document effects of conservation measures on species abundance trends 
that may not be apparent for many years. Many HCPs analyzed by Kareiva 
et al. (1999, pp. 10, 21, 22, 89) were not geographically comparable to 
the large, regional multi-species plans such as Western Riverside 
County MSHCP and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan under the MSCP, and only 
4 percent were habitat-based like these large regional HCPs (Kareiva et 
al. 1999, pp. 21, 22). Also, the stated purpose of Kareiva et al.'s 
(1999, p. 9) study was to evaluate the extent to which scientific data 
and methods were used in development and justification of HCP 
agreements, not to evaluate what effects plans have on biological 
systems or species. Kareiva et al. (1999, p. 9) stated, ``Because the 
vast majority of HCPs have been initiated since 1994, it is simply too 
early to evaluate whether the plans are working.'' Therefore, general 
conclusions in the literature cited by the commenter do not justify 
including lands covered by these HCPs.
Comments Related To Legal and Procedural Issues
    Comment 30: One commenter stated designation of critical habitat on 
lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP is arbitrary and 
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Section 701 
et seq.), given the Service frequently excludes MSHCP lands from 
critical habitat designations, and the County of Riverside Regional 
Conservation Authority has demonstrated good faith in assembling Quino 
checkerspot butterfly habitat by purchasing the Winchester 700 property 
``for a very high price,'' and by purchasing other Quino checkerspot 
butterfly habitat parcels in Riverside County.
    Our Response: We agree that the Service frequently excludes MSHCP 
lands from critical habitat designations and the County of Riverside 
Regional Conservation Authority has demonstrated good faith in 
assembling Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat by purchasing the 
``Winchester 700'' property and other habitat parcels in Riverside 
County. We do not agree that designating critical habitat on lands in 
Unit 7 is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure 
Act because we had a reasoned basis for our decision (see comment 25 
and associated response above for further discussion).
    Comment 31: One commenter believes that final revised critical 
habitat boundaries should not include any additional lands that were 
not specifically described in the 2008 proposed revised rule (73 FR 
3328; January 17, 2008), unless these changes are first noticed to the 
public and there is opportunity for public comment.
    Our Response: No additional lands are included within the 
boundaries of this final revised critical habitat designation that were 
not described in the proposed revised critical habitat rule published 
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). We did remove 
some lands from our revised critical habitat proposal, and this change 
was described in the notice of availability of the DEA, which published 
in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568).
Tribal Comments
    Comment 32: One representative of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Mission Indians of California (Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians) 
supported exclusion of all lands within the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP area boundary because they believe the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP adequately conserves the Quino checkerspot butterfly. This 
commenter further stated that designation of critical habitat within 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP boundary would be a violation of the 
IA, stating they believe language in section 6.9 of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 2003) and section 14.10 of 
the IA means no critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
should be designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area.
    Our Response: Please see our responses to comments 25 and 26 above, 
and see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for more information 
regarding the exclusion process and why we did not exclude lands in 
Unit 7 that are owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
    Comment 33: The Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo 
Reservation, California (Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians), requested 
that the Service clearly state which subsection of section 3(5)(A) of 
the Act is being relied upon for each unit meeting the definition of 
critical habitat. If land is defined as critical habitat under 
subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) because it was not occupied at the time of 
listing, the tribe suggests including an explanation for why those 
lands are considered essential. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 
specifically requested that if tribal lands are included in Unit 9, the 
Service should explain why this habitat that was ``not occupied at the 
time of listing'' is in need of special management and essential to the 
subspecies' conservation.
    Our Response: Table 1 of the proposed revised critical habitat rule 
identifies which critical habitat units were occupied at the time of 
listing, and, therefore, what subsection of section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
applies to lands in each unit. Units 7 (Bautista) and 9 (La Posta/
Campo) are designated under subsection 3(5)(A)(ii) and are outside of 
the geographical area occupied by the Quino checkerspot butterfly at 
the time it was listed.
    We made a determination that lands in Unit 9 are essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies because it is contains unique habitat, 
is distant from other units (indicating occupancy by a unique and 
independent population), and because ensuring persistence of 
populations associated with core occurrence complexes is essential for 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In identifying areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat, we recognize the 
importance of including all lands necessary to support resilient core 
populations. We are not aware of any data that contradict our 
determination that tribal lands included

[[Page 28793]]

in proposed revised critical habitat are essential for the conservation 
of the subspecies. With regard to special management, section 
3(5)(A)(i) of the Act only requires a determination that the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species 
that are found in areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing may require special management 
considerations or protection. Therefore, because lands in Unit 9 are 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, we did not provide a determination of special management needs 
for Unit 9 in the proposed revised rule or this final revised rule.
    Comment 34: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians believes the 
benefits of critical habitat designation are minimal for La Posta/Campo 
Unit 9, given the likelihood habitat is occupied and consultation would 
be required regardless of critical habitat designation. They support 
exclusion of the entire unit based on insufficient conservation 
benefits.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary to 
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data 
available and after taking into consideration the economic impacts, 
national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. Although we do not agree with 
the tribe's assertion that all lands within the La Posta/Campo Unit 9 
should be excluded based on ``insufficient'' conservation benefits, our 
analyses revealed that tribally owned portions of the unit should be 
excluded based on impacts to national security, government-to-
government relations, and economics. We excluded all tribally owned 
lands because we determined that the impacts to government-to-
government relationships and economics outweighed the benefits of 
including those areas as critical habitat, and that the exclusion would 
not result in the extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We 
also excluded lands owned or controlled by the Navy in Unit 9 due to 
impacts to national security. No private lands in Unit 9 are covered by 
an HCP or other management plan that addresses subspecies conservation 
(see response to comments 10 and 25-29 above, and the ``Application of 
Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts To Government-To-Government Relationships With 
Tribes And Economics,'' and ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts 
to National Security'' sections below for more details on our exclusion 
analyses).
    Comment 35: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated that the 
proposed rule does not explain any progress toward understanding 
subspecies population dynamics, habitat requirements, and population 
distributions made since the Recovery Plan was published in 2003. They 
requested detailed documentation of any new information and how it 
supports the proposed revisions to critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Service received significantly more survey data 
documenting population distributions (which inform our understanding of 
population dynamics) than were available at the time the Recovery Plan 
published. The ``Status and Local Distribution of Populations'' 
sections (for Riverside and San Diego counties) of the proposed revised 
critical habitat rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008) provided detailed 
documentation of new distribution information. Several relatively 
isolated occurrences were recently discovered despite previously 
negative survey results prior to publication of the Recovery Plan (such 
as Mission Trails Park, Sycamore Canyon Open Space Preserve). Discovery 
of new non-core and core occurrence complexes (including La Posta/
Campo) indicate Quino checkerspot butterfly core populations may have 
larger distributions and are more resilient than believed at the time 
the Recovery Plan published. Therefore, the new non-core occurrence 
complexes, and new occurrences that expanded existing occurrence 
complexes, support our focus on designating population distributions 
associated with core occurrence complexes (see ``Criteria Used to 
Designate Critical Habitat'' section below).
    We have also acquired considerable additional information regarding 
the types of habitat used by the Quino checkerspot butterfly since the 
Recovery Plan published in 2003. Knowledge regarding the physical and 
biological features essential to conservation of the species is 
required for habitat delineation and descriptions (PCEs). New habitat 
information acquired since Recovery Plan publication includes: (1) 
Subspecies use of unique redshank chaparral habitat, where no species 
of Plantago host plant occur (La Posta/Campo Unit 9, the new high-
elevation Quinn Flat Occurrence Complex in Riverside County); (2) heavy 
use of Antirrhinum coulterianum host plants that can occur following 
fire at lower elevations adjacent to where Plantago erecta occurs 
(Skinner/Johnson Unit 2; CFWO 2004); (3) A. coulterianum and possibly 
Collinsia concolor supports occupancy in habitat patches where Plantago 
host plant species are absent (La Posta/Campo Unit 9); and (4) Quino 
checkerspot butterflies inhabit areas above 5,000 ft (1,524 m) in 
elevation (Pratt and Pierce 2005, pp. 4-5, 11-12; Pratt 2005, p.1; SBNF 
GIS database). Since publication of the proposed revised critical 
habitat rule, we also learned another species of host plant previously 
suspected of supporting reproduction is used and important to 
conservation of the subspecies near the community of Anza (see 
``Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 
Habitat'' section below). Therefore, our conclusion that proposed 
revised units meet the definition of critical habitat is supported by 
geographically specific habitat information, and the new host plant 
information supports the addition of a new biological feature to our 
list of PCEs.
    Comment 36: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested we clarify 
the criteria for designating critical habitat by defining the term 
``occupied habitat,'' and define the geographic size and number of 
adults (or adults and larvae) required for an occurrence complex to 
qualify as ``core.'' The tribe specifically expressed concern that the 
proposed rule described core occurrence complexes as likely to contain 
source subpopulations for a metapopulation without providing sufficient 
data to support this conclusion.
    Our Response: Occupancy within a critical habitat unit is defined 
by the habitat-based population distribution of an occurrence complex. 
A habitat-based population distribution includes all contiguous habitat 
within 1.2 mi (2 km) of a Quino checkerspot butterfly occurrence (see 
``Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section below). 
Habitat-based population distributions are used to define population-
scale occupancy because observation locations are one-dimensional and 
static, and expanded areas based solely on recorded movement distances 
of a species may include non-habitat. The proposed revised critical 
habitat units are the habitat-based population distributions associated 
with core occurrence complexes. Therefore, the term ``occupied 
habitat'' in this rule refers to areas at the spatial and temporal 
scales of a population distribution described using the best available 
scientific data.
    We define core occurrence complexes using several criteria. 
Population attributes such as subspecies abundance, total area 
occupied, and evidence of reproduction are all

[[Page 28794]]

indicators of population resilience. To clarify, a ``core occurrence 
complex'' is defined as an area where at least two of the following 
criteria apply: (1) 50 or more adults were ever observed during a 
single survey; (2) immature life stages have been recorded; and (3) the 
geographic area of an occurrence complex (within 0.6 mi (1 km) of 
subspecies occurrences) is greater than 1,290 ac (522 ha) (see 
``Background'' section above). Therefore, all proposed revised critical 
habitat units contain occurrence complexes that qualify as ``core.''
    We based our conclusion that core occurrence complexes are likely 
to contain source populations on sound scientific theory and 
information. Quino checkerspot butterfly populations are likely to be 
metapopulations (Service 2003a, pp. 21-31), and core occurrence complex 
habitat-based population distributions are large enough to capture most 
of a metapopulation distribution (Service 2003a, p. 24; see also 
Comment 15 and associated response above). The size of proposed revised 
critical habitat units are proportional to documented Edith's 
checkerspot butterfly population distributions that have longer 
predicted persistence times (Service 2003a, p. 24). Therefore, the 
final revised critical habitat units are likely to contain source 
subpopulations.
    Comment 37: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested the 
Service explain how it can ``violate'' its own methods for determining 
occurrence complex boundaries by including geographic areas beyond the 
habitat-based population distribution within Unit 9.
    Our Response: Although occurrence complexes are geographically 
defined in part by overlapping 0.6 mi (1 km) movement distances, we did 
not map occurrence complex ``boundaries'' as described in the comment. 
Our methods for determining occurrence complex status did not include 
geographic boundary determination for the La Posta/Campo Core 
Occurrence Complex. The only boundaries associated with occurrence 
complexes we established in the proposed revised critical habitat rule 
are habitat-based population distributions used to map proposed revised 
critical habitat units (see response to comment 36 above and ``Criteria 
Used to Designate Critical Habitat'' section below). Unit 9 was limited 
to lands within the habitat-based population distribution of the La 
Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex, and did not include any areas 
outside that geographic delineation. We revised our discussion in the 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below to clarify 
our methods.
    Comment 38: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians; two representatives 
of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; the Barona Group of Capitan 
Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California 
(Barona Band of Mission Indians); the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission 
Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation, California (Pauma Band of 
Mission Indians); and the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 
Pala Reservation, California (Pala Band of Mission Indians), all 
believe there is insufficient evidence that tribal lands included in 
proposed revisions to critical habitat are essential to conservation of 
the subspecies. These tribal representatives also stated that 
designation of tribal lands as critical habitat will constitute a 
significant burden to the affected tribes, and per Secretarial Order 
3206, the Service should demonstrate that conservation needs of the 
subspecies cannot be met by limiting critical habitat designation to 
nontribal lands. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians specifically 
requested its lands be excluded from critical habitat designation for 
economic reasons based on the findings of the DEA.
    Our Response: We believe our proposed revisions to critical habitat 
were supported by sufficient scientific data. Section 4(b) of the Act 
requires we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure our decisions are 
based on the best scientific data available. We used primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for our recommendations to 
designate revised critical habitat.
    Ensuring persistence of populations associated with core occurrence 
complexes is critical to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. In identifying areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat, we recognize the importance of including all lands necessary 
to support resilient core populations. The best available scientific 
data indicate management of those portions of tribally owned lands (see 
response to comment 37 above for more information) that were proposed 
as revised critical habitat is essential to conserving the affected 
core populations. We utilized GIS data to limit the proposed 
designation to only those lands necessary for the conservation of the 
identified core populations. Therefore, we believe our proposed 
revisions to critical habitat are well supported by the best available 
scientific data.
    During our process of identifying lands that meet the definition of 
critical habitat, we identified several tribes whose reservations 
include portions of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat-based 
population distributions associated with populations needed for 
conservation of the subspecies, including the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of 
Cahuilla Indians (California), and the Cahuilla Band of Indians. 
Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 states, ``In 
designating critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document 
the extent to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be 
achieved by limiting the designation to other lands,'' indicating 
proposed critical habitat should be limited to nontribal lands if 
conservation needs can still be met by doing so. We determined that, 
without Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land and Santa Rosa Band of 
Cahuilla Indians' land, the remaining habitat in Unit 7 still contained 
sufficient PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for 
the subspecies' conservation needs. Therefore, we did not propose as 
revised critical habitat any tribal reservation lands in Unit 7.
    In our exclusion analyses, we evaluated the burden of critical 
habitat designation on affected tribes. Section 3(B)(3) of the Appendix 
to Secretarial Order 3206 states, ``[the Service shall] * * * Recognize 
the [conservation] contribution to be made by affected Indian tribes * 
* * and evaluate economic impacts of such proposals with implications 
for tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights.'' Sections 
3(B)(3) and 3(B)(4) (see above quote) of the Appendix to Secretarial 
Order 3206 indicate tribal lands should be excluded from critical 
habitat designation if the burden is significant and the ability to 
meet species' conservation needs are not precluded by exclusion. The 
final economic analysis (FEA), and new land ownership information 
indicating that Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal fee-lands 
outside the reservation lands were included in proposed revised 
critical habitat in Unit 7, indicated the proposed designation may 
impose a

[[Page 28795]]

significant economic burden on the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, the 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Cahuilla Band of Indians. 
Based on the economic impact and Federal policies, including 
Secretarial Order 3206, that mandate maintenance of good working 
relationships with tribes and deference to tribal management authority, 
we determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians', Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians', and Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands, and determined the 
exclusions of lands in Units 6, 7, and 9 will not lead to the 
extinction of the subspecies. Therefore, we excluded all tribal lands 
proposed for revised designation from critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. Please see the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Economic 
Impact'' section below for a discussion of these tribal exclusions.
    Comment 39: One representative of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians believes that, according to Secretarial Order 3206, Principle 
3(C), the proposed revised critical habitat designation on property 
adjacent to or near Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians lands should have 
triggered consultation and written notice of proposed conservation 
restrictions. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians also stated that land 
proposed as revised critical habitat is adjacent to the only road that 
allows access to and from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' 
Reservation. The road is critical to the health and safety of the 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and designating critical habitat 
adjacent to the tribes only access to and from the Ramona Indian 
Reservation could potentially affect a proposed project to pave the 
existing dirt road, which would make it more usable for tribal members 
and health and safety service responders (Riverside County Sherriff and 
local and regional fire departments). The tribe stated that a delay in 
the project or denial of permits to pave the road as a result of 
designating lands adjacent to the road as revised critical habitat 
could cost the tribe more than $1 million already allocated to this 
project. The tribe believes it would have to spend hundreds of 
thousands more dollars to maintain the existing unpaved road.
    Our Response: We considered the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' 
assertion described above. Section 5, Principle 3(C) of Secretarial 
Order 3206 states, ``At the earliest indication that the need for 
Federal conservation restrictions is being considered for any species, 
the Departments, acting in their trustee capacities, shall promptly 
notify all potentially affected tribes, and provide such technical, 
financial, or other assistance as may be appropriate, thereby assisting 
Indian tribes in identifying and implementing tribal conservation and 
other measures necessary to protect such species. In the event that the 
Departments determine that conservation restrictions are necessary in 
order to protect listed species, the Departments, in keeping with the 
trust responsibility and government-to-government relationships, shall 
consult with affected tribes and provide written notice to them of the 
intended restriction as far in advance as practicable.'' Section 
3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 specifically states 
``In keeping with the trust responsibility, [the Service] shall consult 
with the affected Indian Tribe(s) when considering the designation of 
critical habitat in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources, 
tribally-owned fee lands, or the exercise of Tribal rights.''
    We do not anticipate any additional burden to the Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians due to the designation of Forest Service lands 
adjacent to tribal lands. All referenced Forest Service lands are 
occupied, and we were engaged in active Section 7 consultation with the 
Forest Service on the road widening and paving project prior to 
proposing revisions to critical habitat (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). 
Identifiable potential economic impacts in occupied Quino checkerspot 
butterfly habitat that may result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat are likely limited to administrative costs. Therefore, 
we do not expect any additional regulatory actions or measures will be 
required solely due to designation of the referenced U.S. Forest 
Service lands as critical habitat and we did not initiate consultation 
under the Secretarial Order with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 
with regard to these lands based on proposed revisions to critical 
habitat.
    Following receipt of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' first 
comment letter, we met with the tribe on October 16, 2008, to consult 
regarding any economic and social impacts the proposed revised 
designation of critical habitat would have on the tribe. After 
publication of the proposed revised critical habitat rule, we learned 
that Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal fee lands had been included 
in the proposal. These particular lands are surrounded by nontribal 
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat and were properly 
proposed as critical habitat. We evaluated these tribal lands for 
exclusion and determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion for Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' tribal fee 
lands. Therefore, we excluded these lands from critical habitat under 
4(b)(2) of the Act. See the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
- Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and 
Economics'' section below and for further discussion of this exclusion. 
We will continue to work cooperatively with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
    Comment 40: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested its land 
be excluded unless the Service demonstrates the benefits of inclusion 
outweigh the benefits of ``repairing the Service's working relationship 
with them.'' Specifically, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians cited 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton (240 Supp. 2d 1090, 1105; D. 
Ariz. 2003) where the Service's decision to exclude tribal lands was 
upheld by the court because ``the benefit of maintaining a good working 
relationship with the Tribe outweighed the benefit * * * [of 
designating tribal lands] as [critical habitat].''
    Our Response: We evaluated the benefits of exclusion of all tribal 
lands from this revised critical habitat designation. Maintaining and 
fostering partnerships and good working relationships are benefits of 
exclusion and are mandated by Secretarial Order 3206. Consistent with 
Secretarial Order 3206 and Executive Order 13175, we also believe 
tribal lands are better managed under tribal authorities, policies, and 
programs than through Federal regulation wherever possible and 
practicable. Consistent with the Act and Secretarial Order 3206, we 
also evaluated the economic impact of critical habitat designation on 
tribes. The final economic analysis (FEA) indicated the proposed 
designation may impose a significant economic burden on the Campo Band 
of Kumeyaay Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians. We determined the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion for Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians', 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians', and Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands, 
and determined the exclusions will not lead to the extinction of the 
subspecies (see response to Comment 38 above and ``Application of 
Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With 
Tribes and Economics'' section of this rule). Therefore, we excluded 
all tribal lands proposed for revised designation from critical habitat 
under 4(b)(2) of the Act.

[[Page 28796]]

We recognize and value our good working relationship with the Campo 
Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will continue to work cooperatively with 
the tribe to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
    Comment 41: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe 
the Service did not fulfill the mandate of Secretarial Order 3206 by 
initiating consultation with them the moment it considered taking 
action that would affect tribal trust resources (critical habitat 
designation). The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated that the 
Service only informed them it was considering inclusion of its land at 
a meeting in November 2007, requested by the Service, and that the 
Service's position at that meeting was that it was ``considering'' 
inclusion of tribal lands, not intending to do so.
    Our Response: We believe we have fulfilled our responsibilities to 
the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians under Secretarial Order 3206. As 
mandated by Section 5, and Principle 3(C) of Secretarial Order 3206, as 
well as Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to Secretarial Order 3206 (see 
response to Comment 39 above), we initiated tribal coordination 
regarding possible proposed revised critical habitat on Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians' lands through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Regional 
Endangered Species Coordinator in August of 2007. We initiated direct 
contact with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians in a letter dated 
September 11, 2007, requesting the opportunity to discuss our findings 
prior to publication of proposed revisions to critical habitat. At a 
meeting on November 7, 2007, we explained why we believed some tribal 
lands met the definition of critical habitat and requested they submit 
any data we had not considered. At this meeting we mentioned that no 
agency decision had yet been made and explained that any final 
recommendation on the proposal we submitted for signature and 
publication in the Federal Register would address any data submitted by 
the tribe. We continued to meet and correspond with the Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians regularly during the decision-making process. 
Therefore, we believe we fulfilled the mandate of Secretarial Order 
3206 with regard to the proposal of revised critical habitat and this 
final designation of revised critical habitat.
    Comment 42: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians stated they believe 
the Service did not fulfill its duty to assist them in pursuing its own 
efforts to protect the subspecies, including assisting in crafting a 
tribal management plan.
    Our Response: Principle 3(A) of Secretarial Order 3206 states, 
``The Departments shall offer and provide such scientific and technical 
assistance and information as may be available for the development of 
tribal conservation and management plans to promote the maintenance, 
restoration, enhancement and health of the ecosystems upon which 
[listed] species * * * depend, including the cooperative identification 
of appropriate management measures to address concerns for such species 
and their habitats.'' Furthermore, Principle 3(D) of Secretarial Order 
3206 states, ``In their roles as trustees, the Services shall offer and 
provide technical assistance and information for the development of 
tribal conservation and management plans to promote the maintenance, 
restoration, and enhancement of the ecosystems on which [listed] 
species * * * depend.'' We provided the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 
with a draft Quino checkerspot butterfly management plan specific to 
its lands, as well as example management plans for other species on 
other tribal lands, prior to our meeting November 7, 2007 (see response 
to Comment 41 above). At that meeting, we discussed these documents and 
management options for the Quino checkerspot butterfly on tribal lands 
and offered to assist with further management planning. We continued to 
correspond and meet with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and provide 
training and technical assistance to tribal staff during development of 
the proposed revised critical habitat proposal, the DEA, and this final 
revised rule. Therefore, we believe we fulfilled our responsibility as 
trustees by assisting the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians to the full 
extent possible.
    Comment 43: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested exclusion 
of its lands from any final revised critical habitat designation 
because the educational benefits associated with a Quino checkerspot 
butterfly critical habitat designation are less than those already 
provided by its conservation program, and the tribe believes it already 
provides adequate conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
through a long-established environmental protection program (the Campo 
Environmental Protection Agency). The tribe believes the program 
demonstrates the Campo Environmental Protection Agency's ability to 
manage its own land base by providing knowledgeable, trained personnel 
and engaging in conservation activities. The tribe cited the successful 
completion of riparian habitat restoration projects in degraded 
watersheds on the Campo Reservation as an example of tribal habitat 
management.
    Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we considered how the 
educational benefits associated with a Quino checkerspot butterfly 
revised critical habitat designation may already have been provided by 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' conservation program. Educational 
benefits are a benefit of inclusion, and a determination that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, along with a 
determination that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the 
subspecies, must be made before we can exclude lands that meet the 
definition of critical habitat from a final revised critical habitat 
designation. In our analysis, we did find that the educational benefits 
of revised critical habitat designation may have already been realized 
by the revised critical habitat proposal process and Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians' conservation program.
    In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the conservation measures 
provided by Campo Environmental Protection Agency activities. Existing 
conservation measures minimize the benefits of inclusion, but, as 
stated above, the benefits of exclusion must outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, and a determination that exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the subspecies must be made before we can exclude lands 
from a final revised critical habitat designation. Per Secretarial 
Order 3206 and other published policies on Native American natural 
resource management, we are aware of our mandate to minimize intrusion 
on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in accordance 
with its own policies, customs and laws. We agree that the Campo 
Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated an ability to manage 
its own land base by providing knowledgeable, trained personnel and 
engaging in conservation activities. Per the FEA, we also acknowledge 
that critical habitat designation may result in use of tribal resources 
for administrative (consultation) purposes that might otherwise be used 
for conservation. Therefore, we found the benefits of inclusion due to 
conservation achieved through section 7 consultation associated with 
designated critical habitat were minimized by existing tribal 
conservation activities. However, we did not exclude Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians' land from revised critical habitat designation based 
solely

[[Page 28797]]

on the Campo Environmental Protection Agency conservation activities.
    We appreciate information on the education and conservation program 
provided by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Per Secretarial Order 
3206 and other published policies on Native American natural resource 
management, we considered all benefits of exclusion including: (1) The 
need to minimize economic impacts projected in the DEA; (2) the need to 
minimizing intrusion on the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' sovereign 
abilities to manage natural resources in accordance with its own 
policies, customs and laws; and (3) the need to maintain our good 
working relationships with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. We 
further determined the benefits of excluding Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians' lands outweigh the benefits of designating these lands, and 
these exclusions will not result in the extinction of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts 
to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics'' 
section below for more information). Therefore, we excluded all Campo 
Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands from this final revised critical 
habitat designation. We value our good working relationship with the 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and will continue to work cooperatively 
with the tribe to conserve federally listed species on its lands.
    Comment 44: The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians commented that the 
draft economic analysis does not reflect the potential exclusion of its 
lands from critical habitat designation, which is highlighted in the 
Federal Register notice re-opening the public comment period published 
on December 19, 2008.
    Our Response: The economic analysis has been revised to reflect 
this potential exclusion. Throughout the analysis, costs associated 
with areas explicitly identified by the Service as under consideration 
for exclusion are presented and discussed separately from areas that 
were not explicitly identified as being considered for exclusion.
    Comment 45: Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' suggested several 
editorial changes for the FEA based on its review of the DEA: (1) There 
should be a discussion of the role of Secretarial Order No. 3206 in 
regards to tribal lands proposed for critical habitat designation; (2) 
an exhibit presenting cost information for a proposed landfill project 
on its lands should be included in Chapter 6; (3) the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) should be included under the discussion of government 
agencies overseeing habitat management activities in Chapter 7, titled 
``Potential Impacts to Habitat Management;'' and (4) several exhibits 
mislabeling Unit 9, La Posta--Campo as ``Campo-La Posta'' should be 
corrected.
    Our Response: The following corrections were made to the FEA: (1) 
Explanatory text regarding Secretarial Order No. 3206 and its role in 
the decision-making process of the Service has been integrated into 
Chapter 3; (2) Exhibit 6-5 presenting the potential costs to the tribe 
for the proposed landfill project has been added; and (3) we corrected 
the labeling of Unit 9 throughout. We are unaware of habitat management 
activities for the subspecies undertaken or planned by BIA. The FEA 
authors contacted a representative of BIA, and he was also unaware of 
any such activity by BIA. Furthermore, our efforts to contact parties 
who submitted public comments on behalf of the BIA were unsuccessful. 
Consequently, the FEA was not modified to include BIA in the discussion 
of government agencies overseeing habitat management activities in 
Chapter 7.
Comments From Other Federal Agencies
    Comment 46: BIA believes that there is insufficient evidence that 
tribal lands included in the proposed revisions to critical habitat are 
essential to conservation of the subspecies. BIA also stated that, per 
Secretarial Order 3206, the designation of portions of the Campo Band 
of Kumeyaay Indians' and Cahuilla Band of Indians' reservations would 
constitute a significant burden to those tribes. The BIA also requested 
that the Service: (1) Withdraw all tribal lands from those identified 
for the proposed revised designation of critical habitat; (2) consult 
with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and other tribal nations to 
address the economic and social impacts the proposed designation of 
critical habitat would have on tribal lands, tribal infrastructure, 
tribal health and safety, and proposed projects that would further the 
tribe's health, welfare, and self-reliance; (3) consult with 
potentially affected tribal nations per Secretarial Order 3206; and (4) 
issue a revised proposal based on mandated government-to-government 
consultation with affected tribes and tribal nations.
    Our Response: We used the best available scientific data to 
determine whether certain tribal lands are essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies (see also responses to comments 35 and 
36 above), and we are not aware of any data that contradict our 
determination. Therefore, we included some tribal lands in the proposed 
revision to critical habitat. See the ``Criteria Used to Designate 
Critical Habitat'' section below for further discussion.
    We believe we fulfilled our responsibilities to the tribes under 
Secretarial Order 3206 throughout the designation process. Please see 
our responses to comments 39-42 above regarding our consultations with 
the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians. Additionally, we met informally with the Cahuilla Band of 
Mission Indians' Environmental Officer to discuss our proposed 
designation and answer any questions the tribe had regarding our 
proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
    We evaluated tribal lands for exclusion and determined the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians', Cahuilla Band of Indians', and Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians' lands. Therefore, we excluded these lands from 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. See responses to 
tribal comments above and the ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - 
Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes and 
Economics'' section below for further discussion of these exclusions.
    Comment 47: The BIA stated that land proposed as revised critical 
habitat is adjacent to the only road that allows access to and from the 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' Reservation. The road is critical to 
the health and safety of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and 
designating critical habitat adjacent to the tribe's only access to and 
from the Ramona Indian Reservation could potentially affect a proposed 
project to pave the existing dirt road, thus making it more usable for 
tribal members and health and safety service responders (such as 
Riverside County Sheriff and local and regional fire departments). They 
stated a delay in the project or denial of permits to build the project 
as a result of designating lands adjacent to the road as revised 
critical habitat could cost the tribe more than $1 million already 
allocated to build the project. Over the life of the road, the tribe 
believes they would have to spend hundreds of thousands more dollars to 
maintain the road if it is not paved.
    Our Response: We do not anticipate any additional burden to the 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians due to the designation of Forest 
Service lands adjacent to tribal lands (see response to comment 39 
above).
    Comment 48: With regard to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the 
BIA specifically stated that designating lands adjacent to or near 
Ramona and

[[Page 28798]]

Cahuilla tribal lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan 
area would violate the MSHCP because the HCP has already delineated 
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and adequately 
provides for the survival and recovery of the subspecies. The BIA 
believes that language in section 6.9 of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 2003) and section 14.10 of the IA means no 
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly should be 
designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area.
    Our Response: The delineation of critical habitat is outside the 
scope of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting process under the Act, and 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP did not delineate critical habitat 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In addition, contrary to BIA's 
assertion, the IA does not preclude the designation of critical habitat 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area. In our section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis for lands within the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP plan area, we fully considered the conservation benefits 
provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP to the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly, and we excluded all the lands in Units 1 through 6 owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP from this critical habitat designation (see response to 
comment 26 above for further discussion).
    Comment 49: The Department of the Navy (Navy) believes that 
designation of critical habitat at the La Posta Mountain Warfare 
Training Facility (La Posta Facility) would result in unacceptable 
delays in construction of facilities needed to support mission critical 
training and other missions related to national security. The Navy 
requested exclusion of 2,573 ac (1,041 ha) of land associated with the 
La Posta Facility under the Act based on the impact to national 
security should these lands be designated (``FY04 NDAA Section 318, 
National Security Exclusion from Critical Habitat Designation'').
    Our Response: We evaluated the impacts of revised critical habitat 
designation to national security. As explained in our response to 
comment 25 above, 50 CFR 424.19 states the Secretary may exclude any 
portion of such an area from the critical habitat if the benefits of 
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as part of 
the critical habitat. The Secretary shall not exclude any such area if, 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available, he 
determines that the failure to designate that area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We determined 
the benefits of excluding the La Posta Facility lands outweigh the 
benefits of including these lands in this final revised critical 
habitat designation. Further, we determined this exclusion will not 
result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. See the 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' 
section below for a more detailed discussion.
    Comment 50: The Navy stated it was opposed to critical habitat 
designation at the La Posta Facility because the Navy is actively 
conserving the Quino checkerspot butterfly to fulfill its obligations 
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536. Resource conservation 
efforts include the recently revised and updated Naval Base Coronado 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), developing a 
comprehensive Habitat Enhancement Plan, and purchasing land that 
conserves contiguous Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat (including 
approximately 138 ac (55.8 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat).
    Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the 
conservation measures provided by the Navy. Existing conservation 
measures minimize the benefits of inclusion, but the benefits of 
exclusion must outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and a determination 
that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the subspecies 
must be made before we can exclude lands from a final revised critical 
habitat designation. Although the Navy is implementing conservation 
measures for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and the updated INRMP is 
finalized (Navy 2008, pp. 1-2), the Service has not yet approved the 
updated INRMP. However, as stated above in response to comment 49, we 
excluded all lands associated with the La Posta Facility from this 
final revised critical habitat designation based on impacts to national 
security (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National 
Security'' section below). We appreciate all of the Navy's efforts to 
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on Navy lands 
and will continue to work cooperatively with the Navy for resource 
conservation.
    Comment 51: The Department of the Air Force (Air Force) requested 
the San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station (Surveillance 
Station) be excluded from critical habitat for three reasons. First, 
the Air Force believes that conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly will be assured because an INRMP is currently being prepared 
in coordination with the Service and the California Department of Fish 
and Game (CDFG). The Air Force stated that it must implement the INRMP 
in accordance with the Sikes Act 16 USC 670(a), and must comply with 
the Act to minimize modification of potentially suitable habitat. 
Second, the Air Force requested the Surveillance Station be excluded 
from critical habitat because the station is within currently 
designated critical habitat, and the Service has already consulted with 
the Air Force regarding all current and foreseen activities, including 
issuance of a biological opinion concluding that the Air Force is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Finally, the 
Air Force believes critical habitat designation would limit the amount 
of natural infrastructure available for ongoing and future mission 
execution and training needed for national security. The Air Force 
stated that short-notice mission-critical activities not previously 
analyzed may be delayed in order to conduct consultations under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act.
    Our Response: In our exclusion analysis, we evaluated the 
conservation measures provided by the Air Force. Existing conservation 
measures can minimize the benefits of inclusion, but the benefits of 
exclusion must outweigh the benefits of inclusion and a determination 
that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the subspecies 
must be made before we can exclude lands from a final critical habitat 
designation.
    Although conservation measures are being implemented for Quino 
checkerspot butterfly, the Surveillance Station INRMP is not yet 
finalized, and implementation of the identified conservation measures 
does not significantly minimize the conservation benefits of including 
these lands in the critical habitat designation. However, we excluded 
all lands associated with the Surveillance Station from this final 
revised critical habitat designation based on impacts to national 
security (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National 
Security'' section below). We appreciate all of the Air Force's efforts 
to conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat on its 
lands and will continue to work cooperatively with them in the future 
for resource conservation.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated and Proposed Revised 
Critical Habitat

    We designated approximately 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) of critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in 4 units on April 15, 
2002 (67 FR 18356). We

[[Page 28799]]

proposed to revise this designation to approximately 98,487 ac (39,857 
ha) in 10 units on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). This final revised 
critical habitat designation includes approximately 62,125 ac (25,141 
ha) in 10 units, after excluding Unit 1 and portions of Units 2 through 
9 (approximately 36,270 ac (14,678 ha)) based on consideration of 
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. All land 
designated as critical habitat in this final revised rule was proposed 
in the 2008 proposed revised rule. Changes between this designation and 
the 2002 designation, as well as from the 2008 proposed revisions, are 
described below.
    The areas identified in this final revised rule constitute 
revisions of areas designated as critical habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356; Figure 1). This 
final revised critical habitat designation includes approximately 
62,125 ac (25,141 ha) of land in Riverside and San Diego Counties, 
California. Table 1 and Figures 1a and 1b below outline differences 
between the 2002 final critical habitat rule, the 2008 proposed 
revisions to the critical habitat designation, and this final revised 
critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Summary of Changes From the 2002 Designation

    Of the 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) of land included in the 2002 final 
critical habitat rule, approximately 62,125 ac (25,141 ha) are included 
in this final revised critical habitat designation (Figures 1a and 1b). 
For a detailed discussion of the changes between the 2002 final 
critical habitat rule and the 2008 proposed revision, please refer to 
the ``Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat'' 
section in the proposed rule (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The most 
significant changes from the 2002 final rule to the 2008 proposed 
revision are illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b and Table 1 below and 
include:
    (1) In the 2002 critical habitat designation (67 FR 18356; April 
15, 2002), we based our criteria on the reasoning in the recovery plan 
(Service 2003a, p. v) that habitat areas supporting all occurrence 
complexes and habitat areas that facilitate landscape connectivity or 
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining population resilience 
are essential to the long-term conservation of the subspecies. In this 
revision to the critical habitat designation, our underlying reasoning 
has not changed; however, our revised Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat are based on new scientific data not available when 
critical habitat was designated on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356) or when 
the recovery plan was published (Service 2003a). Application of new 
data and updated occurrence information described in the ``Background'' 
section above resulted in the identification of different, and in most 
cases more specific, habitat areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat than were identified in the 2002 final critical habitat rule. 
This resulted in a reduced total acreage of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for this subspecies. The large amount of 
new habitat and distribution information resulted in refined population 
distribution knowledge and identification of three new core occurrence 
complexes (one new occurrence complex, two status changes; see 
``Background'' section above). These revisions capture habitat areas 
adequate to ensure the long-term conservation of this subspecies based 
on our current knowledge of its life history and ecological needs as 
described in the ``Background'' section above, and ``Primary 
Constituent Elements'' section below. The new criteria capture areas on 
the periphery of the subspecies' range and in atypical environments 
considered important to this subspecies for adaptation to changing 
climatic and environmental conditions different than those identified 
in the 2002 critical habitat designation. For example, the Bautista 
Unit (including 3 non-core occurrence complexes and habitat not known 
to be occupied) adequately incorporates habitat in the San Jacinto 
foothills at the northern edge of the subspecies' range. Consistent 
with the recovery strategy outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2003a, pp. 71-86), the new criteria focused on core occurrence complex 
habitat-based population distributions designed to capture all habitats 
likely to support resilient metapopulations, including those likely to 
support local source or mainland populations (also called 
subpopulations) and movement areas between habitat patches required for 
metapopulation resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term 
definitions). We believe the proposed revised critical habitat units, 
based on the best scientific data currently available regarding core 
occurrence complexes and associated habitat distributions, are adequate 
to ensure the long-term conservation of the subspecies and accurately 
capture the areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Please see the ``Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat'' section below for a detailed discussion.
    (2) Data collected since 2002 indicates that Unit 7 (Bautista) 
provide the function that the more isolated Brown Canyon subunit of 
formerly designated Unit 2 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 
17.95(i)) previously was thought to provide. In 2002, the Brown Canyon 
non-core occurrence complex was believed to represent the primary venue 
for range expansion of the species resulting from environmental changes 
due to changing climate patterns. Further, the resiliency of this 
population was believed to have been preserved by the insulation 
provided by surrounding hilly terrain and publicly owned lands. 
Information obtained since 2002 indicates the population serving these 
functions is represented by the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, 
and the Brown Canyon occurrence complex does not have the 
characteristics of a resilient core population. Therefore, the Brown 
Canyon subunit is no longer considered essential.
    (3) The 2002 critical habitat designation (FR 18356; April 15, 
2002) in Riverside County consisted of two units that included almost 
all known non-core occurrence complexes, areas connecting those 
occurrence complexes, and habitat within the Lake Mathews/Estelle 
Mountain Reserve associated with the ``Lake Mathews Population Site'' 
described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 77). We considered, 
but did not include any of the 5,765 ha (14,250 ac) of habitat in 
northwest Riverside County corresponding with current Unit 1 (67 FR 
18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) associated with the Harford 
Springs (non-core) Occurrence Complex and the Lake Mathews/Estelle 
Mountain Reserve. Data collected since we designated critical habitat 
on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356), indicate this area is no longer likely 
to support the features essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies, and that it is not essential for conservation of the 
subspecies. Most of the habitat associated with the Harford Springs 
(non-core) Occurrence Complex (designated as Unit 1 in 2002) is 
functionally isolated from occupied areas or has subsequently been 
developed, and this non-core occurrence complex has been extirpated. We 
considered but did not include portions of habitat within currently 
designated Unit 2 (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) 
associated with the Domenigoni Valley (Service 2003a, p. 39), Brown 
Canyon, Rocky Ridge, Billygoat Mountain, Dameron Valley, Oak Grove 
(Service

[[Page 28800]]

2003a, p. 41), and Spring Canyon non-core occurrence complexes in 
Riverside County identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 44; 
current Unit 2). Consistent with the recovery strategy outlined in the 
Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 71-86), we believe habitat captured 
by the expanded core occurrence complexes and the criteria that 
included additional habitat within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the mapped core 
occurrence complex areas (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat Section'' below) provides adequate landscape connectivity for 
conservation of the subspecies, and adequately captures areas that 
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining metapopulation 
viability.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.001


[[Page 28801]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

 TABLE 1. Changes between the April 15, 2002, Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat designation; the January 17, 2008, proposed designation; and
                                             this revised final designation. Acreage values are approximate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                2008 Proposed
                                                                  Recovery Plan       2002 Designation of      Revisions to the      2009 Final Revised
Critical Habitat Unit in this Final          County           occurrence complexes    Critical Habitat and     Critical Habitat       Critical Habitat
                Rule                                            \1\ (place names)         ac (ha) \2\         Designation and ac     Designation and ac
                                                                                                                   (ha) \3\                 (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Warm Springs                      Riverside               Warm Springs Creek and  Majority designated    Included as Unit 1;    Entire unit excluded
                                                              Warm Springs Creek      in Unit 2; 0 (0)       2,684 (1,086)
                                                              North
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Skinner/ Johnson                  Riverside               (Lake) Skinner/         Partially designated   Included as Unit 2;    Partially designated
                                                              Johnson (Ranch)         in Unit 2; 4,705       12,030 (4,869)         in Unit 2; 5,443
                                                                                      (1,904)                                       (2,203), partially
                                                                                                                                    excluded, 6,560
                                                                                                                                    (2,655)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sage                              Riverside               (Community of) Sage     Majority designated    Included as Unit 3;    Partially designated
                                                              and San Ignacio         in Unit 2; 123 (50)    2,692 (1,090)          in Unit 3; 123 ac
                                                              (Ridge)                                                               (50 ha), partially
                                                                                                                                    excluded, 2,569 ac
                                                                                                                                    (1,040 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilson Valley                                             Wilson Valley           Designated in Unit 2   Included as Unit 4;    Partially designated
                                                                                      463 (187)              4,813 (1,948)          in Unit 4; 463
                                                                                                                                    (187), partially
                                                                                                                                    excluded, 4,350
                                                                                                                                    (1,760 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain            Riverside               Vail Lake, Pauba        Majority designated    Included as Unit 5;    Partially designated
                                                              Valley, and             in Unit 2; 819 (332)   8,187 (3,313)          in Unit 5; 1,788
                                                              (Communities of)                                                      (724), partially
                                                              Butterfield/ Radec                                                    excluded, 6,398
                                                                                                                                    (2,589)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28802]]

 
6. Tule Peak                         Riverside               Tule Peak (Road),       Majority designated    Included as Unit 6;    Partially designated
                                                              Southwest Cahuilla      in Unit 2; 15 (6)      6,433 (2,603)          in Unit 6; 326
                                                              (Reservation), and                                                    (132), partially
                                                              Silverado (Ranch)                                                     excluded, 6,106
                                                                                                                                    (2,471)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Bautista                          Riverside               Bautista Road, Pine     Not essential          Included as Unit 7;    Partially designated
                                                              Meadow, Lookout                                14,014 (5,671)         in Unit 7; 13,880
                                                              Mountain, and 3Horse                                                  (5,617), partially
                                                              Creek                                                                 excluded, 79 (32)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otay                              San Diego               Otay Valley, West Otay  Majority designated    Included as Unit 8;    Partially designated
                                                              Mountain, Otay Lakes/   in Unit 3; 25,325      36,726 (14,863)        in Unit 8; 34,941
                                                              Rancho Jamul, Proctor   (10,249)                                      (14,140), partially
                                                              Valley, Marron                                                        excluded, 1,782
                                                              Valley, (Community                                                    (721)
                                                              of) Dulzura, and
                                                              Honey Springs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. La Posta/Campo                    San Diego               \3\(Communities of) La  Not essential          Included as Unit 9;    Partially designated
                                                              Posta/ Campo                                   8,393 (3,397)          in Unit 9; 2,647
                                                                                                                                    (1,071), partially
                                                                                                                                    excluded, 5,740
                                                                                                                                    (2,323)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jacumba                          San Diego               Jacumba                 Designated as part of  Included as Unit 10;   Designated as Unit
                                                                                      Unit 4; 2,514          2,514 (1,017)          10; 2,514 (1,017)
                                                                                      (1,017)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Brown Canyon Subunit              Riverside               Brown Canyon            Designated subunit of  Not essential; not     Determined not to be
                                                                                      Unit 2; 0 (0)          proposed               essential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Lake Matthews                     Riverside               Harford Springs         Unit 1; 0(0)           Not essential; not     Determined not to be
                                                              (Park), \6\Lake                                proposed               essential
                                                              Matthews Population
                                                              Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Otay                              San Diego               (National Wildlife      Designated in Unit 3;  Not essential; not     Determined not to be
                                                              Refuge) NWR Rancho      0 (0)                  proposed               essential
                                                              Jamul, NWR Los
                                                              Montanas, Hidden
                                                              Valley, (Community
                                                              of) Jamul, West Otay
                                                              Mesa, Barret
                                                              Junction, (City of)
                                                              Tecate (border area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals                                                                               33,964 (13,745)        98,487 (39,857)        62,125 (25,141)
                                                                                                                                    designated 36,270
                                                                                                                                    (14,678) excluded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 All occurrence complexes in proposed revisions to critical habitat are now part of a core occurrence complex, except Pine Meadow, Lookout Mountain,
  and Horse Creek. The geographic analysis of occurrence complexes in this table is based on habitat-based population distributions described in this
  final revised critical habitat rule.
2 Area designated in this rule that was also included in 2002 designated critical habitat units (67 FR 18356).
3 New occurrence complexes described in the 2008 proposed revised designation (73 FR 3328) that were not described in the Recovery Plan.
4The Brown Canyon subunit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat.
5 The Lake Matthews Unit in the 2002 final designation was not included in proposed revisions to critical habitat.
6 A ``historically occupied population site'' described in the Recovery Plan (not an occurrence complex).
7 The Otay Unit was Unit 3 in the 2002 final critical habitat rule (67 FR 18356). This row describes Recovery Plan occurrence complexes not included in
  Unit 8 of the proposed revisions to critical habitat.

Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 
Habitat

    The most significant changes from the 2008 proposed revision to 
this final revised rule are illustrated in Table 1 above and include:
    (1) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands owned by or 
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP covered by the HCP for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. In this final revised rule, we determined the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of lands owned by or under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP in Units 1 through 6, and determined exclusion of these lands 
will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we excluded 
approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of these lands under section

[[Page 28803]]

4(b)(2) of the Act. We determined that the benefits of inclusion 
outweigh the benefits of exclusion for Unit 7. Therefore, we included 
all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 in this final designation. For 
a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion see 
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below.
    (2) In the proposed revised rule, we considered all lands covered 
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. We determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of inclusion of these lands and exclusion will not result in extinction 
of the species. Therefore, we excluded approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) 
of land covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant 
Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section below).
    (3) In the notice of availability for the DEA published in the 
Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), we announced we 
were considering exclusion of the San Diego Air Force Space 
Surveillance Station (SD Surveillance Station; approximately 109 ac (44 
ha) within Unit 8) and the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility 
(La Posta Facility; 2,463 ac (997 ha) within Unit 9) from critical 
habitat designation for reasons of national security. We determined the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for these 
lands and exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the 
species. Therefore, we excluded approximately 2,572 ac (1041 ha) of 
Department of Defense lands in Units 8 and 9 for reasons of national 
security under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).
    (4) In the notice of availability for the DEA published in the 
Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77568), we announced we 
were considering exclusion of approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land within Unit 6, approximately 79 ac (32 
ha) of Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land within Unit 7, and 
approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' 
land within Unit 9 for economic reasons. We determined the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these tribal lands and 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we 
excluded approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of tribal lands in Unit 6, 
approximately 79 ac (32 ha) in Unit 7, and approximately 3,167 ac 
(1,282 ha) in Unit 9 for economic reasons under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-
Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics `` section below).
    (5) In 2008, one expert documented Quino checkerspot butterfly 
oviposition (egg laying) and larval feeding on a new species of host 
plant at several locations in Unit 6 (Pratt 2008a, p. 1). Please see 
``Background'' section above for a complete discussion of this new 
information. As a result of these documented observations, we added 
Collinsia concolor to the list of host plants considered as a PCE (see 
``Background'' section for additional details).
    (6) When final critical habitat maps are being prepared with 
exclusions based on ownership data, this exercise often leaves small 
linear polygons of designated critical habitat that in-and-of 
themselves serve no logical regulatory or biological purpose. Initial 
maps are based on habitat features only; however, exclusions are based 
on artificial boundaries created by humans, therefore resulting in 
narrow ``sliver'' artifacts or very small polygons of non-excluded area 
once excluded areas are removed. Therefore, the sum of the total areas 
designated and excluded is slightly reduced in this final revised 
critical habitat designation compared to the size of the total proposed 
revised designation area estimate due to removal of small linear 
ownership artifacts.
    (7) A number of comments we received suggested editorial changes 
and technical corrections to sections of the rule pertaining to the 
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of 
our proposed revised rule. These changes were recommended to improve 
clarity, include additional information, and correct minor errors. They 
were incorporated into this final revised rule where appropriate.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a 
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in 
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the 
landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features 
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life 
cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the PCEs laid out 
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the

[[Page 28804]]

conservation of the species). Under the Act, we can designate critical 
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time it is listed only when we determine that those areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the Recovery Plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For 
these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote 
the recovery of the species.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions we and other Federal agencies implement under section 7(a)(1) 
of the Act. They are also subject to the regulatory protections 
afforded by section 9 of the Act and the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific 
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that 
may require special management considerations or protection. We 
consider the physical and biological features to be the PCEs laid out 
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the 
conservation of the species. The PCEs include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the PCEs for the Quino checkerspot butterfly from its 
biological needs as described below and in proposed revisions to 
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 
(73 FR 3328).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is characterized by 
patchy shrub or small tree landscapes with openings of several meters 
between large plants, or a landscape of open swales alternating with 
dense patches of shrubs (Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 112); such habitats 
are often collectively termed ``scrublands.'' Quino checkerspot 
butterflies will frequently perch on vegetation or other substrates to 
mate or bask, and require open areas to facilitate movement (Service 
2003a, pp. 10-11).

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    Quino checkerspot butterflies are exothermic (cold-blooded) and 
therefore require an external heat source to increase their metabolic 
rate to levels needed for normal growth and behavior. Within open, 
woody-canopy communities, larvae seek microclimates with high solar 
exposure for basking to speed their growth rate (Weiss et al. 1987, p. 
161; Weiss et al. 1988, p. 1487; Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113; 
Service 2003a, p. 20). Like most butterflies, adult Quino checkerspot 
butterflies frequently bask and remain in open-canopy areas, using air 
temperature and sunshine to increase their body temperature to the 
level required for normal active behavior (Service 2003a, p. 18).
    Adult butterflies will only lay eggs on species they recognize as 
host plants. Quino checkerspot butterfly oviposition (egg deposition) 
has been most often documented on Plantago erecta, Plantago patagonica, 
and Anterrhinum coulterianum (Service 2003a, pp. 14-18). In 2008, 
oviposition and larval development were recorded for the first time on 
Collinsia concolor; on numerous individual plants and at multiple 
locations in Riverside County (Pratt 2008a p. 1; 2008b p. 1; 2008c p. 
1; 2008e, p. 1). Although C. concolor commonly occurs in habitats with 
P. erecta, P. patagonica, and A. coulterianum, (Pratt 2001, pp. 42-43; 
Anderson 2008, pp. 2, 3), this plant species is typically found in 
cooler and moister micro-habitats on north-facing slopes and in the 
shade compared to where the other host plant species grow (Pratt 2001, 
p. 40; Pratt 2008b, p. 1). Please see ``Background'' section above for 
a complete discussion of this new information.
    Newly hatched pre-diapause larvae cannot move more than a few 
centimeters during the first two instars (development stages), 
restricting their development during this stage to the individual host 
plant on which their mother deposited eggs (the primary host plant 
species). Older pre-diapause larvae usually wander independently in 
search of food and may switch to feeding on a secondary host plant 
(Service 2003a, p. 7). All known species of host plant (see species 
listed above) may serve as primary or secondary host plants, depending 
on location and environmental conditions (Service 2003a, p. 17). Quino 
checkerspot butterfly egg clusters or pre-diapause larval clusters are 
also documented in the field on Cordylanthus rigidus

[[Page 28805]]

(thread-leaved bird's beak) and Castilleja exserta (purple owl's-
clover) (Service 2003a, pp. 14-18). However, use of C. rigidus and C. 
exserta is rare, and these species alone are not believed to be 
sufficient to support Quino checkerspot butterfly breeding; therefore, 
other species of host plant must co-exist with these species for 
habitat to support breeding (Service 2003a, pp. 16-17).
    It is not possible to determine habitat suitability based on 
standing host plant densities. Estimates exist for densities of 
Plantago erecta required for larval development (Service 2003a, pp. 22-
23); however, it is not always possible in a given year to determine 
typical host plant densities because germinating host plants may be 
entirely consumed by larvae; or because seeds may not germinate and 
larvae may return to diapause when precipitation levels are below-
average (Service 2003a, p. 23). These principles apply to all host 
plant species to some extent; therefore, any host plants detected in 
habitat appearing otherwise suitable should be considered an indication 
of habitat suitability.
    The physical structure of flowers is the primary factor that 
determines nectar source use. Adult checkerspot butterflies of the 
genus Euphydryas have a short tongue, approximately 0.43 inch (in) (11 
millimeters (mm)) in length (Pratt 2007a, p. 1), and typically cannot 
feed on flowers that have deep corolla tubes or flowers evolved to open 
by bees (Service 2003a, p. 19). Adults may nectar on flowers with a 
corolla length nearly a centimeter longer than their proboscis (0.59 to 
1.10 in (15 to 28 mm)), like Linanthus androsaceus (Murphy 1984, p. 
114; Hickman 1993, p. 842), but they are not likely to prefer such 
species (Murphy 1984, p. 114). Edith's checkerspot butterflies prefer 
flowers with a platform-like surface on which they can remain upright 
while feeding (Service 2003a, p. 19). Examples of flowers Quino 
checkerspot butterflies frequently take nectar from include Lomatium 
spp. (lomatium), Muilla spp. (goldenstar), Amsinckia spp. (fiddleneck), 
Lasthenia spp. (goldfields), Eriodictyon spp. (yerba santa), Chaenactis 
glabriuscula (yellow pincushion), Ericameria linearifolia (interior 
goldenbush), and Plagiobothrys and Cryptantha spp. (popcorn flowers) 
(Service 2003a, p. 19; see Comment 7 and our response in the ``Peer 
Reviewer Comments'' section above). Therefore, flowers with a corolla 
tube greater than 0.43 in (11 mm) are not likely to be used as nectar 
sources by the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
    White and Levin (1981, pp. 350, 351) found that the average 
distance adult Quino checkerspot butterflies moved within habitat 
patches ranged from 173 ft (53 m) to 305 ft (93 m) in 1973 and 1972, 
respectively. Although butterflies were observed moving from larval 
host plants at distances greater than 656 ft (200 m) (1981, p. 349), it 
is unlikely that nectar sources greater than this distance would 
regularly be used by the subspecies because 656 ft (200 m) is more than 
double the average recapture distance in 1972, and almost 4 times the 
average distance in 1973 recorded by White and Levin (1981, p. 349).

Cover or Shelter

    Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae require sheltered sites for 
diapause (Service 2003a, p. 8), and adults typically roost in or below 
shrubs overnight and during adverse weather conditions (Service 2003a, 
p. 10). A pilot laboratory study (Pratt 2006, p. 9) and larval 
distribution observations (Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113) indicate the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae prefer to diapause in or near the 
base of native shrubs, such as Eriogonum fasciculatum. Larvae can 
repeat diapause for multiple years (Service 2003a, p. 8); therefore, 
surveys for adults during drought years may not detect occupancy where 
it exists in areas containing diapause sites. Captive rearing and 
observation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae indicate that 
repeated diapause is relatively common (over 50 percent likelihood for 
the first year) (Pratt 2006, p. 10), and larvae can re-enter diapause 
(Pratt 2007a, pp. 10-13). Therefore, suitable habitat requires low-
lying shrubs, such as E. fasciculatum, that provide shelter for adults 
and larvae.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Development of Offspring

    In Edith's checkerspot butterflies, the tendencies of females to 
move uphill and males to defend hilltops (``hilltopping behavior'') 
increase the likelihood of male and female butterflies finding each 
other to mate during years of low adult density (Baughman and Murphy 
1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988, pp. 460-461). Males defend 
hilltops because they are likely to encounter virgin females at these 
locations (Baughman and Murphy 1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988, 
pp. 460-461; Mattoni et al. 1997, p. 109). As a result, higher ground 
serves as a ``visual beacon'' to enhance mating success.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

    For the geographical areas occupied by the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly at the time of listing, we must identify the essential 
physical or biological features that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Based on the above needs and our current 
knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the subspecies, 
we determined the Quino checkerspot butterfly's PCEs are:
    (1) Open areas within scrublands at least 21.5 square feet (ft\2\) 
(2 square meters (m\2\)) in size that:
    (A) Contain no woody canopy cover; and
    (B) Contain one or more of the host plants Plantago erecta, 
Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, or Collinsia concolor 
used for Quino checkerspot butterfly growth, reproduction, and feeding; 
or
    (C) Contain one or more of the host plants Cordylanthus rigidus or 
Castilleja exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of the host plants 
listed in (B) above; or
    (D) Contain flowering plants with a corolla tube less than or equal 
to 0.43 in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot butterfly feeding;
    (2) Open scrubland areas and vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of 
the open canopy areas (PCE 1) used for movement and basking; and
    (3) Hilltops or ridges within scrublands that contain an open, 
woody-canopy area at least 21.5 ft\2\ (2 m\2\) in size used for Quino 
checkerspot butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) and are contiguous 
with (but not otherwise included in) open areas and natural vegetation 
described in PCEs 1 and 2 above.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing contain 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies that may 
require special management considerations or protection.
    When the Quino checkerspot butterfly was listed on January 16, 1997 
(62 FR 2313), the primary threats to the subspecies were:
    (1) Reduction and fragmentation of habitat by urban and 
agricultural development and recreational activities,
    (2) over-collection,
    (3) vandalism,
    (4) fire, and
    (5) drought.
    Additional threats to this subspecies identified in the April 15, 
2002, final

[[Page 28806]]

designation of critical habitat (67 FR 18356) include:
    (1) Trash dumping,
    (2) nitrogen deposition,
    (3) elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and
    (4) climate change.
    Current threats to the subspecies and management needs were 
described in detail in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 55-65); 
including:
    (1) Loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape connectivity 
due to development,
    (2) invasion by nonnative plants,
    (3) off-road vehicle activity,
    (4) grazing,
    (5) fire,
    (6) enhanced soil nitrogen,
    (7) increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and
    (8) climate change.
    Scientific research indicates all threats individually and 
interactively cause loss or reduced availability of Quino checkerspot 
butterfly host plants, nectar sources, and suitable areas for necessary 
behaviors (e.g., mating, basking, hilltopping) (Service 2003a, pp. 55-
65). For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration 
resulted in approximately 30 percent loss in seed production of 
Plantago lanceolata (Jablonski et al. 2002, p. 14), and increased 
temperatures caused approximately 5 percent shorter reproductive 
duration (Sherry et al. 2007, p. 200). These results indicate density 
and phenological availability of Plantago spp. to herbivores under 
current and predicted climate and atmospheric conditions are, or will 
be, reduced relative to historical conditions (Service 2003a, pp. 62-
65). Host plant densities and availability are also reduced by 
nonnative plant invasion, which is further exacerbated by loss and 
fragmentation of habitat, off-road vehicle activity, enhanced soil 
nitrogen, and other sources of habitat-disturbance.
    Management needs and actions recommended in the Recovery Plan that 
may be required to protect and maintain the PCEs for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly include:
    (1) Reestablishment and maintenance of habitat and landscape 
connectivity within and between populations (Service 2003a, pp. 57, 96-
101);
    (2) habitat restoration and control of invasive nonnative species 
(Service 2003, pp. 58, 96-101, 146-159);
    (3) monitoring of ongoing habitat loss and nonnative plant invasion 
(Service 2003a, p. 106);
    (4) phased replacement of grazing with nonnative invasive plant 
control (Service 2003, pp. 60, 101-102);
    (5) carefully controlled burn experiments to assess effectiveness 
for control of nonnative plant invasion and protection of PCEs from 
wildfire destruction (Service 2003, p. 61);
    (6) reduction of local nitrogen emissions from sources such as 
high-traffic roads (Service 2003a, p. 62);
    (7) management of off-road vehicle activity (Service 2003a, pp. 59, 
146-159), including outreach and partnerships with local off-road 
vehicle clubs and organizations (Service 2003a, p. 105);
    (8) reduction of trash dumping in habitat (Service 2003a, p. 109); 
and
    (9) prudent design of managed habitats to include landscape 
connectivity (suitable habitat connectivity) and ecological 
connectivity (connectivity of wildlands that may not currently include 
habitat) (Service 2003a, pp. 65, 96).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    As discussed in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 71-86), the 
recovery strategy for Quino checkerspot butterfly focuses on 
conserving, managing, and monitoring resilient populations. Therefore, 
criteria for determining habitat required to support a population 
should consider long-term occupancy needs as well as movement distances 
to include all habitat necessary to support a population. We based our 
critical habitat criteria on the intent of recovery criteria 1, 3, 4, 
and 5 (Service 2003a, p. v) that habitat areas supporting all 
occurrence complexes and that facilitate landscape connectivity or 
otherwise play a significant role in maintaining population resilience 
are essential to the long-term conservation of the subspecies. Our 
revised ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' are based on new 
scientific information not available when the recovery plan was 
published (Service 2003a). The large amount of new habitat and 
distribution information resulted in refined population distribution 
knowledge and identification of three new core occurrence complexes 
(one new occurrence complex, two status changes; see ``Background'' 
section above). The new criteria capture areas on the periphery of the 
subspecies' range and in atypical environments considered important to 
this subspecies for adaptation to changing climatic and environmental 
conditions different than those identified in the 2002 critical habitat 
designation. The new criteria focused on core occurrence complex 
habitat-based population distributions designed to capture all habitats 
likely to support resilient metapopulations, including those likely to 
support local source or mainland populations (also called 
subpopulations) and movement areas between habitat patches required for 
metapopulation resilience (see Service 2003a pp. 163, 165-166 for term 
definitions).
    In order to include all habitat necessary to support populations 
and accommodate population distributions that may shift annually or 
over a greater period of time, our criteria started with Quino 
occurrence locations considered to be extant, and expanded habitat to 
include all habitat we estimated was necessary to support the core 
occurrence complexes (populations) associated with the observed 
individuals. The process we used is described below.
    (1) We determined occupancy within the extant range of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. Current occupancy was determined using 
occurrence data from the Service GIS database and associated survey 
reports. Areas of extant habitat containing occurrence records from 
1999 or later were considered currently occupied. Since 1997, the 
number of known occupied sites has increased in most areas, indicating 
resilient populations in areas where development pressure is relatively 
low. Ten years is the minimum time between historical subspecies' 
population density highs and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29); therefore, 
naturally fluctuating populations documented since 1999 are not likely 
to have experienced a density minimum, during which they are most 
vulnerable to extirpation.
    (2) We determined which areas were occupied at the time of listing 
by comparing survey and collection information to descriptions of 
occupied areas in the final listing rule published on January 16, 1997 
(62 FR 2313). Core occurrence complexes considered to be occupied at 
the time of listing were: (1) Recorded within 4 years of listing; (2) 
contained repeated observations of a large number of individuals 
(relative to all known occupied locations); and (3) if occupancy was 
documented post-listing, occurred not more than 4 mi (6.4 km) from 
other occurrence complexes known to be occupied at the time of listing. 
Four years is less than half the minimum time between historical 
subspecies' population density highs and lows (Service 2003a, p. 29) 
and, as stated above, where development pressure is relatively low, 
populations appear to be resilient. Additionally, 4 mi (6.4 km) is the 
maximum recorded Edith's checkerspot butterfly dispersal distance 
(Service 2003a, p. 12). Therefore, these parameters captured:

[[Page 28807]]

(1) The time required for natural population fluctuations to increase 
subspecies' density and occupancy detectability; (2) repeated 
observations indicating habitat has been occupied for several years; 
and (3) populations in close proximity to areas known to be occupied at 
the time of listing, as well as those areas likely to have been 
occupied (already colonized) at the time of listing.
    (3) Once we determined the occupancy status of all occurrence 
complexes, we used the following rule set to identify areas that met 
the definition of critical habitat. As described in the ``Background'' 
section above, we defined core occurrence complexes as population 
density centers, specifically occurrence complexes where at least two 
of the following criteria apply: (a) 50 or more adults have been 
observed during a single survey; (b) immature life stages have been 
recorded; and (c) the area within 0.6 mi (1 km) of butterfly 
observation locations (occurrence complex area) was greater than 1,290 
ac (522 ha). The best available scientific data indicate that focusing 
on protection and management of populations associated with occurrence 
complexes meeting these criteria can provide for the conservation of 
the subspecies because they are more likely to persist into the future 
and provide emigrants to other populations than populations associated 
with occurrence complexes that do not meet these criteria. We 
identified seven core occurrence complexes that meet the definition of 
critical habitat that were identified in the Recovery Plan (Warm 
Springs Creek, Skinner/ Johnson, Vail Lake, Sage, Wilson Valley, Tule 
Peak/Silverado, Otay Mountain), as well as three new core occurrence 
complexes (Bautista Road, La Posta/Campo, and Jacumba) (see 
``Background'' section above).
    (4) We determined lands necessary to support each of the 
populations associated with the 10 identified core occurrence 
complexes. We first delineated areas within 0.6 mi (1 km; movement 
radius) of occurrence records to capture habitat within reasonable 
flight range of each recorded adult sighting. This first criterion is 
the geographic area-based component of the definition of an occurrence 
complex described further in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 35) 
and the ``Background'' section above. We subsequently included any 
contiguous habitat containing the PCEs within an occurrence complex 
(described in first criterion above) and within an additional 0.6 mi (1 
km) of an occurrence complex. This second criterion used biological and 
geographic information (primarily Service GIS host plant occurrence 
data, vegetation layers, and satellite imagery) to capture the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies 
in this area. We removed any areas within the occurrence complex that 
we determined did not contain the PCEs, based on the best available 
scientific data. In mapping all habitat within reasonable flight range 
of each recorded observation, combined with any additional habitat 
belonging to the observed individuals' population, we believe we 
captured habitat necessary to support each population associated with 
identified core occurrence complexes (the PCEs laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies). This process resulted in the 
identification of habitat-based population distributions for each core 
occurrence complex that are occupied at a population distribution 
scale, but where detectability may vary annually.
    (5) Finally, we closely examined the new Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex and determined habitat associated with this complex 
is likely undersurveyed and supports a larger population distribution 
than is currently delineated by the habitat-based population 
distribution. Furthermore, we determined this core occurrence complex 
is at the leading edge of an ongoing upward shift in the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly's elevation range (see ``Background'' section 
above). Recognizing the predictions by Parmesan (1996, p. 765; 2006, 
pp. 647-648), Preston et al. (2008, pp. 2501-2505), and Seager et al. 
(2007, pp. 1181, 1183, 1184), we expect loss of lower elevation and 
lower latitude populations will continue in this subspecies' range as 
the incidence of above-average temperatures, drought conditions, and 
extreme weather events continue to increase (see ``Background'' section 
above; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). 
Qualitative natural history and abundance observations and documented 
adult and larval observations for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
indicate this species has begun to colonize higher elevation habitats 
(see ``Background'' section above). Therefore, consistent with 
recommendations in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 65), we 
delineated habitat containing the PCEs that is contiguous with the 
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex habitat-based population 
distribution to connect it to the habitat-based population 
distributions of three non-core occurrence complexes that are higher in 
elevation (Pine Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek).
    These three non-core occurrence complexes were all identified over 
the past 5 years, and we expect they will become increasingly important 
to Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation in the future. Therefore, 
inclusion of all areas into Unit 7 within the habitat-based population 
distributions of the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, the Pine 
Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek non-core occurrence complexes, 
and contiguous suitable habitat between these complexes, captured 
habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies. This will 
ensure persistence of populations associated with core occurrence 
complexes that we believe is critical to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. In identifying areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat, we recognize the importance of including all lands 
necessary to support resilient core populations. As described above, we 
delineated habitat where occupancy is expected, but has not been 
documented, that connects the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex 
with three higher elevation non-core occurrence complexes. Therefore, 
consistent with 50 CFR 424.12(e), we included areas contiguous with the 
Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex that are outside the geographical 
area presently occupied by the subspecies (outside of habitat-based 
population distributions as described above) in Unit 7 (Bautista).
    When determining revisions to critical habitat boundaries for this 
final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, 
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, 
because such lands lack PCEs for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 
scale of maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such structures and land under them inadvertently 
left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this 
revised critical habitat rule are excluded by text in this final rule. 
Therefore, Federal action involving such lands would not trigger 
section 7 consultations with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action may 
affect adjacent critical habitat.

[[Page 28808]]

Final Revised Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 62,125 ac (25,141 ha) as critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly within 9 units, identified 
as Units 2 through 10 (proposed critical habitat Unit 1 is excluded in 
its entirety as described in the ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act'' section of this rule). Table 2 outlines the areas included 
and excluded from this final revised critical habitat by land 
ownership. Units designated as critical habitat are discussed in detail 
below. The areas we describe below constitute our current best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

 TABLE 2. Critical habitat units for the Quino checkerspot butterfly depicting the areas designated and excluded
                            from the critical habitat designation by land ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total area          Total area          Total area
      Critical Habitat Unit        Land Ownership\2\   proposed ac (ha)    excluded ac (ha)   designated ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Warm Springs                   Local               369 (149)           369 (149)           ..................
 
                                  Private             2,315 (937)         2,315 (937)         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Skinner/Johnson                Federal             131 (53)            0                   131 (53)
 
                                  Local               8,674 (3,510)       3,361 (1,360)       5,313 (2,150)
 
                                  State               734 (297)           734 (297)           0
 
                                  Private             2465 (990)          2,465 (990)         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sage                           Federal             123 (50)            0                   123 (50)
 
                                  Local               89 (36)             89 (36)             0
 
                                  Private             2,480 (1,004)       2,480 (1,004)       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilson Valley                  Federal             463 (187)           0                   463 (187)
 
                                  Local               1,072 (434)         1,072 (434)         0
 
                                  Private             3,278 (1,327)       3,278 (1,327)       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain         Federal             1,788 (724)         0                   1,788 (724)
 
                                  State               22 (9)              22 (9)              0
 
                                  Local               97 (39)             97 (39)             0
 
                                  Private             6,279 (2,541)       6,279 (2,541)       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tule Peak                      Federal             326 (132)           0                   326 (132)
 
                                  Cahuilla Tribe      1,203 (487)         1,203 (487)         0
 
                                  Local               953 (386)           953 (386)           0
 
                                  Private             3,950 (1,599)       3,950 (1,599)       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Bautista                       Federal             9,720 (3,934)       0                   9,720 (3,934)
 
                                  Ramona Tribe        79 (32)             79 (32)             0
 
                                  State               102 (41)            0                   102 (41)
 
                                  Local               46 (19)             0                   46 (19)
 
                                  Private             4,012 (1,624)       0                   4,012 (1,624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otay                           Federal             8,763 (3,546)       109 (44)            8,654 (3,502)
 
                                  State               9,674 (3,915)       35 (14)             9,639 (3,901)
 
                                  Local               5,238 (2,120)       834 (338)           4,404 (1,782)
 
                                  Private             13,048 (5,280)      804 (325)           12,244 (4,955)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. La Posta/Campo                 Federal             2,927 (1,184)       2,572 (1,040)       355 (144)
 
                                  Campo Tribe         3,167 (1,282)       3,167 (1,282)       0
 

[[Page 28809]]

 
                                  State               0                   0                   6 (2)
 
                                  Private             2,286 (925)         0                   2,286 (925)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jacumba                       State               351 (142)           0                   351 (142)
 
                                  Private             2,163 (875)         0                   2,163 (875)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                 98,395 (39,819)     36,270 (14,678)     62,125 (25,141)
                                                       \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Unit totals are reduced in this final revised critical habitat designation due to removal of small linear
  ownership artifacts originally included in proposed revised critical habitat designation area estimates. The
  total area value in the proposed revised critical habitat designation was 98,487 ac (39,857 ha).
2Private = private ownership, including conserved lands managed for subspecies' recovery; Local = City- or
  County-owned land; Federal = Federally owned land; Cahuilla Tribe = Cahuilla Band of Indians; Ramona Tribe =
  Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; Campo Tribe = Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Numbers may not sum due to
  rounding, and ownership totals may have changed from those reported in the proposed rule due to updated
  ownership data.

    We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly below. For more information about the areas excluded from 
critical habitat, please see the ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act'' section of this final rule.

Unit 1: Warm Springs

    We excluded all lands in Unit 1 (approximately 2,684 ac (1,086 ha)) 
that we proposed as revised critical habitat that are owned by or are 
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that 
exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies 
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a detailed discussion).

Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson

    Unit 2 consists of approximately 5,444 ac (2,203 ha) of habitat 
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is 
currently occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago erecta, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Cordylanthus 
rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open 
woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41; 
Service GIS database). Unit 2 is located in Riverside County, north of 
the City of Temecula, in the vicinity of Lake Skinner. This unit 
includes land associated with the Skinner/Johnson Core Occurrence 
Complex as described in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). The 
physical and biological features found in Unit 2 may require special 
management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from 
maintenance and recreational activities, invasion by nonnative plants, 
fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 6,560 ac (2,655 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and that exclusion of 
these areas will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below for a detailed discussion).

Unit 3: Sage

    Unit 3 consists of approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of habitat that was 
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently 
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 
exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and 
hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Service GIS database). Unit 3 is 
located in Riverside County, northeast of Temecula, in the vicinity of 
the community of Sage. This unit includes land associated with the Sage 
Core and San Ignacio Non-core Occurrence Complexes described in the 
Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information 
indicates the San Ignacio Non-core Occurrence Complex should be 
considered part of the Sage Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Background'' 
and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' sections above). The 
physical and biological features found in Unit 3 may require special 
management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from 
recreational activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, 
fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 2,569 ac (1,040 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. This exclusion was based on our determination that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and that exclusion of 
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).

Unit 4: Wilson Valley

    Unit 4 consists of approximately 463 ac (187 ha) of habitat that 
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently 
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago erecta, P. patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, 
Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host 
plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops 
(Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Pratt 2008b pp. 1-2; 2008e, p. 1; Service 
GIS database). Unit 4 is located in Riverside County, north of SR 79, 
east of Oak Mountain and the City of Temecula in the vicinity of Wilson

[[Page 28810]]

Valley. This unit includes land associated with the Wilson Valley Core 
Occurrence Complex described in the Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, p. 
79). The physical and biological features found in Unit 4 may require 
special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts 
from recreational activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative 
plants, fire, enhanced soil nitrogen, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 4,350 ac (1,760 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. This exclusion was based on our determination the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of 
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).

Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain

    Unit 5 consists of approximately 1,788 ac (724 ha) of habitat that 
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently 
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja 
exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and 
hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43; Service GIS database). Unit 5 is 
located in Riverside County, north and south of SR 79, and east of 
Temecula within the vicinity of Oak Mountain and Vail Lake. This unit 
includes land associated with the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex and 
Butterfield/Radec Non-core Occurrence Complex described in the Recovery 
Plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information indicates the 
Butterfield/Radec Non-core Occurrence Complex should be considered part 
of the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex (see the proposed revised 
critical habitat rule, 73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The physical and 
biological features found in Unit 5 may require special management 
considerations or protection to minimize impacts from recreational 
activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, enhanced 
soil nitrogen, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 6,398 ac (2589 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of 
these areas will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - 
Conservation Partnerships'' section below).

Unit 6: Tule Peak

    Unit 6 consists of approximately 326 ac (132 ha) of habitat that 
was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is currently 
occupied. This unit contains all of the features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia 
concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants; 
nectar sources; open, woody canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 
2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS satellite imagery; Pratt 2008a, p. 1; 
2008b, p. 1; 2008c, p. 1; 2008d, p. 1; 2008e, p. 1). Unit 6 is located 
in Riverside County, south of SR 371 and the community of Anza, in the 
vicinity of Tule Peak Road and the southern boundary of the Cahuilla 
Band of Indians' lands. This unit includes land associated with the 
Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Background'' section 
above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 6 may 
require special management considerations or protection to minimize 
impacts from recreational activities, primarily unauthorized off-road 
vehicle activity (Service 2003b, p. 79), trash dumping, invasion by 
nonnative plants, fire, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 4,903 ac (1,984 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit that are owned by or are under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. This exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of 
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation 
Partnerships'' section below). We also excluded approximately 1,203 ac 
(487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from this final revised 
critical habitat designation based our determination that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of 
this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-Government 
Relationships With Tribes and Economics `` section below).

Unit 7: Bautista

    Unit 7 consists of approximately 13,880 ac (5,617 ha) of habitat 
that was not within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at 
the time of listing (although this area falls within the historical 
range of the species). Currently this unit contains habitat that may be 
unoccupied by individuals in a given year, but lands within this unit 
are considered occupied at the population level. This unit contains the 
Bautista Road Core, Pine Meadow Non-core, Lookout Mountain Non-core and 
Horse Creek Non-core Occurrence Complexes (see ``Background'' and 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' sections above). As 
further discussed in the ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
section, we determined habitat connectivity to higher elevation 
occurrence complexes is essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies, and, therefore, that the area in Unit 7 is essential for 
the conservation of the subspecies. Additionally, this unit contains 
all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies 
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the following: Plantago patagonica, 
Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, Cordylanthus rigidus, and 
Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy 
scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS 
database; Anderson 2008, pp. 1-5). Unit 7 is located in Riverside 
County north of SR 371 and the community of Anza.
    We did not exclude the lands in this unit proposed as revised 
critical habitat that are owned by or are under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP because we determined 
that the benefits of including those lands outweighed the benefits of 
excluding them from the designation (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' section 
below). We did exclude approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians' land in this unit that we proposed as revised 
critical habitat. This exclusion is based our determination that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that 
exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of the subspecies 
(see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to Government-To-
Government Relationships With Tribes and Economics'' section below).

Unit 8: Otay

    Unit 8 consists of approximately 34,941 ac (14,140 ha) of habitat 
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time

[[Page 28811]]

of listing and is currently occupied. This unit contains all of the 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, 
and 3), including the following: Plantago erecta, Cordylanthus rigidus, 
and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar sources; open woody-canopy 
scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 50, 51; Service GIS 
database). Unit 8 is located in San Diego County, from the Mexican 
border to north of SR 94 in the vicinity of Otay Mountain and Otay 
Lakes. This unit includes land associated with the Otay Mountain Core 
Occurrence Complex (see ``Background'' and ``Summary of Changes From 
Previously Designated and Proposed Revised Critical Habitat'' sections 
above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 8 may 
require special management considerations or protection to minimize 
impacts from loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape 
connectivity due to development, maintenance and recreational 
activities, trash dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, enhanced 
soil nitrogen, and climate change.
    We excluded approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) that we proposed as 
revised critical habitat in this unit covered by the Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas 
will not result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of 
Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation Partnerships'' 
section below). We also excluded approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air 
Force land we proposed as revised critical habitat in this unit based 
on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not 
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).

Unit 9: La Posta-Campo

    Unit 9 consists of approximately 2,647 ac (1,071 ha) of habitat 
that was not within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at 
the time of listing. However, this unit is currently occupied and 
contains the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex (see ``Status and 
Distribution of Populations in San Diego County'' section of the 
proposed rule published January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), and ``Criteria 
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section above). We determined that 
the area supporting the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex is 
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it is likely 
to contain a resilient core population including one or more 
subpopulations that are a source of immigrants to other habitat (see 
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
sections above). Additionally, this unit contains all the features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), 
including the following: Antirrhinum coulterianum, Collinsia concolor, 
Cordylanthus rigidus, and Castilleja exserta host plants; nectar 
sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Bureau of Indian 
Affairs 1992, p. C-5; Allen and Kurnow 2005, pp. 10, 13-16; Dicus 
2005a, p.1; PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 2006, pp. 1-4, 
Science Applications International Corporation 2006 pp. 33, 34, 37; 
Alfaro and Alfaro 2007, pp. 6-8; Service GIS database).
    We excluded approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians' land that we proposed as revised critical habitat in 
this unit based on our determination the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not 
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2)--Impacts to Government-To-Government Relationships With Tribes 
and Economics'' section below). We also excluded approximately 2,572 ac 
(1,040 ha) of Navy-owned or controlled land associated with the La 
Posta Facility that we proposed as revised critical habitat in this 
unit based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of these areas will not 
result in extinction of the subspecies (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security'' section below).

Unit 10: Jacumba

    Unit 10 consists of approximately 2,514 ac (1,017 ha) of habitat 
that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and is 
currently occupied. This unit contains all the features essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3), including the 
following: Plantago erecta and P. patagonica host plants; nectar 
sources; open woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 
52, 54; Service GIS database). Unit 10 is located in San Diego County 
south of Interstate 8 and north of the community of Jacumba. This unit 
includes land associated with the Jacumba Core Occurrence Complex (see 
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
sections above). The physical and biological features found in Unit 10 
may require special management considerations or protection to minimize 
impacts from loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape 
connectivity due to development, recreational activities, trash 
dumping, invasion by nonnative plants, fire, and climate change.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by 
the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) 
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the 
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse 
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the 
proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 
functional to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, we document 
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our 
issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to 
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    <bullet> Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,

[[Page 28812]]

    <bullet> Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    <bullet> Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Off-road vehicle use;
    <bullet> Mechanical soil disturbance;
    <bullet> Clearing or grading;
    <bullet> Development; and
    <bullet> Pesticide use.
    These activities could result in reduction or degradation of 
habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of these butterflies 
and their host plants, including reduction or preclusion of necessary 
movement of adults between host plant patches within a greater habitat 
patch, and directly or cumulatively causing adverse affects to Quino 
checkerspot butterflies and their life cycles.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor. In the following sections, we address a number 
of general issues that are relevant to our analysis under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.

Economic Analysis

    Following the publication of the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the designation. The DEA (dated December 
19, 2008) was made available for public review and comment from 
December 19, 2008, to January 20, 2009 (73 FR 77568). Substantive 
comments and information received on the DEA are summarized above in 
the ``Public Comment'' section and are incorporated into the final 
analysis, as appropriate. Taking any relevant new information into 
consideration, the Service completed a final economic analysis (FEA) 
(dated March 24, 2009) of the designation that updates the DEA.
    The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the 
potential incremental economic impacts associated with the revised 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 
The information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions 
about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the 
designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the 
designation. The economic analysis considers the economic efficiency 
effects that may result from the designation. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use). It also addresses how 
potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an 
assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and 
the potential effects of conservation activities on government 
agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The economic analysis 
measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and 
commercial development and public projects and activities, such as 
economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, 
Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. This 
information can be used by the Secretary to assess whether the effects 
of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic 
sector. Finally, the economic analysis looks retrospectively at costs 
that have been incurred since the date we listed the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly as

[[Page 28813]]

endangered (62 FR 2313; August 16, 1997), and considers those costs 
that may occur in the years following the revised designation of 
critical habitat, with the timeframes for this analysis varying by 
activity.
    The economic analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of 
the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in 
the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for 
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and 
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by 
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from 
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are 
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
    The economic analysis examines activities taking place both within 
and adjacent to the designation. It estimates impacts based on 
activities that are ``reasonably foreseeable'' including, but not 
limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or 
funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the 
public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that 
are likely to occur within a 23-year timeframe, from when the proposed 
rule became available to the public (73 FR 3328; January 17, 2008). The 
23-year timeframe was chosen for the analysis because, as the time 
horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which 
the projected number of projects and cost impacts associated with those 
projects are based become increasingly speculative.
    The vast majority of potential incremental economic impacts 
attributed to the revised critical habitat designation, if it was 
finalized as proposed, would be expected to be related to residential 
development (62 to 86 percent) and tribal activities (38 to 14 
percent). The FEA estimates total potential incremental economic 
impacts in areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the next 23 
years to be $13.1 million to $50.4 million ($1.1 million to 4.2 million 
annualized) in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate 
(including areas considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act).
    The FEA estimates the largest impacts of the proposed revised 
critical habitat rule would result from section 7 consultations with 
the Service on residential development projects likely to occur in 
areas where surveys are unable to detect the butterfly (including 
tribal lands). The best estimates give a range of costs based on low 
and high impact assumptions of development projections (projection 
uncertainty). In the high estimate scenario, if the critical habitat 
designation was finalized as proposed, five projects in Unit 9 and nine 
projects in Unit 10 would likely require consultation with the Service 
as a result of the critical habitat designation. Conservatively 
assuming that each project is undertaken by a separate entity, as many 
as 14 developers would likely be affected over the 23-year timeframe of 
the analysis. At the high end, the one-time costs resulting from the 
consultation process, including administrative time spent by the 
businesses, compensation costs, and the value of time delays, total 
approximately $16.1 million for the projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 
million for the projects in Unit 10. Additionally, over the 23-year 
timeframe, a high-end estimate of 131 projects (approximately six 
projects per year) would experience additional administrative costs as 
a result of the consultation. These costs result from the need to 
address adverse modification in a consultation that would occur even in 
the absence of critical habitat. These additional administrative costs 
are estimated to be $1,000 per project.
    The final economic analysis is available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat

    The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act 
requires that the Service identify those lands within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing on which are found 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species that may require special management considerations or 
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time of listing that are essential for the 
conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service 
must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that, on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 
of designation, the features essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies and habitat that is identified, if managed or protected, 
could provide for the survival and recovery of the subspecies.
    The identification of areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies, or are otherwise essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies if outside the geographical area 
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing, is a benefit 
resulting from the designation. The critical habitat designation 
process includes peer review and public comment on the identified 
physical and biological features and areas, and provides a mechanism to 
educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area. This helps focus 
and promote conservation efforts by other parties by clearly 
delineating areas of high conservation value for the subspecies, and is 
valuable to land owners and managers in developing conservation 
management plans for identified areas, as well as for any other 
identified occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not be 
included in the areas the Service identifies as meeting the definition 
of critical habitat.
    In general, critical habitat designation always has educational 
benefits; however, in some cases, they may be redundant with other 
educational effects. For example, habitat conservation plans (HCPs) 
have significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational 
benefits of a critical habitat designation. Including lands in critical 
habitat also would inform State agencies and local governments about 
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
    The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed 
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that 
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us 
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from 
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat 
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the 
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses 
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some 
species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be 
similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in effects 
to the species. However, the regulatory standard is different, as the 
jeopardy analysis investigates the action's impact to survival and 
recovery of the species, while the adverse modification analysis 
investigates the action's effects to the designated habitat's 
contribution to conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to 
different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical 
habitat designations may

[[Page 28814]]

provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would 
listing alone.
    For Quino checkerspot butterfly, when consulting under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act in designated critical habitat, independent analyses 
are made for jeopardy and adverse modification. In consultations on 
projects where surveys detect high densities of butterflies or low 
densities of butterflies combined with high densities of butterfly 
resources (host plants, nectaring plants), there is not likely to be a 
quantifiable difference between the jeopardy analysis and the adverse 
modification analysis as we estimate take for this subspecies in terms 
of acres of occupied habitat, and the Act requires Federal agencies to 
minimize the impact of the taking on the subspecies that may result 
from implementation of a proposed action. Furthermore, any upfront 
modifications made to the project description to minimize the project's 
impact on the critical habitat designation will also minimize the 
impacts of the taking of individuals on the subspecies. The habitat-
based population distributions predict the habitat distribution needed 
to conserve each core occurrence complex in the long-term (see 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section above). All 
lands within the critical habitat units are occupied at the population 
level; however, they contain habitat that may be unoccupied by 
individuals in a given year. Observable butterfly activity will vary in 
any given year at any one location due to multiple variables affecting 
the butterfly presence (for example, metapopulation dynamics, drought, 
weather conditions, and available plant resources). For example, annual 
nectar and host plant densities will vary by location within and 
between years based on local microclimate conditions, and adult 
butterfly presence will vary with resource availability. Furthermore, 
because Quino checkerspot butterflies are capable of multiyear 
diapause, fewer adult butterflies may emerge in years when nectar and 
host plant resources are limited. Therefore, even within habitat-based 
population distributions (occupied critical habitat as defined in this 
rule), surveys may not detect butterflies at a given location within a 
unit during a given flight season, and subspecies' protection under the 
Act may be limited to conservation measures resulting from critical 
habitat adverse modification analysis.
    There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical 
habitat. First, a consultation is only required where there is a 
Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out by any 
Federal agency) - if there is no Federal nexus, the critical habitat 
designation of private lands, by itself, does not restrict actions that 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Second, the designation 
only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its nature, the 
prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure that the 
conservation role and function of those areas that contain the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species or 
of unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the 
species are not appreciably reduced. Critical habitat designation 
alone, however, does not require private property owners to undertake 
specific steps toward recovery of the species.
    Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when the 
Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not 
likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat. However, if 
we determine through informal consultation that adverse impacts are 
likely to occur, then formal consultation is initiated. Formal 
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service 
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
    For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a 
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may recommend 
additional conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to the 
primary constituent elements, but such measures would be discretionary 
on the part of the Federal agency. A biological opinion that concludes 
in a determination of no destruction or adverse modification would not 
suggest the implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative, 
as we suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed 
Federal action only when our biological opinion results in an adverse 
modification conclusion.
    As stated above, the designation of critical habitat does not 
require that any management or recovery actions take place on the lands 
included in the designation. Even in cases where consultation is 
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of 
consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse 
modification of its critical habitat, but not necessarily to manage 
critical habitat or institute recovery actions on critical habitat. 
Conversely, voluntary conservation efforts implemented through 
management plans institute proactive actions over the lands they 
encompass and are put in place to remove or reduce known threats to a 
species or its habitat; therefore, implementing recovery actions. We 
believe that in many instances the regulatory benefit of critical 
habitat is minimal when compared to the conservation benefit that can 
be achieved through implementing HCPs under section 10 of the Act or 
other habitat management plans. In particular, the conservation 
achieved through large or regional plans is typically greater than what 
we achieve through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 
7(a)(2) consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. 
Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and 
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other 
listed or sensitive species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations only commit 
Federal agencies to preventing adverse modification of critical habitat 
caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide 
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the 
proposed action. Thus, implementation of an HCP or management plan that 
incorporates enhancement or recovery as the management standard may 
often provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical 
habitat designation.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

    Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover 
without cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of 
the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 
1995, p.2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species 
occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002, 
p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 percent 
of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 
100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and 
that 50 percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on 
Federal lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land 
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United 
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of 
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners 
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and

[[Page 28815]]

promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners are essential to 
understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands, and are 
necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed 
species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing 
to endangered species recovery. We promote these private-sector efforts 
through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation 
philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (HCPs, 
safe harbor agreements, other conservation agreements, easements, and 
State and local regulations) enhance species conservation by extending 
species protections beyond those available through section 7 
consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged non-Federal 
landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a view that 
we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal land through 
such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; 
December 2, 1996).
    Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property, and 
there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal 
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under 
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the 
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; 
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp. 
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many 
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or 
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or 
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered 
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception 
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats 
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic 
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 
1644-1648).
    According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat 
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners 
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude 
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where 
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management, 
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation 
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe that the judicious exclusion of 
specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat 
designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior 
level of conservation than critical habitat alone.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus 
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or 
voluntary conservation efforts can often be high.

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management 
Plans

    The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved long-
term management plans from critical habitat designation include 
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional 
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical 
habitat designation. Most HCPs and other conservation plans take many 
years to develop, and upon completion, are consistent with the recovery 
objectives for listed species that are covered within the plan area. 
Many also provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. 
Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation 
of critical habitat may undermine our efforts and partnerships as well. 
Our experience in implementing the Act has found that designation of 
critical habitat within the boundaries of management plans that provide 
conservation measures for a species is a disincentive to many entities 
that are either currently developing such plans, or contemplating doing 
so in the future, because one of the incentives for undertaking 
conservation is greater ease of permitting where listed species are 
affected. Addition of a new regulatory requirement would remove a 
significant incentive for undertaking the time and expense of 
management planning.
    A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs and 
management plans that cover listed species from critical habitat 
designation is the unhindered, continued ability it gives us to seek 
new partnerships with future plan participants, including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. Designating lands within 
approved management plan areas as critical habitat would likely have a 
negative effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop 
these plans, particularly plans that address landscape-level 
conservation of species and habitats. By excluding these lands, we 
preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional conservation 
actions in the future.
    Both HCPs and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)-HCP 
applications require consultation, which would review the effects of 
all HCP-covered activities that might adversely affect the species 
under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat 
modification, even without the critical habitat designation. 
Additionally, all other Federal actions that may affect the listed 
species still require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 
and we review these actions for possibly significant habitat 
modification in accordance with the jeopardy standard under section 
7(a)(2).
    The information provided in the previous sections applies to all 
the following discussions of benefits of inclusion or exclusion of 
critical habitat.

Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts To Government-To-Government 
Relationship With Tribes And Economics

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas 
from critical habitat based on economic or other relevant impacts if 
the Secretary determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the 
benefits of designating the area as critical habitat. However, these 
exclusions cannot occur if it will result in the extinction of the 
species concerned.
    In making the following exclusions, we acknowledge that the costs 
and other impacts predicted in the economic analysis might not be 
completely avoided by this exclusion because some of the costs may 
still be incurred through implementation of other protections for the 
subspecies that exist elsewhere in the Act.

Tribal Lands - Cahuilla Band of Indians

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the 
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government 
Relations

[[Page 28816]]

with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive 
Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of 
the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, 
wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are better 
managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through 
Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this 
philosophy, we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as 
critical habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened 
and endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by 
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore, critical habitat designation compromises the 
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual 
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and 
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to 
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is 
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating 
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent 
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved 
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple 
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating 
that designation of critical habitat on lands of the Cahuilla Band of 
Indians constitutes a significant burden to the tribe. It is our 
understanding that all proposed revised critical habitat on the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land is on individual allotments, and any 
economic impacts resulting from the designation would directly effect 
individual tribal members or families.
    We determined that lands of the Cahuilla Band of Indians contain 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly and therefore meet the definition of 
critical habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with 
regard to these tribal lands, we considered several factors including 
our relationship with the affected tribe, our recognition that tribal 
governments protect and manage their resources in the manner most 
beneficial to them, and the estimated economic impacts to the affected 
tribe associated with the designation of critical habitat. We recognize 
that the Cahuilla Band of Indians exercises legislative, 
administrative, and judicial control over activities within the 
boundaries of its lands and has a natural resource management program 
and staff. The tribe's natural resource management efforts will 
continue to be implemented regardless of whether tribal lands are 
designated as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 
are excluding all Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands (in Unit 6) that 
contain features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly from this final revised critical habitat designation. As 
described in our analysis below, we reached this determination because 
of our effective working relationship with the tribe, our 
responsibilities under Secretarial Order 3206, and in consideration of 
the disproportionate relative economic impact on the tribe associated 
with the designation of critical habitat on tribal lands.
    Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA describe the 
vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of Indians to economic impacts. The 
tribe governs its lands and is solely responsible for providing 
necessary public services that are typically provided by county and 
city governments on nontribal lands. However, the tribe has a much 
smaller population base and a limited amount of land available for 
development or conservation. Therefore, far fewer resources are 
available to the Cahuilla Band of Indians to draw upon in comparison to 
local and county governments, in addition to the tribe serving a 
disadvantaged population.
    According to data collected in preparation of the DEA, the Cahuilla 
Band of Indians has a relatively small population (168 members) from 
which to raise revenue. This resource base is significantly smaller 
than the surrounding county (Riverside) that supports a population base 
of 1,545,387 people. The DEA stated the median household income level 
of the Cahuilla Band of Indians is lower than the surrounding county. 
Likewise, the proportion of people below the poverty level is 
substantially higher for the Cahuilla Band of Indians relative to the 
nontribal populations of Riverside County. There is an even larger 
disparity among the most impoverished people (percentage of people 
below 50 percent of the poverty level); the percentage of people on the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians' reservation whose income is below half the 
poverty level (approximately 15 percent) is approximately three times 
that of the nontribal population of Riverside County (approximately 6 
percent). This disparity is also reflected in the property values on 
the reservation, where the median value of owner-occupied houses is 
less than half that of owner-occupied houses in the county.
    Chapter 6 of the FEA states that, while no specific economic 
impacts can be quantified, it should be emphasized that the Cahuilla 
Band of Indians do not have independent taxing authority and therefore 
must rely on development fees within limited tribal lands to generate 
government revenue. While there are no development plans for the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians that can be specified at this time, potential 
restrictions on development resulting from critical habitat designation 
could result in additional constraints to limited tribal resources. In 
consideration of economic vulnerability of the Cahuilla Band of Indians 
discussed above, their limited resource base, and the disadvantaged 
population they serve, we determined any economic impacts associated 
with a critical habitat designation will have a disproportionately 
negative impact on this tribe and our working relationship with them.
Benefits of Inclusion - Cahuilla Band of Indians
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which 
consultation is completed.
    The Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands are within the habitat-based 
population distribution of the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 
Complex (Unit 6). If surveys detect occupancy within a project 
footprint, then consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat 
designation, and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied 
critical habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the 
``Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied 
habitat, surveys may not detect butterflies during any given flight 
season. Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat 
designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are reduced but not 
negated by population occupancy in Unit 6.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that a designation can serve to educate the landowner 
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an

[[Page 28817]]

area, which could help focus conservation efforts to designated areas 
of high conservation value for certain species. Any information about 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide 
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation 
activities. As discussed above in the ``Tribal Comments'' section, the 
Cahuilla Band of Indians is aware of the value of its lands to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently 
implements management measures that contribute to the conservation of 
natural resources and native species. The tribe is already working with 
the Service to understand the habitat needs of this subspecies, and has 
an active natural resource management program. Further, the tribal 
lands were included in the proposed designation, and the proposed 
designation reached a wide audience. Therefore, the educational 
benefits that might follow critical habitat designation (such as 
providing information to the BIA or tribes on areas important to the 
long-term conservation of this subspecies) may have already been 
realized.
    In light of continued commitment by the Cahuilla Band of Indians to 
manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation of native 
species, we believe designation of critical habitat on these tribal 
lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation benefits 
to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy 
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion - Cahuilla Band of Indians
    The benefits of excluding approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of 
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from designated critical habitat are 
significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by forgoing 
the designation of critical habitat on these lands include: (1) 
Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our deference 
to tribal conservation and natural resource management of its lands and 
resources, including Federal trust species; (2) continuance and 
strengthening of our effective working relationships with the tribe to 
promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 
habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs that might not 
otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental economic impacts to 
the tribe that may result from critical habitat designation on tribal 
lands.
    We communicated with the Cahuilla Band of Indians throughout the 
designation process. Meetings and communications were conducted in 
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and 
the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the Department of 
the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the governmental 
entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly on their lands. We recognize the tribes' fundamental right to 
provide for tribal resource management activities, including those 
relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Cahuilla Band of 
Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as an 
intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in 
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore, 
several comment letters received from tribes and the BIA indicated 
designation of critical habitat would adversely affect our working 
relationships with tribes.
    Several tribes and the BIA commented that designation of critical 
habitat on these tribal lands would constitute a significant burden to 
the Cahuilla Band of Indians. Potential economic impacts only become 
realized through consultation when there is a Federal nexus. However, 
in the case of tribal lands, there is a high likelihood all projected 
costs would be realized, as the BIA (a Federal Agency) provides 
technical assistance to tribes on management planning and oversees a 
variety of programs on tribal lands. As described above, the Cahuilla 
Band of Indians is economically depressed and therefore vulnerable to 
an economic impact. Eliminating potential incremental economic impacts 
of critical habitat designation would prevent additional economic 
impact on the tribal economy where section 7 consultation costs are 
already likely due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Cahuilla Band of 
Indians
    The benefits of excluding the Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands from 
critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of inclusion. 
The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural resources to 
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat without the 
perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is consistent 
with our published policies on Native American natural resource 
management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage and help 
maintain our cooperative working relationships with this tribe and 
facilitate further conservation activities by local tribal 
environmental organizations, which will likely provide benefits to this 
subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as discussed above, 
eliminating the disproportionately high incremental economic impacts 
associated with a critical habitat designation on the Cahuilla Band of 
Indians' lands will prevent unnecessary and counter-productive impacts 
to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore, we determined the benefits 
identified above of excluding approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of 
Cahuilla Band of Indians' land from the critical habitat designation 
outweigh the benefits of including these tribal lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Cahuilla Band 
of Indians
    We determined that exclusion of the Cahuilla Band of Indians' lands 
from the final revised designation of critical habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction of the 
subspecies. The majority of lands within proposed Unit 6 that are 
outside of the tribe's jurisdiction are protected and managed either 
explicitly for the subspecies, or indirectly through more general 
objectives to protect natural values, thereby providing conservation 
value to the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly that are found within 
the area supporting the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex. 
Additionally, the tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands in a 
manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the high 
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in 
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the 
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. 
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 
1,202 ac (488 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' land proposed in Unit 6 
from this critical habitat designation.

Tribal Lands - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the 
President's

[[Page 28818]]

memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 
13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the 
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, 
and other natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under 
tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal 
regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, 
we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as critical 
habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened and 
endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by 
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore, critical habitat designation compromises the 
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual 
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and 
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to 
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is 
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating 
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent 
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved 
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple 
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating 
that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands constitutes a 
significant burden to tribes. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is 
the only tribe affected by the proposed revision to critical habitat 
that does not own a casino. It is our understanding the Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians' primary economic development plan is the low-impact 
ecotourism ``resort'' (solar-powered electricity and only structures 
are small cabin-like ``yurts'' and a electrical facility) currently 
under construction on their reservation.
    We determined that tribal fee lands of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and meet the definition 
of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with 
regard to these tribal lands, we considered several factors including 
our relationship with the affected tribe, our recognition that tribal 
governments protect and manage their resources in the manner most 
beneficial to them, and the estimated economic impacts to the affected 
tribe associated with the designation of critical habitat. We recognize 
that the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians exercises legislative, 
administrative, and judicial control over activities within the 
boundaries of its lands and that the tribe has a natural resource 
management program and staff. The tribe's natural resource management 
efforts will continue to be implemented regardless of whether tribal 
lands are designated as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, we are excluding all Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands (in 
Unit 7) from this final revised critical habitat designation. As 
described in our analysis below, we reached this determination because 
of our effective working relationship with the tribe and in 
consideration of the disproportionate economic impact associated with 
the designation of critical habitat on tribal lands.
    Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate 
the economic vulnerability of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. The 
tribe self-governs its lands and is solely responsible for public 
services in the same manner as county and city governments. The Ramona 
Band of Cahuilla Indians does not have independent taxing authority 
and, therefore, must rely on development fees within limited tribal 
lands to generate government revenue. However, as discussed in detail 
in chapter 6 of the FEA, local tribal governments have far fewer 
resources to draw from than county governments and the Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians serves an especially disadvantaged population. 
Furthermore, the tribe has a limited amount of reservation lands 
available for development and conservation.
    The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians has an extremely small 
population (8 members), including children, from which to raise 
revenue. The FEA did not analyze impacts to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians because data were not available, but it is our understanding 
that their resource base is reduced compared to the Cahuilla Band of 
Indians. This resource base is significantly smaller than the 
surrounding county (Riverside) that supports a population base of 
1,545,387 people. Additionally, although the DEA did not provide 
specific statistics for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, it is 
reasonable to assume, based on our general knowledge of the tribe's 
circumstances (see above discussion) that, similar to the Cahuilla Band 
of Indians, the proportion of tribal members below the poverty level, 
particularly the most impoverished people, is substantially higher 
relative to the nontribal populations of Riverside County, and the 
median value of owner-occupied houses is less than half that of owner-
occupied houses in the county.
    The DEA did not analyze costs to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians as we were initially unaware that the proposed revisions to 
critical habitat included tribally owned fee lands for this tribe. Land 
ownership data used in our analysis of proposed revisions to critical 
habitat did not accurately reflect recent tribal purchases. However, in 
consideration of land ownership information submitted to the Service 
after publication of proposed revisions to critical habitat (indicating 
79 ac (32 ha) of lands owned by the tribe were included in Unit 7), the 
general economic vulnerability of tribes discussed in the DEA, the 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' limited resource base, and the 
disadvantaged population they serve, we determined any economic impacts 
associated with a critical habitat designation will have a 
disproportionately negative impact on this tribe.
Benefits of Inclusion - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which 
consultation is completed.
    Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands are within the habitat-based 
population distribution of the Bautista Road core occurrence complexes 
(Unit 7). If surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then 
consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat designation, 
and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical 
habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of 
Designating Critical Habitat'' section, surveys may not detect 
butterflies during any given flight season even in occupied habitat. 
Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat designation 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are reduced but not negated by 
population occupancy in Unit 7.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is

[[Page 28819]]

that the designation can serve to educate the landowner and the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may 
help focus conservation efforts to designated areas of high 
conservation value for certain species. Any information about the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience is 
valuable, including parties engaged in conservation activities. As 
discussed above in the ``Tribal Comments'' section, the Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians is aware of the value of its lands to the conservation 
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently implements management 
measures that contribute to the conservation of natural resources and 
native species, for example, surveys and mapping of sensitive native 
species and habitat restoration associated with ecotourism resort 
development. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is already working 
with the Service to understand the habitat needs of this subspecies, 
and has an active natural resource management program including 
nontribal staff members. Further, the tribal lands were included in the 
proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience and served 
to educate the public. Therefore, the educational benefits that might 
follow critical habitat designation (such as providing information to 
the BIA or tribes on areas important to the long-term conservation of 
this subspecies) may have already been realized.
    In light of continued commitment by the Ramona Band of Cahuilla 
Indians to manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation 
of native species, we believe designation of critical habitat on tribal 
fee lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation 
benefits to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued 
jeopardy consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion - Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
    The benefits of excluding approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona 
Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from designated critical habitat are 
significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by forgoing 
the designation of critical habitat on these lands include: (1) 
Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our deference 
to tribal conservation and natural resource management of their lands 
and resources, including Federal trust species; (2) continuance and 
strengthening of our effective working relationships with the tribe to 
promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 
habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs that might not 
otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental economic impacts to 
the tribe that may result from critical habitat designation on tribal 
lands.
    We communicated with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians during the 
designation process, as soon as we were aware that the proposed 
revision included tribal fee lands. Meetings and communications were 
conducted in accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 
13175; and the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the 
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the 
governmental entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly on their lands. We recognize tribes' fundamental 
right to provide for tribal resource management activities, including 
those relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as 
an intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in 
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore, 
several comment letters received from tribes and the BIA indicated 
designation of critical habitat would adversely affect our working 
relationships with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians.
    Several tribes, including the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and 
the BIA commented that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands 
would constitute a significant burden to affected tribes. Potential 
economic impacts only become realized through consultation when there 
is a Federal nexus. However, in the case of tribal lands, there is a 
high likelihood all projected costs will be realized, as the BIA (a 
Federal Agency) provides technical assistance to tribes on management 
planning and oversees a variety of programs on tribal lands. As 
described above, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is economically 
depressed and therefore vulnerable to an economic impact. Eliminating 
potential incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
will prevent additional economic impact on the tribal economy where 
section 7 consultation costs are already likely due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion - Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians
    The benefits of excluding the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' 
lands from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of 
inclusion. The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural 
resources to benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 
without the perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is 
consistent with our published policies on Native American natural 
resource management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage 
and help maintain our cooperative working relationships with this tribe 
and facilitate further conservation activities by the tribal 
environmental organization, which will likely provide benefits to this 
subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as discussed above, 
eliminating the disproportionately high incremental economic impacts 
associated with a critical habitat designation on the Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians' lands will prevent unnecessary and counter-productive 
impacts to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore, we determined the 
benefits identified above of excluding approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of 
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from the revised critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including these tribal lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Ramona Band of 
Cahuilla Indians
    We determined that the exclusion of 79 ac (32 ha) of the Ramona 
Band of Cahuilla Indians' land from the final revised designation of 
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in 
the extinction of the subspecies. The vast majority of lands proposed 
in Unit 7 are being designated as critical habitat and will receive the 
full protection afforded to critical habitat under the Act. 
Additionally, the tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands in a 
manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the 
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in 
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the 
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. 
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 
79 ac (32 ha) of Ramona

[[Page 28820]]

Band of Cahuilla Indians' land proposed in Unit 7 from this critical 
habitat designation.

Tribal Lands--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order 3206; June 5, 1997); the 
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government 
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); 
Executive Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental 
Manual of the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that 
fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are better 
managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through 
Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this 
philosophy, we believe in most cases designation of tribal lands as 
critical habitat provides very little additional benefits to threatened 
and endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by 
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance; therefore critical habitat designation compromises the 
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual 
goal of managing for viability of ecosystems on which threatened and 
endangered species depend. Section 3(B)(4) of the Appendix to 
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 
1997), also specifically states ``* * * Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in [areas that may affect tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights] unless it is 
determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating 
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent 
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved 
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' We received multiple 
comment letters from several tribal governments and the BIA stating 
that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands constitutes a 
significant burden to tribes.
    We determined that 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians' lands (in Unit 9) contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and 
meet the definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our 
final decision with regard to these tribal lands, we considered several 
factors including our relationship with the affected tribe, our 
recognition that tribal governments protect and manage their resources 
in the manner most beneficial to them, and the estimated economic 
impacts to the affected tribe associated with the designation of 
critical habitat. We recognize that the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians 
exercises legislative, administrative, and judicial control over 
activities within the boundaries of its lands and has a natural 
resource management program and staff. Natural resource management 
efforts will continue to be implemented by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians regardless of whether tribal lands are designated as critical 
habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding all 3,167 
ac (1,282 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands (in Unit 9) from 
this final revised critical habitat designation that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly. As described in our analysis below, we 
reached this determination because of our effective working 
relationship with the tribe and in consideration of the 
disproportionate economic impact associated with the designation of 
critical habitat on tribal lands.
    Socioeconomic data discussed in chapter 6 of the FEA demonstrate 
the economic vulnerability of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. The 
tribe self-governs its lands and is solely responsible for public 
services in the same manner as county and city governments. However, as 
discussed in detail in chapter 6 of the FEA, this tribal government has 
far fewer resources to draw from than county governments and serves an 
especially disadvantaged population. Tribal governments do not have 
independent taxing authority and therefore must rely on development 
fees within limited tribal lands to generate government revenue. 
Furthermore, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians has a very limited 
amount of reservation lands available for development and conservation.
    According to data collected in preparation of the DEA, the Campo 
Band of Kumeyaay Indians has a small population (372 members) from 
which to raise revenue. This resource base is significantly smaller 
than the surrounding county (San Diego) that supports a population base 
of 2,813,833 people. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' unemployment 
rate is almost twice that of San Diego County, and the median household 
income level is lower. Likewise, the proportion of people below the 
poverty level is substantially higher for the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians relative to the nontribal population of San Diego County. There 
is an even larger disparity among the most impoverished people 
(percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level); the 
percentage of people below half of the poverty level on the Campo Band 
of Kumeyaay Indians' reservation (approximately 29 percent) is more 
than five times that of the nontribal population of San Diego County 
(approximately 5 percent). This disparity is also reflected in property 
values on the reservation, where the median value of owner-occupied 
houses is less than half that of owner-occupied houses in San Diego 
County.
    As described in Chapter 6 of the FEA, the projected incremental 
economic impacts that would be incurred by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation totals 
$4.9 million to $6.8 million over the 23 year analysis period ($406,000 
to $563,000 annualized) at a seven percent discount rate (up to 62 
percent of all incremental economic impacts of designating critical 
habitat in Unit 9). Tribal lands available for development are limited 
on the reservation, and up to 62 percent of all projected incremental 
economic impacts of designating critical habitat in Unit 9 (primarily 
residential development) were anticipated to be incurred by the Campo 
Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Therefore, in consideration of economic 
vulnerability of the tribal government discussed above, its limited 
resource base, and the disadvantaged population it serves, we 
determined any economic impacts associated with a critical habitat 
designation will have a disproportionately negative impact on this 
tribe.
Benefits of Inclusion--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which 
consultation is completed.
    The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land are within the habitat-
based population distribution of the La Posta-Campo Core Occurrence 
Complex (Unit 9). If surveys detect occupancy within a project 
footprint, then consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat 
designation, and the

[[Page 28821]]

likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical habitat unit 
is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat, surveys may not 
detect butterflies during any given flight season. Therefore, the 
conservation benefits of critical habitat designation are reduced but 
not negated by population occupancy in Unit 9.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner 
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, 
and this may help focus conservation efforts to designated areas of 
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide 
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation 
activities. As discussed in the ``Tribal Comments'' section above, the 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is aware of the value of its lands to 
the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and currently 
implements management measures that contribute to the conservation of 
natural resources and native species. For example, in their first 
comment letter (March 20, 2008) the tribe cited a completed riparian 
habitat restoration project. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is 
already working with the Service to understand the habitat needs of 
this subspecies, and has an active natural resource management program. 
Further, the tribal lands were included in the proposed designation, 
which itself reached a wide audience and served to educate the public. 
Therefore, the educational benefits that might follow critical habitat 
designation (such as providing information to the BIA or tribes on 
areas important to the long-term conservation of this subspecies) may 
have already been realized.
    In light of continued commitment by the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians to manage its lands in a manner that promotes the conservation 
of native species, we believe designation of critical habitat on tribal 
lands would provide few additional regulatory and conservation benefits 
to the subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy 
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
    The benefits of excluding approximately 3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians land from designated critical habitat 
are significant. We believe the benefits that would be realized by 
forgoing the designation of critical habitat on these lands include: 
(1) Furtherance of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and our 
deference to tribal conservation and natural resource management of 
their lands and resources, including Federal trust species; (2) 
continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationship 
with the tribe to promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat; (3) conservation benefits by tribal programs 
that might not otherwise occur; and (4) removal of all incremental 
economic impacts to the tribe that may result from critical habitat 
designation on tribal lands.
    We communicated with the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians throughout 
the designation process. Meetings and communications were conducted in 
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206; the Presidential memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and 
the relevant provision of the Department Manual of the Department of 
the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe tribes should be the governmental 
entities to manage and promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly on their lands. We recognize tribes' fundamental right to 
provide for tribal resource management activities, including those 
relating to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians informed us that critical habitat would be viewed as an 
intrusion on its sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in 
accordance with its own policies, customs, and laws. Furthermore, 
several comment letters received from the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians, other tribes, and the BIA indicated designation of critical 
habitat adversely affects our working relationships with all tribes.
    The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians and the BIA commented that 
designation of critical habitat on Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' 
lands would constitute a significant burden to the tribe. Projected 
economic impacts only become realized through consultation when there 
is a Federal nexus. However, in the case of tribal lands, there is a 
high likelihood all projected costs will be realized, as the BIA (a 
Federal Agency) provides technical assistance to tribes on management 
planning and oversees a variety of programs on tribal lands. As 
described above, the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is economically 
depressed and therefore vulnerable to the economic impact. Eliminating 
projected incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
as described in the FEA will prevent additional economic impact on the 
tribal economy where section 7 consultation costs are already likely 
due to known occupancy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians
    The benefits of excluding the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands 
from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits of 
inclusion. The philosophy of allowing the tribe to manage its natural 
resources to benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat 
without the perception of additional Federal Government intrusion is 
consistent with our published policies on Native American natural 
resource management. The exclusion of these areas will also encourage 
and help maintain our cooperative working relationship with the Campo 
Band of Kumeyaay Indians and facilitate further conservation activities 
by local tribal environmental organizations, which will likely provide 
benefits to this subspecies that would not otherwise occur. Finally, as 
discussed above, eliminating the disproportionately high incremental 
economic impacts associated with a critical habitat designation on the 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land will prevent unnecessary and 
counter-productive impacts to the vulnerable tribal economy. Therefore, 
we determined the benefits identified above of excluding approximately 
3,087 ac (1,249 ha) of Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land from the 
critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including these 
tribal lands.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians

    We determined that the exclusion of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay 
Indians' lands from the final revised designation of critical habitat 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction 
of the subspecies. The tribe's continued commitment to manage its lands 
in a manner that promotes the conservation of native species, and the 
high likelihood of future Federal nexuses on tribal land resulting in 
consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
that will ensure activities on tribal land are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the 
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. 
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 
3,167 ac (1,282 ha) of

[[Page 28822]]

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' land proposed in Unit 9 from this 
critical habitat designation.

Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Impacts to National Security

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas 
from critical habitat for reasons of national security if the Secretary 
determines the benefits of such an exclusion exceed the benefits of 
designating the area as critical habitat. However, this exclusion 
cannot occur if it will result in the extinction of the species 
concerned.

Department of Defense--San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station

    We determined that approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force lands 
at the San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance Station (Surveillance 
Station), located in Unit 8, contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and therefore meet the 
definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final 
decision with regard to these Air Force lands, we considered several 
factors including impacts to national security associated with a 
critical habitat designation as described by the Air Force, existing 
consultations, and conservation measures in place at this facility that 
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, we are excluding all Air Force Surveillance Station lands in Unit 
8 containing features essential to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly from this final revised critical habitat 
designation. As described in our analysis below, we reached this 
determination in consideration of the impact to national security 
associated with the designation of critical habitat on these Air Force 
lands.
    An endangered species management plan is in place at the 
Surveillance Station to conserve Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat. 
Activities at the station that reduce the risk of fire damage consist 
of occasional equipment inspection, equipment maintenance, and mowing, 
therefore conservation actions are relatively simple. Conservation 
measures included in the plan that benefit the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat include (1) Monitoring Quino checkerspot 
butterfly occupancy and habitat status through protocol surveys that 
also document habitat quality, suitability, and the presence and 
abundance of host plants and nectar sources; (2) use of monitoring 
results to adopt management strategies that maintain and protect the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly; and (3) maintaining existing habitat 
onsite, including actions such as flagging and avoiding host plants 
prior to fire abatement activities, or utilizing the existing mowing 
program to maintain areas of low, open grassland most suitable for host 
plants. The Air Force is currently working on an INRMP for this 
facility that will incorporate the existing endangered species 
management plan. Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will 
continue to be implemented by the Air Force regardless of whether the 
Surveillance Station is designated as critical habitat.
    In a letter received by the Service on March 20, 2008, the Air 
Force determined that critical habitat designation on Surveillance 
Station lands would impact national security. The mission of the 
Surveillance Station is to detect, track, and identify manmade objects 
in near-earth and deep-space orbits using a series of receiving 
stations equipped with linear antenna arrays. The Air Force expressed 
concern that designation of these lands could cause short-notice, 
national security, mission-critical activities to be delayed if they 
were required to conduct consultation due to a critical habitat 
designation. Short-notice, mission-critical activities not previously 
analyzed that would likely be delayed by section 7 consultation and 
directly affect national security include equipment upgrades, some 
maintenance activities, and replacement of antennae. These activities 
require immediate ground disturbance in designated areas for new 
antennae construction or heavy equipment operation, and are not covered 
by the INRMP.
Benefits of Inclusion--Air Force Surveillance Station
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to insure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which consultation is 
completed.
    These Air Force lands are within the habitat-based population 
distribution of the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 8). If 
surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then consultation 
would occur regardless of critical habitat designation, and the 
likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical habitat unit 
is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat, surveys may not 
detect butterflies during any given flight season. Therefore, the 
conservation benefits of critical habitat designation are reduced but 
not negated by population occupancy in Unit 8.
    The primary benefit of including these Air Force lands within a 
critical habitat designation is the requirement for consultation on 
actions that may adversely modify or destroy designated critical 
habitat; however, consultation on these lands, which are within the 
habitat-based population distribution of the Otay Mountain Core 
Occurrence Complex and are within the boundaries of previously 
designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat, has already 
been completed. The Service completed consultation with the Navy (prior 
landowner) regarding all current and foreseen mowing activity and 
issued a biological opinion concluding that all current and foreseen 
mowing activity is not likely to jeopardize the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly nor destroy or adversely modify its currently designated 
critical habitat (Service 2003, FWS-SDG-2511.3).
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner 
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, 
and this may help focus conservation efforts to identified areas of 
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide 
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation 
activities. As discussed above, the Air Force is aware of the value of 
Surveillance Station lands to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and currently implements management measures to conserve 
Quino checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Air Force is 
actively working with the Service and the CDFG to develop an INRMP that 
will ensure conservation of this subspecies on Surveillance Station 
lands. Further, all Surveillance Station lands were included in the 
proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience. Therefore, 
the educational benefits that might follow critical habitat designation 
(such as providing information to the Air Force on areas important to 
the long-term conservation of this subspecies) have largely already 
been realized by consultation, development of the management plan, 
development of the INRMP, and proposing these areas as critical 
habitat.

[[Page 28823]]

    We believe designation of critical habitat would provide few, if 
any, additional regulatory and conservation benefits to the subspecies 
beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy consultation due 
to the continued commitment by the Air Force to manage its lands in a 
manner that promotes conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
and the coordination and management efforts demonstrated by the Air 
Force resulting from consultation and development of an INRMP.
Benefits of Exclusion--Air Force Surveillance Station
    The benefits of excluding approximately 109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force 
lands are significant. The Air Force maintains and defends our national 
security at the Surveillance Station by detecting, tracking, and 
identifying man-made objects in near-earth and deep space orbits. As 
described above, the Air Force determined designation of Surveillance 
Station lands could delay short-notice national security mission-
critical activities such as inspections/maintenance of antenna arrays 
and their components. Excluding these Air Force lands from critical 
habitat designation will remove the potentially significant impact that 
a designation of critical habitat could have on the Air Force's ability 
to maintain and defend our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Air Force 
Surveillance Station
    We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of 
exclusion for Air Force Surveillance Station lands in Unit 8. We 
believe the benefits of designating these lands as Quino checkerspot 
butterfly critical habitat are small, whereas the benefits of excluding 
these lands from critical habitat will result in the removal of impacts 
to national security as determined by the Air Force. Therefore, we have 
determined the benefits identified above of excluding approximately 109 
ac (44 ha) of Air Force Surveillance Station lands from the critical 
habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including these lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Air Force 
Surveillance Station
    We determined that the exclusion of the Air Force Surveillance 
Station lands from the final revised designation of critical habitat 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in the extinction 
of the subspecies. While some loss of habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly is anticipated with the continued Air Force activities on 
Surveillance Station lands, we concluded in our biological opinion 
(Service 2003, FWS-SDG-2511.3) that mowing activity would not 
jeopardize the continued existence of this subspecies. Additionally, 
the current management and proposed management under the draft INRMP in 
development provides some protection and management of lands within 
Unit 8, including the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Finally, the 
likelihood of future Federal nexuses on these Air Force lands resulting 
in consultations under the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act that will ensure activities on these lands are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies provide assurances 
that the subspecies will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. 
Therefore, based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 
109 ac (44 ha) of Air Force Surveillance Station lands proposed in Unit 
8 from this critical habitat designation.

Department of Defense--La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility

    We determined that approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land owned or 
controlled by the United States Navy (Navy), or designated for its use, 
at the La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility (La Posta Facility), 
located in Unit 9, contain the features essential to the conservation 
of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and meet the definition of critical 
habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with regard to 
these Navy lands, we considered several factors including impacts to 
national security associated with a critical habitat designation as 
described by the Navy, existing consultations, and conservation 
measures in place at this facility that benefit the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding all Navy 
La Posta Facility lands, and lands owned by the BLM designated for use 
as part of the La Posta Facility from this final revised critical 
habitat designation. As described in our section 4(b)(2) analysis 
below, we reached this determination in consideration of the impact to 
national security associated with the designation of critical habitat 
on these Navy lands.
    The Navy Special Operations Forces train at the La Posta Facility 
before deploying to the United States Pacific and Central Commands in 
support of missions in the global war on terrorism. This warfare 
training facility supports mission-essential training for Navy troops 
prior to deployment into these hostile areas of the world. The La Posta 
Facility is currently the only semi-remote, Navy-controlled complex 
supporting Assault and Tactical Weapons Training, and the only San 
Diego region cold weather--mountain warfare site that provides training 
in unconventional warfare and special tactical intelligence. The Navy 
Special Operations Forces training schedule is extremely concentrated 
and does not allow for any shifting of training blocks. By Navy 
training policy, this site contains a remote range built specifically 
for the skill set required, is close to home, and is without 
distractions. Therefore, these lands have high national security value.
    The Navy actively conserves the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its 
habitat at the La Posta Facility. Conservation measures pursuant to a 
biological opinion (FWS-SDG-4452) include a comprehensive Quino Habitat 
Enhancement Plan for the La Posta Facility. The Navy funds 
implementation of the Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan and consistent 
with the plan, the Navy: (1) Identifies areas containing important 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat features (e.g., host plants for 
breeding and hilltops for mating); (2) delineates Quino Management Area 
boundaries (based on mapping in <greek-i>1); (3) implements specific 
management strategies, such as weed control, to conserve the 
subspecies; (4) avoids trampling of Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae, 
host plants, or cryptobiotic soil crusts in important habitat; (5) 
monitors Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat to detect any significant 
changes; (6) describes and implements larval salvage and release 
techniques; and (7) conducts surveys every 4 years to detect changes in 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly distribution.
    In addition to the conservation measures described above, the Navy 
provided funding for The Nature Conservancy to purchase and manage 
approximately 138 ac (56 ha) of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
adjacent to the La Posta Facility. Furthermore, the Navy has updated 
its Naval Base Coronado INRMP to address the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat at the La Posta Facility and is awaiting 
approval by the Service. The INRMP will incorporate all conservation 
measures included in the current Quino checkerspot butterfly Habitat 
Enhancement Plan and address expansion plans for the La Posta Facility. 
Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will continue to be 
implemented by the Navy regardless of

[[Page 28824]]

whether the La Posta Facility is designated as critical habitat.
    In a letter received by the Service on March 20, 2008, (see 
``Comments From Other Federal Agencies'' section above) the Navy 
determined that critical habitat designation on La Posta Facility lands 
would affect national security. With the closure of several contract 
sites previously conducting Navy Sea, Air, and Land Forces unit level 
training, the La Posta facility is now the sole Navy training site in 
the San Diego region for developing small, well-trained and highly 
mobile independent operational units for deployment into combat. 
Designation of these lands as critical habitat could delay construction 
of facilities needed to support mission critical training vital to the 
current global war on terrorism and other missions related to national 
security. To support training requirements, there are a series of 
development projects being planned at the La Posta Facility including 
construction of a close-quarter combat training facility. Any delay in 
construction of facilities that support operational readiness would 
seriously affect personnel readiness by disrupting mission critical 
training and the ability to acquire and perform special warfare skills.
Benefits of Inclusion--Navy La Posta Facility
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to insure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat, the regulatory standard under which consultation is 
completed.
    These Navy lands are within the habitat-based population 
distribution of the recently identified La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence 
Complex. If surveys detect occupancy within a project footprint, then 
consultation would occur regardless of critical habitat designation, 
and the likelihood of this occurring within this occupied critical 
habitat unit is high. However, as discussed above in the ``Benefits of 
Designating Critical Habitat'' section, even in occupied habitat, 
surveys may not detect butterflies during any given flight season. 
Therefore, the conservation benefits of critical habitat designation 
are reduced but not negated by population occupancy in Unit 9.
    Additionally, the Service has already consulted with the Navy 
regarding all current construction activities at the La Posta Facility, 
including construction of the aforementioned close-quarters combat 
training facility, and issued a biological opinion (Service 2007; FWS-
SDG-4452) concluding the proposed activities are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 
Conservation measures resulting from that consultation include the 
development of a comprehensive Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan discussed 
above. Critical habitat is not currently designated on these lands; 
therefore, the consultation did not include an adverse modification 
analysis. However, the Quino Habitat Enhancement Plan, if implemented 
long-term as described above, will conserve and enhance the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowner 
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, 
and this may help focus conservation efforts to identified areas of 
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide 
audience is valuable, including parties engaged in conservation 
activities. As discussed above, the Navy is aware of the value of La 
Posta Facility lands to Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation and 
currently implements management measures to conserve the subspecies and 
its habitat. The Navy is actively working with the Service and the CDFG 
to update the Naval Base Coronado INRMP to address Quino checkerspot 
butterflies and their habitat at the La Posta Facility. Further, all La 
Posta Facility lands were included in the proposed designation, which 
itself reached a wide audience. Therefore, the educational benefits 
that might follow critical habitat designation (such as providing 
information to the Navy on areas important to the long-term 
conservation of this subspecies) have largely already been realized by 
consultation, development of the Habitat Enhancement Plan, development 
of the INRMP, and proposing these areas as critical habitat.
    In light of continued Navy commitments to manage its lands in a 
manner that promotes conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, 
we believe designation of critical habitat on these Navy lands would 
provide minimal additional regulatory and conservation benefits to the 
subspecies beyond those that will result from continued jeopardy 
consultation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Navy La Posta Facility
    The benefits of excluding the approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of 
Navy lands are significant. The Navy maintains and defends our national 
security at the La Posta Facility by training highly specialized troops 
for deployment. As described above, it is possible that designation of 
La Posta Facility lands as critical habitat could delay construction 
schedules and thereby disrupt mission critical training and the Navy's 
ability to acquire and perform special warfare skills. Additional 
consultation under section 7 of the Act due to critical habitat 
designation could limit or otherwise delay or restrict the amount and 
timing of mission-critical training exercises. Excluding these Navy 
lands from the critical habitat designation will effectively remove the 
impact that a designation of critical habitat could have on the Navy's 
ability to maintain and defend our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Navy La Posta 
Facility
    The benefits of including these Navy La Posta Facility lands in 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly are 
small compared to the benefits of excluding these lands from critical 
habitat for the purposes of national security training efforts. 
Therefore, we determined the benefits identified above of excluding 
approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of Navy La Posta Facility lands from 
the critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including 
these lands in the designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Navy La Posta 
Facility
    In keeping with our analysis and conclusion detailed in our 
biological opinion for the Navy La Posta Facility (Service 2007; FWS-
SDG-4452) and potential national security impacts identified by the 
Navy, we determined exclusion of 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land within the 
La Posta Facility from the final designation of critical habitat for 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly in Unit 9 will not result in the 
extinction of the subspecies. Additionally, the likelihood of future 
federal nexuses on these Federal lands resulting in consultations under 
the jeopardy standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act that will ensure 
activities on these lands are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the subspecies provide assurances that the subspecies will 
not go extinct as a result of this exclusion. Therefore, based on the 
above discussion we are

[[Page 28825]]

excluding approximately 2,463 ac (997 ha) of land within the La Posta 
Facility proposed in Unit 9 from this critical habitat designation.

Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Other Relevant Impacts--Conservation 
Partnerships

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas 
from critical habitat for other relevant impacts if he determines that 
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. 
As discussed above in the ``Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal 
Lands'' section, we believe that designation can negatively impact the 
working relationships and conservation partnerships we have formed with 
private landowners. The Service recognizes that 80 percent of 
endangered or threatened species occur either partially or solely on 
private lands (Crouse et al. 2002) and we will only achieve recovery of 
federally listed species with the cooperation of private landowners.
    In making the following exclusions, we evaluated the benefits of 
designating these non-Federal lands while considering the conservation 
benefits to the Quino checkerspot butterfly and the physical or 
biological features essential to its conservation that result from our 
existing partnerships. As discussed in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section above, conservation partnerships that result 
in implementation of an HCP or other management plan that considers 
enhancement or recovery as the management standard often provide as 
much or more benefit than consultation for critical habitat designation 
(the primary benefit of a designation).
    In considering the benefits of including lands in a designation 
that are covered by a current HCP or other management plan, we evaluate 
a number of factors to help us determine if the plan provides 
additional conservation benefits than would likely result from 
consultation on a designation:
    (1)Whether the plan is complete and provides protection from 
destruction or adverse modification;
    (2)Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations; and
    (3)Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    We balance the benefits of inclusion against the benefits of 
exclusion by considering the benefits of preserving partnerships and 
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans 
in the future.

San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program - Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan

    We determined approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land in Unit 8 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the City of 
Chula Vista (City) Subarea Plan of the San Diego County Multiple 
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (Chula Vista Subarea Plan) contain 
the features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly, and therefore meet the definition of critical habitat under 
the Act. In making our final decision with regard to these Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees 
of the HCP, we considered several factors, including our relationship 
with the participating MSCP jurisdiction, our relationship with other 
MSCP stakeholders, existing consultations, conservation measures in 
place on these lands that benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and 
impacts to current and future partnerships. We recognize the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly conservation efforts outlined in the Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan will continue to be implemented by the jurisdictions and 
HCP permit holders regardless of whether covered areas are designated 
as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding 
all lands covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan that are owned by or 
are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from this final 
revised designation of critical habitat. As described in our section 
4(b)(2) analysis below, we have reached this determination in 
consideration of the impacts associated with designation of critical 
habitat on non-Federal lands covered by a management plan and on our 
effective working relationships with HCP permit holders.
    The MSCP is a framework HCP that has been in place for more than a 
decade. The plan area encompasses approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 
(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1-1; MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1, 4-2 to 4-4) and 
provides for conservation of 85 federally listed and sensitive species 
(``covered species'') through the establishment and management of 
approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within the 
Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) (City of San Diego) and Pre-Approved 
Mitigation Areas (PAMA) (County of San Diego). The MSCP was developed 
in support of applications for incidental take permits for several 
federally listed species by 12 participating jurisdictions and many 
other stakeholders in southwestern San Diego County. Under the umbrella 
of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is required to 
prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the MSCP within 
that particular jurisdiction. Although not covered under the umbrella 
of the MSCP, the Quino checkerspot butterfly is a covered species under 
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, which provides for the long-term 
conservation of this subspecies.
    We approved the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, covering approximately 
58,000 ac (23,472 ha) under the City's jurisdiction, through an 
incidental take permit issued on January 12, 2005. Within the Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan, approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) meet the definition 
of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan includes the following goals: (1) To conserve 
covered species (including the Quino checkerspot butterfly) and their 
habitats through the assemblage and conservation of significant 
interconnected habitat cores and linkages (Preserve); (2) to provide 
funding for and management of the Preserve, including biological 
monitoring and adaptive management; and (3) to reduce or eliminate 
redundant Federal, State, and local natural resource regulatory and 
environmental review of individual projects by obtaining Federal and 
State take authorizations for 85 species (City of Chula Vista 2003, 
Section 1, p. 2).
    The Chula Vista Subarea Plan contains requirements to monitor and 
adaptively manage Quino checkerspot butterfly habitats and therefore 
provides for conservation of this subspecies' essential physical and 
biological features. This area-specific management plan is 
comprehensive and addresses a broad range of management needs at the 
preserve and species levels intended to reduce threats to the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly and thereby contribute to its recovery. The Quino 
checkerspot butterfly is threatened primarily by loss and fragmentation 
of habitat and landscape connectivity due to urban and agricultural 
development, invasion of nonnative plant species, off-road vehicle use, 
grazing, fire, enhanced soil nitrogen levels, and range shift resulting 
from environmental changes associated with changing climate patterns 
(Service

[[Page 28826]]

2003a, pp. 55-65). All lands preserved under the Chula Vista Subarea 
Plan are adaptively managed and maintained to: (1) Ensure the long-term 
viability and sustainability of native ecosystem function and natural 
processes throughout the Preserve; (2) protect existing and restored 
biological resources from the impacts of human activities within the 
Preserve while accommodating compatible uses; (3) enhance and restore, 
where feasible, appropriate native plant associations and wildlife 
connections to adjoining habitat to provide viable wildlife and 
sensitive species habitat; (4) facilitate monitoring of selected target 
species, habitats, and linkages to ensure long-term persistence of 
viable populations of priority plant and animal species (including the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly); and (5) ensure functional habitats and 
linkages for those species (Service 2003b, pp.18, 70, FWS-SDG-882.1). 
Quino checkerspot butterfly management efforts will continue to be 
implemented by the City regardless of whether these areas are 
designated as critical habitat.
    We determined that approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land within 
the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly, and therefore meet the definition of critical 
habitat. The City has assured the conservation of approximately 1,520 
ac (615 ha) (91 percent) of those lands in the ``hard line areas 
designated for 100 percent conservation'' where no additional 
development will be approved unless a Boundary Adjustment or HCP 
Amendment is approved by the Service (City of Chula Vista 2003, pp. 5-2 
to 5-3, Figure 5-1). In implementing the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the 
City has already conserved approximately 894 ac (362 ha), or 59 
percent, of those 1,520 ac (615 ha), and the remaining approximate 626 
ac (253 ha) are assured conservation under the Plan. The extent of 
habitat preservation and management to date through implementation of 
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan is significant and demonstrates the City's 
commitment to fully implement the HCP.
    The other 164 ac (66 ha) that meet the definition of critical 
habitat within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan were not 
originally assured conservation. However, through the adaptive 
management flexibility of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the City has 
already placed approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of those 164 ac (66 ha) into 
the habitat preserve system conserved and managed under the HCP. These 
approximately 28 ac (11 ha) are already receiving management consistent 
with the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. The 
remaining approximately 136 ac (55 ha) of land that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan (less 
than one percent of Unit 8) are not currently assured conservation; 
however, any impacts to those 136 ac (55 ha) will still be subject to 
the requirements of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. Furthermore, under 
the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, development projects must avoid impacts 
to the Quino checkerspot butterfly to the maximum extent practicable in 
areas not identified for conservation (McNeeley 2008, p. 1). Current 
development plans indicate that these remaining lands are planned for 
recreational use, and there will continue to be opportunities to 
preserve some native habitat in these areas. Although some losses may 
occur to this subspecies within the approximate 136 ac (55 ha) of land 
that are not currently preserved or otherwise assured conservation 
under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the preservation, conservation, and 
management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly provided under the 
subarea plan provides a more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach to 
protecting and managing Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat and ensures 
the long-term conservation of this subspecies and its habitat within 
all areas addressed by this HCP than would be achieved through 
consultation for critical habitat designation (the primary benefit of a 
designation).
    The MSCP and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan incorporate many 
processes that allow for Service oversight and participation in program 
implementation. These processes include: annual reporting requirements, 
review and approval of proposed subarea plan amendments or preserve 
boundary adjustments, review and comment on projects through CEQA, and 
chairing the Habitat Management Technical Committee and the Monitoring 
Subcommittee (MSCP 1998, p. 5-11 to 5-23). For example, Habitat 
Management Plans are developed for each preserve area within the Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan, and annual monitoring and management objectives are 
reported for each preserve. There are also monthly coordination 
meetings between the Service and the City to discuss any conservation 
issues that need to be addressed. The MSCP and the Chula Vista Subarea 
Plan annually account for progress that occurs. Annual reports from 
each HCP are provided to the Service, which include by individual 
project and cumulatively, habitat acreage destroyed and conserved 
within the MSCP and its respective subareas. This accounting process 
ensures habitat conservation proceeds in rough proportion with losses 
and is in compliance with the MSCP subarea plans and associated 
implementing agreements.
    In summary, although not all lands meeting the definition of 
critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly owned by or under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan of 
the MSCP are assured conservation within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan 
preserve system (136 ac (55 ha) not protected, see above), the majority 
(91 percent) of these approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) are assured 
conservation.
    We received letters during the comment periods indicating 
designation of lands covered by an HCP as critical habitat would affect 
our relationships with large private landowners and stakeholders. 
Furthermore, designation would discourage development of additional 
HCPs and other conservation plans in the future.
Benefits of Inclusion--Chula Vista Subarea Plan
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of 
the Act under which consultation is completed.
    The MSCP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated, 
integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project 
approach (as would occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act) and will 
achieve more Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation within the Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan boundaries than would be achieved through section 7 
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. The MSCP and 
Chula Vista Subarea Plan provide for proactive monitoring and 
management of preserved lands (as previously described), which will 
remove or reduce known threats to the Quino checkerspot butterfly and 
its PCEs. The physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly will benefit from the 
preservation of high quality habitat;

[[Page 28827]]

restoration, enhancement, and management of all preserve lands; 
minimization of project impacts; education of the public and state and 
local governments; and continued promotion of partnerships on lands 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP. 
Conservation and management of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan boundaries is needed for survival 
and recovery of this subspecies. Meeting such conservation needs on a 
regional scale, as can be provided through a regional HCP approach that 
includes areas not likely to have a Federal nexus, typically is not 
achieved through the application of the statutory prohibition on 
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
    Furthermore, 91 percent of all lands within the boundaries of the 
Chula Vista Subarea Plan proposed for designation that are owned by or 
are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP is within the 
boundaries of formerly designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical 
habitat. The Service completed consultation on the Chula Vista Subarea 
Plan and continues to work closely with the City to ensure the Plan is 
implemented properly and in a manner that contributes to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
    We believe some habitat loss may occur within the approximate 136 
ac (55 ha) of land that contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species that are not currently 
preserved or otherwise assured conservation under the Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan. Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within 
designated critical habitat are greater than for the lands not 
conserved or assured conservation under the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. 
However, the area permitted for development is less than one percent of 
proposed critical habitat in Unit 8, and the overall conservation 
benefits of designating this small percentage of the unit as critical 
habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process) to the Quino checkerspot butterfly are minimal.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the landowners 
and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area 
and may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation 
value for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience is valuable, 
including parties engaged in conservation activities. As discussed 
above, the permit holders of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan are aware of 
the value of these lands to conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and management measures are in place to conserve Quino 
checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Service was a partner in 
the development of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and consultation was 
completed on the issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The process of 
developing the MSCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan involved numerous 
partners including (but not limited to) the 12 participating 
jurisdictions, the CDFG, and several Federal agencies. Furthermore, all 
lands were included in the proposed revised designation published in 
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). This publication 
was announced by way of a press release and information was posted on 
the Service's website, which ensured the proposal reached a wide 
audience. Therefore, the educational benefits of critical habitat 
designation (such as providing information to the City and other 
stakeholders on areas important to the long-term conservation of this 
subspecies) have largely already been realized through the HCP 
development process, by proposing these areas as critical habitat, and 
through the Service's public notification processes.
    Specific conservation actions, avoidance and minimization measures, 
and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs 
provided by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan should make conservation 
measures required as a result of regulatory protections afforded 
through a critical habitat designation unlikely. Based on the above 
discussion we believe section 7 consultations for critical habitat 
designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit 
in the Gifford Pinchot decision provide little conservation benefits 
above and beyond those provided by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan. 
Therefore, we determine the regulatory and educational benefits of 
designating those acres as Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat 
(e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation 
process) are minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion--Chula Vista Subarea Plan
    The benefits of excluding the approximate 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land 
within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan of the MSCP owned 
by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from 
designated critical habitat are significant. We believe significant 
benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of critical habitat 
on these lands including: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our 
effective working relationships with all MSCP jurisdictions and 
stakeholders to promote conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
and its habitat; (2) allowance for continued meaningful collaboration 
and cooperation in working toward recovering this subspecies, including 
conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur; (3) encouragement 
of other jurisdictions with completed subarea plans under the MSCP to 
amend its plans to cover and benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
and its habitat; (4) the encouragement for other jurisdictions to 
complete subarea plans under the MSCP (e.g., including the cities of 
Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, and Santee); and (5) encouragement of 
additional HCP and other conservation plan development in the future on 
other private lands for this and other federally listed and sensitive 
species.
    We developed close partnerships with the City and several other 
stakeholders through the development of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, 
which incorporates appropriate protections and management for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly, its habitat, and the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of this subspecies. Those 
protections are consistent with statutory mandates under section 7 of 
the Act to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat and go beyond that requirement by including active management 
and protection of connected habitat areas. By excluding these 
approximately 1,673 ac (677 ha) of land from designation, we are 
eliminating an essentially redundant layer of regulatory review for 
projects covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan in this area, helping 
to preserve our ongoing partnership with the City, and encouraging new 
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions. This partnership 
with the City, the larger regional MSCP participants, and the landscape 
level, multiple-species conservation planning efforts they promote are 
needed to achieve long-term conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly.
    Large scale HCPs, such as the regional MSCP and subarea plans 
issued under its framework, take many years to develop and foster an 
ecosystem-based approach to habitat conservation planning by addressing 
conservation issues through a coordinated approach. However, 
participation in these large and often costly regional plans are 
voluntary for permit holders (such as

[[Page 28828]]

local jurisdictions), in the sense they could require landowners (e.g., 
homeowners, developers) to consult with the Service individually for 
required permits under section 10 of the Act. If, in the case of the 
MSCP, local jurisdictions required landowners to obtain section 10 
permits individually prior to issuance of a building permit, they would 
incur no costs associated with the landowner's need for a section 10 
permit. However, this approach results in uncoordinated, ``patchy'' 
conservation that would not be likely to further federally listed 
species' recovery. Rather, by voluntarily developing these large scale 
plans, coordinated landscape-scale conservation results in preservation 
of interconnected linkage areas and populations that support recovery 
of listed species. Once an HCP is permitted, implementation of 
conservation measures will occur regardless of whether critical habitat 
is designated within its plan boundaries.
    We received letters commenting on the designation of critical 
habitat from other HCP permit holders, private landowners, and 
stakeholders in HCPs indicating designation of lands covered by an HCP 
as critical habitat would affect our relationships with large private 
landowners, jurisdictions, and tribal governments. Furthermore, 
designation would discourage development of additional HCPs and other 
conservation plans in the future. Excluding lands owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of an HCP within the boundary of an HCP 
demonstrates our good faith effort and working relationships, and 
eliminates impacts to existing and future partnerships while 
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other species or habitat 
conservation plans.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan
    We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 1,673 ac 
(677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan owned by or under 
the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from revised designation 
of critical habitat and determined the benefits of excluding these 
lands outweigh the benefits of including them.
    The benefits of including these lands in the designation are small. 
Critical habitat is currently designated in 91 percent of lands covered 
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, and the Service conducted a 
consultation with the City and continues to work with them through the 
implementation phase to ensure the HCP is implemented properly and 
providing conservation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The eight 
percent of lands (136 ac; 55 ha) on which critical habitat was not 
previously designated are not assured conservation under the Chula 
Vista Subarea Plan. However, current development plans indicate that 
these remaining lands are planned for recreational use, and 
opportunities will exist to continue to preserve some native habitat in 
these areas while developing and allowing recreational use. In areas 
not conserved by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan, development projects 
must still avoid impacts to the Quino checkerspot butterfly to the 
maximum extent practicable (McNeeley 2008, p. 1). The City has already 
placed approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of land under conservation outside 
of the requirements of its subarea plan. The educational benefits of 
critical habitat designation have largely already been realized as a 
result of material provided on our website, through the public notice-
and-comment procedures required to establish the MSCP and City and 
County subarea plans, and by proposal of these lands for designation as 
revised critical habitat. Therefore, although we acknowledge that there 
are approximately 136 ac (55 ha) addressed by the Chula Vista Subarea 
Plan that meet the definition of critical habitat and are not assured 
conservation (at risk for development), we believe that the benefits of 
including these areas in the critical habitat designation would be 
minor.
    In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding 
lands covered by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan from critical habitat are 
significant. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help 
preserve the partnerships we developed with local jurisdictions and 
project proponents in the development of the MSCP and Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan and aid in fostering additional partnerships for the 
benefit of all species of concern on lands owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP. Designation of lands covered 
by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan may discourage other partners from 
seeking, amending, or completing subarea plans under the MSCP framework 
plan or from pursing other HCPs. Designation of critical habitat does 
not require management or recovery actions take place on the lands 
included in the designation. The Chula Vista Subarea Plan, however, 
will provide for significant preservation and management of Quino 
checkerspot butterfly habitat and help reach the recovery goals for 
this subspecies through habitat enhancement and restoration; functional 
connections to adjoining habitat; and subspecies monitoring efforts. 
Additional HCPs or other species-habitat plans potentially fostered by 
this exclusion would also help to recover this and other federally 
listed species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to 
current and future partnerships, as summarized in the ``Conservation 
Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section above, we determined 
significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of 
critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Chula Vista 
Subarea Plan
    In keeping with our analysis and conclusion detailed in our 
biological opinion for the Chula Vista Subarea Plan (Service 2003b, 
FWS-SDG-882.1), we determined that the exclusion of approximately 1,673 
ac (677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan area owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from the final 
designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
will not result in extinction of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The 
Chula Vista Subarea Plan provides protection and management, in 
perpetuity, of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
the subspecies in Unit 9. Additionally, the jeopardy standard of 
section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation 
measures through the section 7 process provide assurances that the 
subspecies will not go extinct as a result of exclusion. Therefore, 
based on the above discussion we are excluding approximately 1,673 ac 
(677 ha) of land within the Chula Vista Subarea Plan area owned by or 
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP from this critical 
habitat designation.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

    We determined that approximately 31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and meet the 
definition of critical habitat under the Act. Our exclusion analysis 
did not include lands within the boundaries of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP that are not owned by or otherwise under the jurisdiction 
of permittees and therefore not subject to the permit

[[Page 28829]]

conditions of this HCP (e.g. Federal lands, Metropolitan Water District 
of Southern California lands, tribal lands). In making our final 
decision with regard to these lands owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we considered 
several factors including our relationships with the participating 
jurisdictions, our relationships with other stakeholders, existing 
consultations, conservation measures in place on these lands that 
benefit the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and impacts to current and 
future partnerships. We recognize Quino checkerspot butterfly 
conservation efforts outlined in the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
will continue to be implemented regardless of whether covered areas are 
designated as revised critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, we are excluding all 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land meeting the 
definition of critical habitat covered by the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP within Units 1 through 6 that are owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees from this revised final designation of 
critical habitat. Conversely, within Unit 7, we are designating all 
lands meeting the definition of critical habitat covered by the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP that are owned by or are under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees (4,141 ac (1,676 ha)). As described in our section 
4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached these determinations in 
consideration of the impacts associated with the designation of revised 
critical habitat on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the HCP covered by the HCP balanced against the benefits 
of including an area in the final designation.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a large-scale, multi-
jurisdictional HCP encompassing approximately 1.26 million ac (510,000 
ha) of land in western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County 
MSHCP addresses 146 listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' including 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Participants in the MSHCP include 14 
cities; the County of Riverside (including the Riverside County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation Agency, Riverside County Transportation 
Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and 
Riverside County Waste Department); California Department of Parks and 
Recreation; and the California Department of Transportation. The 
Western Riverside County MSHCP is a multi-species conservation program 
minimizing and mitigating expected loss of habitat and associated 
incidental take of covered species. On June 22, 2004, the Service 
issued an incidental take permit (Service 2004a, TE-088609-0) under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 permittees under the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP for a period of 75 years.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP requires conservation of 
approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of new lands (Additional Reserve 
Lands) to complement the approximate 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre-
existing natural and open space areas (Public-Quasi-Public (PQP) 
lands). PQP lands include those under Federal ownership, primarily 
managed by the Forest Service and BLM, and also permittee-owned or 
privately-owned open-space areas under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, primarily managed by 
the State and Riverside County. Collectively. The Additional Reserve 
Lands and PQP lands form the overall Western Riverside County MSHCP 
Conservation Area. The configuration of the approximately 153,000 ac 
(61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve Lands is not mapped or precisely 
identified (``hard-lined'') in the Western Riverside County MSHCP, but 
rather is based on textual descriptions of habitat conservation 
necessary to meet the conservation goals for all covered species within 
the bounds of an approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area 
interpreted as implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
takes place.
    Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation goals under the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP include protection (Additional Reserve Lands and 
PQP, including Federal lands) of at least 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of 
subspecies' habitat mosaic. The conservation acreage goal will be 
achieved through acquisition or other dedications of land assembled 
from within the Criteria Area (the Additional Reserve Lands) and 
through coordinated management of existing PQP lands. We internally 
mapped a ``Conceptual Reserve Design'' that illustrates existing PQP 
lands and predicts an ideal geographic distribution of the Additional 
Reserve Lands based on our interpretation of the textual descriptions 
of habitat conservation necessary to meet conservation goals. Our 
Conceptual Reserve Design was intended to predict one possible future 
configuration of the eventual approximately 153,000 ac (61, 916 ha) of 
Additional Reserve Lands in conjunction with the existing PQP lands, 
including approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) of ``suitable'' Quino 
checkerspot butterfly habitat throughout the plan area, that will be 
conserved to meet the goals and objectives of the plan (Service 2004a, 
p. 73; FWS-WRIV-870.19).
    Preservation and management of approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) 
of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP will contribute to conservation and ultimate recovery of 
this subspecies. The Quino checkerspot butterfly is threatened 
primarily by loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape 
connectivity due to urban and agricultural development, invasion of 
nonnative plant species, off-road vehicle use, grazing, and fire, 
enhanced soil nitrogen levels, and range shift resulting from 
environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (Service 2003a, 
pp. 55-65). The Western Riverside County MSHCP removes or reduces 
threats to this subspecies and the features essential to its 
conservation by placing large blocks of occupied and unoccupied habitat 
into preservation throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area. Areas 
identified for preservation and conservation include linkages of 
suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat between the 7 ``Core 
Areas'' to maintain landscape connectivity and support the population 
dynamics of this subspecies. The approximately 67,493 ac (27,314 ha) 
that will be conserved under this plan for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly capture a variety of habitat characteristics supporting Quino 
checkerspot butterflies throughout western Riverside County. 
Distribution of the subspecies within the existing Western Riverside 
County MSHCP Conservation Area is documented through annual surveys. 
Surveys will continue annually as lands are added to the Conservation 
Area. The surveys are intended to verify continued occupancy at a 
minimum of 75 percent of the occupied locations identified in the plan. 
An adaptive management program is being implemented to maintain or 
enhance all conserved habitat to increase its value for, and the 
viability of, Quino checkerspot butterfly populations (Dudek 2003, 
Volume I, Section 9, Table 9-2, pp. 9-28, 9-29). Quino checkerspot 
butterfly conservation and management efforts will continue to be 
implemented under this plan regardless of whether these areas are 
designated as revised critical habitat.
    We determined that approximately 31,852 ac (12,890 ha) of land 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP meet the definition of critical habitat for the 
Quino

[[Page 28830]]

checkerspot butterfly. These lands are divided into 7 units, each 
associated with a core occurrence complex habitat-based population 
distribution as identified in this final rule. Our analysis of 
additional survey data and distribution information not available at 
the time the Western Riverside County MSHCP was developed identified a 
new core occurrence complex, the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex 
(Unit 7). Therefore permittees can meet the goals and objectives of the 
plan as written for this subspecies without conserving significant 
portions of the permittee-owned or open-space areas that are essential 
for the conservation of the species in Unit 7. Due to the 
identification of a new core occurrence complex (Unit 7) mostly outside 
the HCP conservation design, we evaluated the benefits of including (if 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation design provides 
equivalent or greater conservation benefit to Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat than would likely result from consultation on 
a designation) the lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 separately 
from our evaluation of the benefits of designating Units 1 through 6.
Conservation Status of Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    Units 1 through 6 contain approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of 
land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Our analysis identified four basic 
conservation status categories of land under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP: (1) Conserved as 
Public/Quasi-Public or as Additional Reserve Lands (already in 
Conservation Area); (2) likely to be conserved as indicated by our 
Conceptual Reserve Design (targeted as Additional Reserve Lands); (3) 
possible, but not likely, conservation within the defined Criteria Area 
(not captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design), and (4) no possibility 
of conservation under the HCP (outside the defined Criteria Area).
    In the 4 years of implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
approximately 1,956 ac (792 ha) of land within Units 1 through 6 have 
already been placed into the Conservation Area and are permanently 
preserved as Additional Reserve Lands, and 2036 ac (ha) were already 
conserved prior to HCP implementation. Although some areas placed in 
conservation are not yet fully managed, such management will occur as 
the plan continues to be implemented. Our Conceptual Reserve Design 
indicates that another approximately 17,302 ac (7,002 ha) of land owned 
by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 (approximately 63 percent) will 
likely be conserved as Additional Reserve Lands. The extent of habitat 
preservation that has taken place to date through implementation of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP is significant and demonstrates the 
permittees' commitment to fully implement the plan.
    In Units 1 through 6, approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 ha) that meet 
the definition of critical habitat owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP are within the 
Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design. A 
substantial portion of these lands occur in Unit 6 (approximately 2,819 
ac (951 ha)). Condition 12 of the Special Terms and Conditions for 
Incidental Take Permit TE-088609-0 specifically identifies Unit 6 for 
additional conservation by requiring the permittees to ``work to 
conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly within the Tule Creek--Anza 
Valley Subunit of the REMAP Area (Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence 
Complex) and, if necessary, to use the Criteria Refinement Process to 
achieve this conservation'' (Service 2004b, p. 2, TE-088609-0). The 
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (permittee 
under the Western Riverside County MSHCP) has demonstrated its 
willingness and commitment to conserve lands needed for subspecies' 
recovery that are not otherwise targeted for conservation by plan 
criteria. In 2008, approximately 396 ac (160 ha) of occupied habitat 
all or partly outside of our Conceptual Reserve Design, but within the 
Criteria Area, were acquired as Additional Reserve Lands within the 
Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex (Unit 6). These lands were 
acquired specifically for the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly.
    Approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land within Unit 2 owned by or 
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP that meet the definition of critical habitat occur outside 
of the Criteria Area and are not already conserved. These areas all 
occur on the outer edges of Unit 2 and represent only 3 percent of the 
unit. Although some losses may occur to this subspecies within these 
lands, we believe the losses are minimal and the preservation, 
conservation, and management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
provided for by this plan ensures sufficient long-term conservation of 
this subspecies and its habitat in Units 1 through 6.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP incorporates many processes that 
allow for Service oversight and participation in program 
implementation. These processes include: (1) Consultation with the 
Service on a long-term management and monitoring plan; (2) submission 
of annual monitoring reports; (3) annual status meetings with the 
Service; and (4) submission of annual implementation reports to the 
Service (Service 2004b, p. 9-10, TE-088609-0).
    In summary, although not all lands proposed as revised critical 
habitat within Units 1 through 6 are targeted for preservation as 
Additional Reserve Lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP or 
have already been officially dedicated to the preserve system, 
continued implementation of the MSHCP will result in the majority of 
these lands being conserved.
Benefits of Inclusion--Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of including an area 
in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of 
the Act under which consultation is completed.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses conservation issues 
from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, 
project-by-project approach (as would occur under sections 7 and 9 of 
the Act) and will achieve more Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation 
than would be achieved through section 7 consultations involving 
consideration of critical habitat. The Western Riverside County MSHCP 
provides for proactive monitoring and management of preserved lands (as 
previously described), which remove or reduce known threats to the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs and therefore preclude or 
reduce the need for additional conservation provided by section 7 
consultations due to critical habitat designation. The physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly will benefit from the preservation of high 
quality habitat and management of all preserve lands; minimization of 
project impacts; education of the public and state and

[[Page 28831]]

local governments; and continued promotion of partnerships on lands 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP. Conservation and management of Quino 
checkerspot butterfly habitat within the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
boundaries is needed for survival and recovery of this subspecies. 
Meeting such conservation needs on a regional scale, as can be provided 
through a regional HCP approach that includes areas that likely do not 
have a Federal nexus typically is not achieved through the application 
of the statutory prohibition on adverse modification or destruction of 
critical habitat alone, and are otherwise largely redundant.
    Furthermore, the HCP preserve lands are within the habitat-based 
population distributions of six core occurrence complexes and 
approximately 90 percent of all land owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP proposed for 
designation in Units 1 through 6 is within the boundaries of formerly 
designated Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. The Service 
completed consultation on the Western Riverside County MSHCP and 
continues to work with plan participants to ensure the Plan is 
implemented properly and in a manner that contributes to the 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
    We believe some losses may occur to the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
habitat within the approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 ha) that are within 
the Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve 
Design and the approximately 319 ac (129 ha) of land that will not be 
conserved under the Western Riverside County MSHCP (outside the 
Criteria Area). Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within 
designated critical habitat is higher than for the lands that are 
conserved or targeted for conservation under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. However, the area that will not be conserved under the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP is less than one percent of proposed 
revised critical habitat in Units 1 through 6, and the area not 
captured by our Conceptual Reserve Design is less than 12 percent of 
proposed revised critical habitat in Units 1 through 6 (including land 
not owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP). Therefore the benefits for the conservation of 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly that would occur as a result of 
designating this small percentage as critical habitat (e.g., protection 
afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process) are minimal.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is the designation can serve to educate the landowners and 
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and 
this may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation 
value for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including 
parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. As discussed 
above the permit holders of the Western Riverside County MSHCP are 
aware of the value of these lands to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly and management measures are in place to conserve 
Quino checkerspot butterflies and their habitat. The Service was a 
partner in the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and 
consultation was completed on the issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) permit. 
The process of developing the Western Riverside County MSHCP has 
involved numerous partners including (but not limited to): 14 cities in 
western Riverside County; the County of Riverside; the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation; and the California Department of 
Transportation; and several Federal agencies. Furthermore, the majority 
of lands in Units 1-6 were previously designated as critical habitat 
(67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002; Table 1) and all lands were included in 
the proposed revised designation, which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328). These publications were 
announced in a press release and information was posted on the 
Service's website, which ensured the proposal reached a wide audience. 
No substantial new information regarding additional habitat areas 
essential to the conservation of Quino checkerspot butterfly in Units 
1-6 was provided in the proposed revisions to critical habitat (see 
``Summary of Changes From the 2008 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 
Habitat'' section above). Therefore, the educational benefits that 
might follow critical habitat designation (such as providing 
information to the permittees and other stakeholders on areas important 
to the long-term conservation of this subspecies) have largely already 
been realized for these units on multiple occasions by: (1) HCP 
development; (2) designating these areas as critical habitat; (3) 
proposing these areas as revised critical habitat; and (4) through the 
Service's other public notification processes.
    Specific conservation actions, avoidance and minimization measures, 
and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its PCEs 
provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP should make most 
conservation measures required as a result of regulatory protections 
afforded through a critical habitat designation unlikely. Based on the 
above discussion we believe section 7 consultations for critical 
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth 
Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision provide little conservation 
benefits above and beyond those provided by the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. Therefore, we determine the regulatory and educational 
benefits of designating those acres as Quino checkerspot butterfly 
critical habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process) are minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion--Units 1 through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    The benefits of excluding the approximate 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of 
land within Units 1 through 6 owned by or under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP from designated 
critical habitat are significant. We believe significant benefits would 
be realized by forgoing the designation of critical habitat on these 
lands including: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective 
working relationships with all Western Riverside County MSHCP 
permittees and stakeholders to promote further conservation of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2) allowance for 
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward 
recovering this subspecies, including conservation benefits that might 
not otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of development of additional 
HCPs and other conservation plans in the future on other private lands 
for this and other federally listed and sensitive species.
    We developed close partnerships with the all permittees under the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP (represented by the Riverside 
Conservation Authority) and several other stakeholders through the 
development of this large scale HCP, which incorporates appropriate 
protections and management for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, its 
habitat, and the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of this subspecies. Those protections are consistent with 
statutory mandates under section 7 of the Act to avoid adverse 
modification or destruction of

[[Page 28832]]

critical habitat and go beyond that prohibition by including active 
management and protection of connected habitat areas. By excluding 
approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land in Units 1 through 6 from 
designation, we are eliminating an essentially redundant layer of 
regulatory review for projects covered by the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP in this area, helping to preserve our ongoing partnership with 
the represented city and county governments, and encouraging new 
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions. This partnership 
with regional participants and the landscape level, multiple-species 
conservation planning efforts it promotes, are integral to achieving 
long-term conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
    Large scale regional HCPs, such as the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP take many years to develop and foster an ecosystem-based approach 
to habitat conservation planning by coordinating conservation issues 
with regional planning efforts. However, participation in these large 
and often costly regional plans is voluntary for permit holders (such 
as local jurisdictions), in the sense these permit holders could 
require landowners (e.g., homeowners, developers) to consult with the 
Service individually for required section 10 permits. If, in the case 
of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the local jurisdictions required 
landowners to obtain section 10 permits individually prior to issuance 
of a building permit, these jurisdictions would incur no costs 
associated with the landowner's need for a section 10 permit. However, 
this approach would result in uncoordinated, ``patchy'' conservation 
that would not be likely to further the recovery of federally listed 
species. Rather, by voluntarily developing these large scale plans, the 
coordinated landscape-scale conservation results in preservation of 
interconnected linkage areas and populations that support recovery of 
listed species. We recognize that once an HCP is permitted, 
implementation of conservation measures will occur regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated within plan boundaries in order 
for permittees to receive incidental take coverage.
    We received multiple letters commenting on the proposed revised 
designation of critical habitat from Western Riverside County MSHCP 
permit holders, private landowners and other stakeholders in this HCP 
indicating designation of lands covered by an HCP as critical habitat 
would affect our relationships with them. Furthermore, designation 
would discourage development of additional HCPs and other conservation 
plans in the future. Excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP demonstrates 
our good faith effort and working relationships and will eliminate 
impacts to existing and future partnerships while encouraging 
development of additional HCPs and other species or habitat 
conservation plans.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Units 1 
through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 27,465 ac 
(11,115 ha) of land within Units 1 through 6 owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
from designation of revised critical habitat and determined the 
benefits of excluding these lands within the boundaries of the HCP 
outweigh the benefits of including them.
    The benefits of including these lands in final revised critical 
habitat are small. Critical habitat is currently designated on 
approximately 90 percent of the proposed lands in Units 1 through 6 
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Service conducted a 
consultation with the Western Riverside County MSHCP participants and 
continues to work with them through the implementation phase to ensure 
the HCP is implemented properly and providing conservation for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly. The educational benefits of critical 
habitat designation are already in place as a result of material 
provided on our website, the public notice-and-comment procedures 
required to establish the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and our 
inclusion of these lands in the proposed rule to revise critical 
habitat. We acknowledge that there are approximately 5,851 ac (2,368 
ha) of land meeting the definition of critical habitat that are within 
the Criteria Area but were not captured by our Conceptual Reserve 
Design (and therefore not likely to be conserved), and approximately 
319 ac (129 ha) of land outside the Criteria Area addressed by the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP that meet the definition of critical 
habitat but are not within criteria cells or already conserved (no 
possible conservation under the HCP) in Units 1 through 6; however, the 
benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat are minor.
    The benefits of excluding lands owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1 
through 6 from critical habitat are more significant than the benefits 
of including them. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will 
help preserve our partnerships with the local jurisdictions and project 
proponents achieved through development of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP and aid in fostering additional partnerships for the benefit of 
all species of concern on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of 
the permittees of the HCP. Designation of lands covered by the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP may also discourage other partners from pursuing 
HCPs or conservation plans. Designation of critical habitat does not 
require management or recovery actions take place on the lands included 
in the designation. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, however, will 
provide for significant preservation and management of habitat for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly and will help reach the recovery goals for 
this subspecies through habitat enhancement and restoration, functional 
connections to adjoining habitat, and monitoring efforts. Future HCPs 
or other species or habitat plans fostered by this exclusion would also 
help to recover this and other federally listed species. Therefore, in 
consideration of the relevant impacts to current and future 
partnerships, as summarized above and in the ``Conservation 
Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands'' section, we determined the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of designating lands owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Units 1 through 
6 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    We determined that exclusion of approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) 
in Units 1 through 6 from the final revised designation of critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not result in 
extinction of the subspecies because the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
provides for conservation of this subspecies and its PCEs (Warm Springs 
Creek, Skinner/Johnson, Sage, Wilson Valley, Vail Lake/Oak Mountain, 
and Tule Peak/Silverado core occurrence complexes). While some loss of 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is anticipated with the 
continued implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 
critical habitat was already designated in the majority of Units 1 
through 6 prior to approval of the HCP.

[[Page 28833]]

Additionally, the Service conducted a consultation with the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP participants and continues to work with them 
through the implementation phase to ensure the HCP is implemented 
properly and providing conservation for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Furthermore, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 
and routine implementation of habitat conservation through the section 
7 process also provide assurances the subspecies will not go extinct. 
The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from those that would 
exist if excluded areas were designated as critical habitat.
    Critical habitat is being designated for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly in other areas that will be accorded protection from adverse 
modification by Federal actions using the conservation standard in the 
Act consistent with the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford 
Pinchot. Additionally, the subspecies occurs on lands protected and 
managed either explicitly for the subspecies, or indirectly through 
more general objectives to protect natural values. Existing protections 
acting in concert with the other protections provided under the Act for 
these lands, absent designation of critical habitat on them, and with 
protections afforded by the remaining critical habitat designation, 
lead us to find exclusion of lands in Units 1 through 6 covered by the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP will not result in extinction of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, based on the above discussion, 
we are excluding approximately 27,465 ac (11,115 ha) of land owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP in Units 1 through 6 from this critical habitat 
designation.
Conservation Status of Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    Unit 7 contains approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. As described above, conservation to meet the goals and 
objectives of the Western Riverside County MSHCP will occur within the 
defined Criteria Area; approximately 686 ac (278 ha) (17 percent) of 
land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 that meet the definition of 
critical habitat are within the Criteria Area.
    In the 4 years of implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 
no land within the Criteria Area in Unit 7 has been acquired for 
conservation as Additional Reserve Lands. Our interpretation of the 
written conservation criteria indicates that 15 percent (595 ac; 240 
ha) of land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 are targeted for conservation 
as Additional Reserve Lands (within our Conceptual Reserve Design).
    Approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) (about 84 percent) of land within 
Unit 7 that meets the definition of critical habitat and are owned by 
or are under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP fall outside the Criteria Area and, therefore, 
have no possibility of conservation under the HCP (by comparison, only 
3 percent of Unit 2 in all of Units 1 through 6 falls into this 
category). The Service will work with our partners to fund and 
facilitate conservation of these approximately 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) of 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat that would not otherwise be 
conserved under the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7. However, 
we expect habitat losses will occur within these approximately 3,701 ac 
(1,498 ha) of land outside the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria 
Area. Although we believe preservation, conservation, and management of 
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat provided for by this plan ensures 
the long-term conservation of this subspecies and its habitat within 
Units 1 through 6, subspecies conservation needs within the majority of 
lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 (approximately 84 percent of 
these lands) are not addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
because they lie outside of the Criteria Area.
Benefits of Inclusion--Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    As described in detail above in the ``Benefits of Designating 
Critical Habitat'' section, the principle benefit of designating an 
area as critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal 
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7 of 
the Act under which consultation is completed.
    As described above in the ``Benefits of Inclusion - Units 1 through 
6 Western Riverside County MSHCP'' section, the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated, 
integrated perspective and will achieve more Quino checkerspot 
butterfly conservation than would be achieved through section 7 
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. However, 
Quino checkerspot butterfly conservation measures under the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP does not address new information regarding Quino 
checkerspot butterfly distribution in Unit 7 (Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex and associated habitats) because the importance of 
habitat in this area to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly was not understood when the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
permit was issued. Thus, the Western Riverside County MSHCP does not 
provide habitat conservation and other measures necessary to maintain 
the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex and support ongoing elevation 
range shift in the area. Furthermore, lands owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in 
Unit 7 are outside of the boundaries of currently designated Quino 
checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. Therefore, our HCP permit 
analysis did not address Unit 7 of this revised designation (Service 
2004a, p. 287; FWS-WRIV-870.19).
    Unit 7, along with the closest other core occurrence complex (Tule 
Peak/Silverado), supports the highest recorded post-listing Quino 
checkerspot butterfly abundance observations and the highest diversity 
of host plant species in the subspecies' extant range. Unit 7 is also 
the northernmost unit and contains the greatest elevational gradient 
within the extant range of the butterfly. The high diversity of host 
plants and the elevational gradient underscore the importance of this 
habitat to the butterfly in light of documented drought conditions and 
future drought predictions (see ``Background'' section above). 
Furthermore, we believe that non-core occurrence complexes north of the 
community of Anza (Unit 7) are the result of recent colonization events 
and an ongoing range shift in this subspecies upward in elevation. We 
expect Unit 7 to provide immigrants to higher elevation suitable 
habitat that is not yet occupied and to proximal higher elevation 
populations that may be temporarily extirpated during the course of 
range-edge expansion and therefore require immigrants for re-
establishment (e.g., the Quinn Flat Non-core Occurrence Complex).
    We believe losses may occur to Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
within the majority of the approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of lands 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP in

[[Page 28834]]

Unit 7. Therefore, the benefits of including these lands within 
designated critical habitat are greater than for lands conserved or 
targeted for conservation under the Western Riverside County MSHCP in 
Units 1 through 6. The area permitted for development under the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP is 25 percent of proposed critical habitat in 
Unit 7. Because lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the 
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 are largely 
outside the Criteria Area, conservation design under the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP does not capture the Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex. Therefore, there is a significant regulatory 
benefit of designating the approximately 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land 
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the HCP as 
critical habitat in this unit.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is the designation can serve to educate the landowners and 
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area and 
may help focus conservation efforts to areas of high conservation value 
for certain species. Any information about the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including 
parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. As discussed 
above, additional distributional information demonstrating the 
significance of Unit 7 became available following completion of 
consultation on the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the 
importance of populations in Unit 7 in supporting range shift resulting 
from environmental changes due to changing climate patterns (see 
``Background'' and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
sections above). The majority of lands in Unit 7 owned by or under the 
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP 
are not currently preserved or targeted for conservation under the HCP 
and the new information was not addressed by the HCP, therefore the 
permit holders of the HCP are not necessarily aware of the value of 
these lands to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. 
Furthermore, no lands in Unit 7 were previously designated as critical 
habitat (Table 1) (67 FR 18356; April 15, 2002). With regard to 
occupied areas in Unit 7, the April 15, 2002, critical habitat 
designation stated ``[the Bautista Road Occurrence Complex] ...was 
first documented in 2001 following the publication of the [critical 
habitat] proposal and we do not currently have sufficient information 
concerning habitat within the complex and landscape connectivity to 
other complexes to determine that it is essential to the conservation 
of the [sub]species.'' Although all lands in Unit 7 were included in 
the proposed revised designation, this final revised critical habitat 
designation will continue to provide useful educational information to 
the public.
Benefits of Exclusion--Unit 7 Western Riverside County MSHCP
    There are benefits of excluding the approximate 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) 
of land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 7 from revised critical habitat. 
We believe benefits would be realized by forgoing the designation of 
critical habitat on these lands including: (1) Continuance and 
strengthening of our effective working relationships with all Western 
Riverside County MSHCP permittees and stakeholders to promote further 
conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and its habitat; (2) 
allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in 
working toward recovering this subspecies, including conservation 
benefits that might not otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of 
development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans in the 
future on other private lands for this and other federally listed and 
sensitive species. Please see the ``Benefits of Exclusion - Units 1 
through 6 Western Riverside County MSHCP'' section for additional 
discussion related to partnerships and landscape-scale conservation 
benefits.
The Benefits of Inclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Exclusion--Unit 7 
Western Riverside County MSHCP
    We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 4,387 ac 
(1,775 ha) ha) of land within Unit 7 owned by or under the jurisdiction 
of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP from 
designation of revised critical habitat and determined the benefits of 
designating these lands as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
excluding them.
    We recognize there are significant benefits of excluding lands 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP from critical habitat. The 
exclusion of these lands from critical habitat would help preserve the 
partnerships we developed with the local jurisdictions and project 
proponents in the development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and 
foster additional partnerships for the benefit of all species of 
concern on lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees 
of the HCP. Although the Western Riverside County MSHCP will provide 
significant preservation and management of habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly and help reach recovery goals for this subspecies 
in Units 1 through 6, the plan does not conserve the Bautista Road Core 
Occurrence Complex (Unit 7) because this area was identified as a core 
occurrence complex following completion of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP.
    We believe the benefits of designating lands within Unit 7 owned by 
or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP as critical habitat are more significant than the benefits 
of excluding them. Critical habitat was not previously designated in 
Unit 7; therefore, the effects of permit issuance on critical habitat 
in this area were not analyzed in a biological opinion, and the 
educational benefits of HCP analysis and critical habitat designation 
were not realized. Unit 7 supports the Bautista Road Core Occurrence 
Complex and associated habitat and non-core occurrence complexes which 
we believe are needed to support a resilient core population, as well 
as ongoing range shift of this subspecies upward in elevation. This 
unit contains the greatest elevational gradient and highest diversity 
of host plant species within the extant range of the butterfly. 
Furthermore, substantial losses to Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat 
within Unit 7 may occur on 3,701 ac (1,498 ha) outside the Criteria 
Area. We do not anticipate that monitoring and management of lands 
within the Criteria Area of Unit 7 will ensure continued occupancy of 
this core occurrence complex. Finally, we find that there will be 
significant educational benefits of designation in this unit, not 
already met by the HCP approval process, previous critical habitat 
designation, or publication of proposed revised critical habitat. 
Therefore, we conclude the regulatory protections that may be afforded 
through critical habitat designation in Unit 7 are greater than the 
conservation benefits provided by the Western Riverside County MSHCP in 
this unit.
    In summary, we determined the benefits of including Unit 7 in 
designated critical habitat outweigh the benefits of exclusion; 
therefore, we are designating all 4,387 ac (1,775 ha) of land within 
Unit 7 owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP as revised critical habitat.

[[Page 28835]]

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB bases its determination 
upon the following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for 
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. In this final rule, we are 
certifying that the critical habitat designation for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and community governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the revised designation of critical habitat for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities, such as residential and 
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate 
for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually. To estimate the 
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered 
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.
    Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of 
activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not 
be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species 
is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us 
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or 
implement that may affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Federal 
agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect 
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could 
result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the 
requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
    In the DEA of the proposed revisions to critical habitat, we 
evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities 
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the 
proposed revisions to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. The DEA is based on the estimated incremental impacts 
associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in sections 2 
through 7. The DEA evaluates the potential for economic impacts related 
to activity categories including residential development, tribal 
activities, habitat management, and non-residential development. The 
DEA concludes that the incremental impacts resulting from this 
rulemaking that may be borne by small businesses will be associated 
only with residential development. Incremental impacts are either not 
expected for the other types of activities considered or, if expected, 
will not be borne by small entities.
    As discussed in Appendix A of the DEA, the largest impacts of the 
proposed rule result from section 7 consultations with the Service on 
development projects likely to occur in areas where surveys are unable 
to detect the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The exclusions made in this 
final revised rule do not affect this analysis in the DEA. In the high 
estimate scenario, five projects in Unit 9 and nine projects in Unit 10 
were identified as likely to require consultation with the Service as a 
result of the proposed rule. Conservatively assuming that each project 
is undertaken by a separate entity, as many as 14 developers were 
identified as likely to be affected over the 23-year time frame of the 
analysis. Furthermore, approximately six developers per year were 
identified as potentially experiencing impacts that likely represent 
less than one percent of the value of a new home. At the high-end, the 
one-time costs resulting from the consultation process, including 
administrative time spent by the businesses, compensation costs, and 
the value of time delays, totaled approximately $16.1 million for the 
projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 million for the projects in Unit 10. No 
information regarding the probability that these businesses are small 
entities is available. However, assuming they are small businesses, we 
are certifying that the number of small entities (14) that could be 
significantly affected is not substantial, and that the critical 
habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly will not have a 
significant economic impact on these small entities.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. This revision to critical habitat for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly is not considered a significant regulatory 
action under E.O. 12866. OMB has provided guidance for

[[Page 28836]]

implementing this Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute 
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory 
action under consideration. The FEA identified Calpine Corporation, San 
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison as entities 
involved in the production of energy. As discussed in Appendix A, the 
FEA finds that none of these outcomes are likely to occur. As such, the 
final designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, and a Statement of Energy 
Effects is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with 
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It 
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing 
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually 
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' 
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of 
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, 
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. 
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would 
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a 
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under section 7 of the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal 
agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
affected by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly affected because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to 
project modifications that may need to be made for development; 
however, these are not expected to affect small governments. 
Consequently, we do not believe that the revised critical habitat 
designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government 
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in a 
takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not 
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or 
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation 
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that 
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings 
implications assessment concludes that this final revised designation 
of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly does not pose 
significant takings implications.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of, this final revised critical habitat 
designation with appropriate State resource agencies in California; 
however, we did not receive any comments from State agencies. The 
majority of land (68 percent) being designated is not State or locally-
owned and, therefore, the designation has little incremental impact on 
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may 
have some benefit to these governments in that the areas that contain 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the subspecies are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent 
elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the subspecies 
are specifically identified. While making this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species within the designated 
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit 
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. 
We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in 
the

[[Page 28837]]

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was 
upheld by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997, ``American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act,'' we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work 
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to tribes.
    In the proposed revisions to critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), we proposed 
approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of Cahuilla Band of Indians' and 
approximately 79 ac (ha) of Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians' lands in 
Riverside County, and approximately 3,156 ac (1277 ha) of land within 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians' lands in San Diego County as critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. We worked directly with 
the tribes to determine economic and other burdens expected to result 
from critical habitat designation on tribal lands, and as a result of 
information exchanged, are excluding all tribal lands meeting the 
definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly from 
this final revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) -Impacts to Government-To-Government 
Relationships With Tribes And Economics'' section above).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.

Author(s)

    The primary author of this notice is the staff from the Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.95(i), revise the entry for ``Quino Checkerspot 
Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *
    Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside and San Diego 
Counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly are:
    (i) Open areas within scrublands at least 21.5 square feet (ft2) (2 
square meters (m)) in size that:
    (A) Contain no woody canopy cover; and
    (B) Contain one or more of the host plants Plantago erecta, 
Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, or Collinsia concolor 
used for Quino checkerspot butterfly growth, reproduction, and feeding; 
or
    (C) Contain one or more of the host plants Cordylanthus rigidus or 
Castilleja exserta that are within 328 ft (100 m) of the host plants 
listed in paragraph (2)(i)(B) above; or
    (D) Contain flowering plants with a corolla tube less than or equal 
to 0.43 in (11 mm) used for Quino checkerspot butterfly feeding;
    (ii) Open scrubland areas and vegetation within 656 ft (200 m) of 
the open canopy areas (described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) 
used for movement and basking; and
    (iii) Hilltops or ridges within scrublands, containing an open, 
woody-canopy area at least 21.5 ft\2\ (2 m\2\) in size used for Quino 
checkerspot butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior) and are contiguous 
with (but not otherwise included in) open areas and natural vegetation 
described in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) above.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 1:24,000 maps, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 28838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28839]]

    (6) Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson, Riverside County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Murrieta, Bachelor Mountain, 
Winchester, Sage, and Hemet. Land bounded by the following Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 
coordinates (E, N): 499480, 3720871; 498641, 3720857; 498511, 3720856; 
498353, 3720855; 498593, 3720996; 498642, 3721009; 499082, 3721122; 
499479, 3721141; 499529, 3721143; 499731, 3721103; 499738, 3721101; 
499829, 3720955; 499918, 3720879; thence returning to 499480, 3720871. 
Continue to 497696, 3720235; 497728, 3720291; 497832, 3720397; 498082, 
3720651; 498640, 3720657; 498640, 3720445; 498639, 3720257; 498639, 
3720257; 498059, 3720244; 497833, 3720239; 497778, 3720238; thence 
returning to 497696, 3720235. Continue to 494486, 3720445; 494486, 
3720445; 494496, 3720550; 494671, 3720558; 494796, 3720564; 495236, 
3720522; 495415, 3720453; 495475, 3720430; 495475, 3720430; 495474, 
3720194; 495474, 3720033; 495470, 3719192; 496227, 3719210; 496269, 
3719211; 496291, 3719212; 496669, 3719221; 497068, 3719231; 497401, 
3719235; 497436, 3719236; 497456, 3719236; 497636, 3719238; 497727, 
3719239; 497838, 3719241; 498238, 3719245; 498463, 3719247; 498638, 
3719249; 498647, 3719249; 498648, 3719249; 498654, 3719249; 498722, 
3719250; 499106, 3719253; 499141, 3719254; 499290, 3719254; 499723, 
3719253; 499723, 3719253; 499641, 3719206; 499612, 3719190; 499612, 
3719190; 499544, 3719046; 499543, 3719044; 499543, 3719044; 499540, 
3719034; 499529, 3719035; 499526, 3719035; 499524, 3719035; 499523, 
3719035; 499523, 3719036; 499080, 3719076; 499079, 3719074; 499065, 
3719034; 499065, 3719034; 499063, 3719029; 499059, 3719017; 498910, 
3719042; 498899, 3719044; 498888, 3719047; 498877, 3719051; 498866, 
3719054; 498856, 3719059; 498845, 3719064; 498743, 3719119; 498736, 
3719121; 498733, 3719122; 498725, 3719123; 498722, 3719123; 498718, 
3719123; 498715, 3719122; 498708, 3719120; 498704, 3719118; 498701, 
3719116; 498698, 3719114; 498695, 3719112; 498679, 3719100; 498672, 
3719094; 498672, 3719094; 498641, 3719071; 498638, 3719069; 498638, 
3718868; 498638, 3718796; 498638, 3718794; 498683, 3718804; 498683, 
3718805; 498692, 3718806; 498692, 3718806; 498694, 3718801; 498695, 
3718797; 498697, 3718793; 498700, 3718789; 498702, 3718786; 498705, 
3718783; 498708, 3718780; 498711, 3718777; 498715, 3718775; 498718, 
3718773; 498730, 3718768; 498737, 3718764; 498744, 3718759; 498750, 
3718753; 498756, 3718747; 498761, 3718741; 498766, 3718734; 498770, 
3718726; 498773, 3718719; 498776, 3718711; 498778, 3718703; 498780, 
3718690; 498781, 3718687; 498782, 3718683; 498784, 3718679; 498786, 
3718676; 498788, 3718673; 498793, 3718667; 498796, 3718664; 498802, 
3718660; 498806, 3718658; 498809, 3718656; 498817, 3718654; 498821, 
3718654; 498831, 3718653; 498838, 3718652; 498844, 3718651; 498850, 
3718648; 498856, 3718646; 498862, 3718642; 498868, 3718639; 498873, 
3718634; 498877, 3718630; 498882, 3718625; 498885, 3718619; 498889, 
3718614; 498891, 3718608; 498894, 3718602; 498895, 3718595; 498896, 
3718589; 498897, 3718582; 498897, 3718571; 498896, 3718569; 498893, 
3718491; 498893, 3718487; 498892, 3718483; 498891, 3718479; 498890, 
3718476; 498888, 3718472; 498887, 3718469; 498884, 3718466; 498882, 
3718463; 498876, 3718457; 498873, 3718454; 498871, 3718451; 498869, 
3718448; 498866, 3718440; 498865, 3718436; 498864, 3718433; 498864, 
3718432; 498863, 3718429; 498863, 3718425; 498864, 3718421; 498864, 
3718417; 498866, 3718409; 498868, 3718405; 498871, 3718401; 498873, 
3718397; 498897, 3718360; 498899, 3718357; 498902, 3718354; 498905, 
3718351; 498908, 3718348; 498911, 3718346; 498915, 3718344; 498919, 
3718342; 498923, 3718341; 498931, 3718338; 498935, 3718337; 498939, 
3718335; 498942, 3718333; 498949, 3718327; 498952, 3718324; 498954, 
3718321; 498954, 3718321; 498962, 3718311; 498969, 3718301; 498978, 
3718292; 498986, 3718283; 498996, 3718275; 499005, 3718267; 499014, 
3718261; 499009, 3718254; 498845, 3718012; 498846, 3718004; 498847, 
3717997; 498849, 3717990; 498852, 3717983; 498856, 3717977; 498860, 
3717970; 498864, 3717965; 498864, 3717964; 498869, 3717959; 498874, 
3717954; 498879, 3717949; 498882, 3717945; 498882, 3717945; 498886, 
3717940; 498888, 3717935; 498891, 3717929; 498893, 3717923; 498894, 
3717917; 498895, 3717912; 498895, 3717906; 498895, 3717900; 498894, 
3717894; 498893, 3717888; 498891, 3717882; 498889, 3717877; 498886, 
3717871; 498881, 3717863; 498875, 3717854; 498839, 3717794; 498842, 
3717633; 498659, 3717635; 498659, 3717635; 498656, 3717528; 498651, 
3717303; 498651, 3717303; 498669, 3717308; 499021, 3717392; 499247, 
3717391; 499345, 3717390; 499345, 3717390; 499349, 3717434; 499349, 
3717434; 499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717434; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 
3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 
3717435; 499349, 3717435; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 
3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 3717436; 499349, 
3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 
3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717437; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 
3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 3717438; 499349, 
3717438; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 
3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 3717439; 499349, 
3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 
3717440; 499349, 3717440; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 
3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 3717441; 499349, 
3717441; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 
3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 3717442; 499349, 
3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 
3717443; 499349, 3717443; 499349, 3717444; 499349, 3717444; 499349, 
3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 
3717444; 499350, 3717444; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 
3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 3717445; 499350, 
3717445; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 
3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 3717446; 499350, 
3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 
3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717447; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 
3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 
3717448; 499350, 3717448; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 
3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 3717449; 499350, 
3717449; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 
3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717450; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 
3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 
3717451; 499350, 3717451; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 
3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 3717452; 499350, 
3717452; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 
3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499350, 3717453; 499349, 
3717454;

[[Page 28840]]

499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717454; 
499349, 3717454; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 
499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717455; 
499349, 3717455; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 
499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 499349, 3717456; 
499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 
499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717457; 499349, 3717458; 
499349, 3717458; 499349, 3717458; 499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514; 
499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717514; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 
499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717515; 
499346, 3717515; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 
499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 499346, 3717516; 
499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 
499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717517; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 
499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717518; 
499346, 3717518; 499346, 3717519; 499346, 3717519; 499346, 3717519; 
499346, 3717519; 499345, 3717519; 499345, 3717519; 499345, 3717520; 
499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 
499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717520; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 
499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717521; 
499345, 3717521; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 
499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717522; 499345, 3717523; 
499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 
499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717523; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 
499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 499345, 3717524; 
499344, 3717524; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 
499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717525; 
499344, 3717525; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 
499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717526; 499344, 3717527; 
499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 
499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717527; 499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 
499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 499344, 3717528; 499343, 3717528; 
499343, 3717528; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 
499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717529; 
499343, 3717529; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 
499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 499343, 3717530; 
499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 499343, 3717531; 
499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 499342, 3717531; 
499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 
499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717532; 499342, 3717533; 
499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 
499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717533; 499342, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 
499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 
499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717534; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 
499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 
499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717535; 499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536; 
499341, 3717536; 499341, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 
499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717536; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 
499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717537; 
499340, 3717537; 499340, 3717538; 499340, 3717538; 499340, 3717538; 
499340, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 499339, 3717538; 
499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 
499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 499339, 3717539; 
499339, 3717540; 499339, 3717540; 499339, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 
499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717540; 499338, 3717541; 
499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 
499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717541; 499338, 3717542; 
499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 
499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717542; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 
499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 499337, 3717543; 
499336, 3717543; 499336, 3717543; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 
499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 
499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717544; 499336, 3717545; 499336, 3717545; 
499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 
499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717545; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 
499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 499335, 3717546; 
499334, 3717546; 499334, 3717546; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 
499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 
499334, 3717547; 499334, 3717547; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 
499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 
499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717548; 499333, 3717549; 
499333, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 
499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499332, 3717549; 499331, 3717550; 
499265, 3717629; 499269, 3717629; 499269, 3717629; 499277, 3717716; 
499284, 3717792; 499284, 3717792; 499282, 3717803; 499282, 3717803; 
499285, 3717803; 499290, 3717804; 499296, 3717806; 499302, 3717809; 
499308, 3717812; 499313, 3717815; 499318, 3717819; 499323, 3717824; 
499375, 3717877; 499551, 3718054; 499553, 3718057; 499557, 3718060; 
499560, 3718062; 499563, 3718063; 499567, 3718065; 499571, 3718066; 
499575, 3718067; 499579, 3718067; 499582, 3718068; 499586, 3718067; 
499590, 3718067; 499594, 3718066; 499598, 3718065; 499602, 3718063; 
499605, 3718061; 499612, 3718056; 499613, 3718056; 499605, 3718049; 
499605, 3718049; 499589, 3718033; 499588, 3718026; 499588, 3718019; 
499588, 3718013; 499588, 3718006; 499589, 3718000; 499591, 3717994; 
499593, 3717984; 499596, 3717974; 499600, 3717964; 499604, 3717955; 
499610, 3717946; 499612, 3717943; 499614, 3717940; 499614, 3717940; 
499623, 3717926; 499622, 3717911; 499621, 3717907; 499622, 3717899; 
499623, 3717895; 499624, 3717894; 499621, 3717877; 499606, 3717770; 
499585, 3717626; 499585, 3717626; 499615, 3717626; 499683, 3717626; 
499901, 3717624; 499903, 3717590; 499912, 3717430; 499919, 3717323; 
499919, 3717322; 499972, 3717322; 500032, 3717321; 500350, 3717271; 
500421, 3717259; 500421, 3717152; 500445, 3717103; 500445, 3717103; 
500363, 3717091; 500216, 3717069; 500178, 3717063; 500188, 3716806; 
500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716805; 
500188, 3716805; 500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 
500188, 3716804; 500188, 3716804; 500187, 3716804; 500187, 3716804; 
500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 
500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716803; 500187, 3716802; 
500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 
500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500187, 3716802; 500186, 3716801; 
500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 
500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716801; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800;

[[Page 28841]]

500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716800; 
500186, 3716800; 500186, 3716799; 500186, 3716799; 500186, 3716799; 
500186, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716799; 
500185, 3716799; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 
500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 500185, 3716798; 
500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 
500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716797; 500185, 3716796; 
500185, 3716796; 500185, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 
500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716796; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 
500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716795; 
500184, 3716795; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 
500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 500184, 3716794; 
500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 500184, 3716793; 
500184, 3716793; 500183, 3716793; 500183, 3716793; 500183, 3716792; 
500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 
500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716792; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 
500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716791; 
500183, 3716791; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 
500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716790; 500183, 3716789; 
500183, 3716789; 500183, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 
500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716789; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 
500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 
500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716788; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 
500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716787; 
500182, 3716787; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 
500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 500182, 3716786; 
500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 
500182, 3716785; 500182, 3716785; 500181, 3716785; 500181, 3716784; 
500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 
500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716784; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 
500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 500181, 3716783; 
500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 
500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716782; 500181, 3716781; 
500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 
500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716781; 500181, 3716780; 
500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716780; 
500181, 3716780; 500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 
500181, 3716779; 500181, 3716779; 500180, 3716779; 500180, 3716779; 
500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 
500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 500180, 3716778; 
500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 
500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716777; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 
500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 
500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716776; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 
500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 500180, 3716775; 
500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 
500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716774; 500180, 3716773; 
500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 
500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716773; 500180, 3716772; 
500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716772; 
500180, 3716772; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 
500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 500180, 3716771; 
500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 
500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716770; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 
500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 500180, 3716769; 
500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 
500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716768; 500180, 3716767; 
500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 
500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716767; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 
500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 500180, 3716766; 
500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716765; 
500180, 3716765; 500180, 3716453; 500180, 3716396; 500181, 3716131; 
500010, 3716115; 499920, 3716070; 499820, 3716020; 499809, 3716013; 
499809, 3716013; 499804, 3716010; 499676, 3716013; 499676, 3716013; 
499675, 3715929; 499675, 3715929; 499669, 3715926; 499560, 3715877; 
499560, 3716013; 499560, 3716013; 499417, 3716012; 499415, 3716012; 
499415, 3715832; 499252, 3715812; 499195, 3715717; 499166, 3715670; 
499158, 3715600; 499158, 3715600; 499147, 3715508; 499034, 3715357; 
499025, 3715330; 499025, 3715330; 498939, 3715072; 498844, 3715034; 
498768, 3715025; 498637, 3714966; 498637, 3714966; 498621, 3714959; 
498590, 3714804; 498564, 3714680; 498549, 3714412; 498565, 3714290; 
498549, 3714218; 498549, 3714073; 498468, 3714072; 498460, 3714072; 
498284, 3714069; 498285, 3714010; 498285, 3714005; 498119, 3714003; 
498005, 3714001; 497973, 3714001; 497909, 3714000; 497865, 3713999; 
497817, 3713999; 497762, 3713998; 497762, 3713998; 497611, 3714040; 
497536, 3714122; 497328, 3714352; 497167, 3714371; 497116, 3714377; 
497116, 3714379; 497116, 3714385; 497115, 3714483; 497118, 3714774; 
497118, 3714797; 497118, 3714799; 497114, 3714799; 497109, 3714799; 
495457, 3714793; 494866, 3714791; 494879, 3714858; 494858, 3714858; 
494815, 3714786; 494012, 3714783; 493832, 3714783; 493832, 3714783; 
493831, 3714783; 492831, 3714782; 492830, 3714782; 492635, 3714782; 
492640, 3714780; 492640, 3714780; 492548, 3714782; 492548, 3714782; 
492548, 3714782; 492530, 3714782; 492516, 3714782; 492406, 3714782; 
492327, 3714782; 492302, 3714782; 492300, 3714782; 492300, 3714921; 
492300, 3714921; 492328, 3714940; 492356, 3714959; 492687, 3715186; 
492904, 3715335; 493417, 3715698; 493428, 3715706; 493435, 3715699; 
493475, 3715656; 493525, 3715654; 493632, 3715652; 493636, 3715657; 
493747, 3715813; 493814, 3715822; 493824, 3715823; 493971, 3715842; 
494048, 3715838; 494148, 3715832; 494196, 3715830; 494280, 3715807; 
494400, 3715775; 494439, 3715774; 494489, 3715772; 494574, 3715770; 
494648, 3715751; 494705, 3715736; 494797, 3715672; 494849, 3715635; 
494888, 3715590; 494926, 3715546; 495057, 3715609; 495261, 3715609; 
495324, 3715562; 495350, 3715588; 495396, 3715635; 495445, 3715692; 
495465, 3715715; 495473, 3715724; 495513, 3715731; 495617, 3715749; 
495720, 3715760; 495740, 3715762; 495901, 3715758; 495942, 3715754; 
495999, 3715749; 496083, 3715728; 496245, 3715719; 496295, 3715753; 
496295, 3715753; 496389, 3715711; 496401, 3715711; 496473, 3715708; 
496482, 3715708; 496516, 3715707; 496572, 3715731; 496630, 3715758; 
496723, 3715865; 496828, 3715931; 496851, 3715946; 496901, 3715996; 
497000, 3716094; 497018, 3716113; 497075, 3716169; 497087, 3716217; 
497138, 3716403; 497179, 3716557; 497164, 3716735; 497079, 3716780; 
496941, 3716855; 496702, 3717093; 496840, 3717214; 496911, 3717221;

[[Page 28842]]

496923, 3717212; 496973, 3717159; 496989, 3717131; 497050, 3717075; 
497075, 3717034; 497077, 3716950; 497077, 3716930; 497098, 3716915; 
497184, 3716884; 497316, 3716877; 497377, 3716851; 497413, 3716861; 
497426, 3716905; 497385, 3716966; 497359, 3716994; 497230, 3717067; 
497197, 3717111; 497182, 3717179; 497182, 3717281; 497151, 3717314; 
497129, 3717352; 497131, 3717380; 497139, 3717394; 497140, 3717394; 
497196, 3717418; 497258, 3717442; 497268, 3717443; 497284, 3717456; 
497322, 3717527; 497350, 3717552; 497380, 3717606; 497380, 3717611; 
497380, 3717611; 497380, 3717644; 497230, 3717728; 497213, 3717720; 
497207, 3717714; 497177, 3717720; 497124, 3717711; 497074, 3717682; 
497067, 3717693; 497060, 3717703; 496479, 3717674; 496121, 3717689; 
496063, 3717606; 495943, 3717435; 495885, 3717410; 495808, 3717461; 
495722, 3717442; 495693, 3717365; 495626, 3717331; 495492, 3717331; 
495452, 3717314; 495452, 3717314; 495449, 3717312; 495352, 3717269; 
495117, 3717216; 495046, 3717218; 494959, 3717221; 494805, 3717221; 
494694, 3717187; 494522, 3717154; 494358, 3717139; 494243, 3717144; 
494123, 3717183; 494070, 3717178; 493993, 3717149; 493878, 3717197; 
493869, 3717202; 493840, 3717218; 493734, 3717279; 493633, 3717346; 
493652, 3717379; 493604, 3717408; 493571, 3717375; 493446, 3717447; 
493364, 3717557; 493246, 3717610; 493072, 3717688; 493044, 3717692; 
492709, 3717744; 492583, 3717876; 492569, 3718009; 492737, 3718239; 
492694, 3718421; 492681, 3718477; 492625, 3718567; 492597, 3718686; 
492618, 3718685; 492618, 3718685; 492622, 3718670; 492647, 3718567; 
492647, 3718564; 492648, 3718561; 492649, 3718557; 492650, 3718554; 
492651, 3718551; 492652, 3718550; 492653, 3718548; 492654, 3718547; 
492655, 3718545; 492657, 3718543; 492659, 3718541; 492660, 3718540; 
492662, 3718538; 492669, 3718531; 492680, 3718519; 492684, 3718516; 
492687, 3718513; 492689, 3718510; 492693, 3718505; 492698, 3718498; 
492699, 3718498; 492703, 3718490; 492705, 3718485; 492707, 3718481; 
492709, 3718472; 492711, 3718462; 492711, 3718462; 492756, 3718473; 
492756, 3718473; 492767, 3718421; 492802, 3718251; 492803, 3718244; 
492806, 3718228; 492806, 3718215; 492804, 3718205; 492802, 3718197; 
492801, 3718193; 492799, 3718187; 492797, 3718181; 492792, 3718170; 
492785, 3718159; 492778, 3718149; 492778, 3718149; 492768, 3718137; 
492762, 3718129; 492671, 3718014; 492938, 3718015; 493045, 3718015; 
493543, 3718017; 493845, 3718018; 493849, 3717608; 493849, 3717608; 
494138, 3717605; 494643, 3717601; 495049, 3717603; 495453, 3717605; 
495453, 3717607; 495455, 3717771; 495461, 3718399; 494976, 3718407; 
494783, 3718411; 494656, 3718413; 494628, 3718414; 494621, 3718414; 
494602, 3718414; 494417, 3718417; 494345, 3718419; 494296, 3718419; 
494217, 3718421; 494103, 3718423; 493928, 3718426; 493840, 3718428; 
493840, 3718428; 493848, 3718672; 493858, 3719011; 493861, 3719091; 
493864, 3719200; 493864, 3719210; 493864, 3719210; 493864, 3719210; 
493864, 3719210; 493979, 3719209; 494214, 3719206; 494526, 3719203; 
494667, 3719201; 494667, 3719201; 494667, 3719210; 494668, 3719409; 
494668, 3719617; 494669, 3719801; 494670, 3720032; 494671, 3720447; 
494671, 3720447; thence returning to 494486, 3720445. Excluding land 
bounded by 499546, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 
3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 3716748; 499545, 
3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 
3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499544, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 
3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499543, 
3716748; 499543, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 
3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 3716748; 499542, 
3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 
3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499541, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 
3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499540, 
3716748; 499540, 3716748; 499539, 3716748; 499539, 3716748; 499539, 
3716748; 499539, 3716749; 499539, 3716749; 499539, 3716749; 499538, 
3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 
3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499538, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 
3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499537, 
3716749; 499537, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 
3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499536, 3716749; 499535, 
3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 
3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499535, 3716749; 499534, 3716749; 499534, 
3716749; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499534, 
3716750; 499534, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 
3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 3716750; 499533, 
3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 
3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499532, 3716750; 499531, 
3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 3716750; 499531, 
3716751; 499531, 3716751; 499531, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 
3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499530, 
3716751; 499530, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 
3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 3716751; 499529, 
3716751; 499528, 3716751; 499528, 3716751; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 
3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499528, 3716752; 499527, 
3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 
3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499527, 3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 
3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 3716752; 499526, 3716753; 499526, 
3716753; 499526, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 
3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499525, 
3716753; 499525, 3716753; 499524, 3716753; 499524, 3716753; 499524, 
3716753; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 3716754; 499524, 
3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 
3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 3716754; 499523, 
3716754; 499522, 3716754; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 
3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499522, 3716755; 499521, 
3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 
3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716755; 499521, 3716756; 499520, 
3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 
3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499520, 3716756; 499519, 
3716756; 499519, 3716756; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 
3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499519, 3716757; 499518, 
3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 3716757; 499518, 
3716757; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 3716758; 499518, 
3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 
3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 3716758; 499517, 
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499516, 
3716759; 499516, 3716759; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515,

[[Page 28843]]

3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499515, 
3716760; 499515, 3716760; 499514, 3716760; 499514, 3716760; 499514, 
3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 
3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499514, 3716761; 499513, 
3716761; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 
3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 3716762; 499513, 
3716762; 499512, 3716762; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 
3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 
3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499512, 3716763; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 
3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 
3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 3716764; 499511, 
3716765; 499511, 3716765; 499510, 3716765; 499508, 3716768; 499493, 
3716786; 499493, 3716786; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 
3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 
3716787; 499492, 3716787; 499492, 3716788; 499492, 3716788; 499491, 
3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 
3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716788; 499491, 3716789; 499491, 
3716789; 499491, 3716789; 499491, 3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 
3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 3716789; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 
3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499490, 
3716790; 499490, 3716790; 499489, 3716790; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 
3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 
3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716791; 499489, 3716792; 499489, 
3716792; 499489, 3716792; 499489, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 
3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 3716792; 499488, 
3716792; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 
3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499488, 3716793; 499487, 3716793; 499487, 
3716793; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 
3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 3716794; 499487, 
3716794; 499487, 3716795; 499487, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 
3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 3716795; 499486, 
3716795; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 
3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499486, 3716796; 499485, 
3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 
3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 3716797; 499485, 
3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 3716798; 499485, 
3716798; 499484, 3716798; 499484, 3716798; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 
3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 
3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716799; 499484, 3716800; 499484, 
3716800; 499484, 3716800; 499484, 3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483, 
3716800; 499483, 3716800; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 
3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 
3716801; 499483, 3716801; 499483, 3716802; 499483, 3716802; 499483, 
3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 3716802; 499482, 
3716802; 499482, 3716803; 499482, 3716803; 499477, 3716812; 499477, 
3716813; 499453, 3716862; 499453, 3716862; 499453, 3716862; 499444, 
3716871; 499353, 3716944; 499347, 3716948; 499248, 3717028; 499067, 
3716918; 498635, 3716657; 498635, 3716657; 498634, 3716602; 498629, 
3716418; 498795, 3716421; 499116, 3716425; 499299, 3716427; 499334, 
3716428; 499415, 3716429; 499415, 3716429; 499806, 3716412; 499810, 
3716412; 499814, 3716412; 499816, 3716856; 499816, 3716856; 499809, 
3716855; 499684, 3716831; 499675, 3716825; 499659, 3716812; 499602, 
3716769; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 
3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499564, 3716752; 499563, 
3716752; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 
3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499563, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 
3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499562, 
3716751; 499562, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 
3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 3716751; 499561, 
3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 
3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499560, 3716750; 499559, 
3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 
3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499559, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 
3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499558, 
3716750; 499558, 3716750; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 
3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499557, 3716749; 499556, 
3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 
3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499556, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 
3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499555, 
3716749; 499555, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 
3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 3716749; 499554, 
3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 
3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499553, 3716749; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 
3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499552, 
3716748; 499552, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 
3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499551, 3716748; 499550, 
3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 
3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499550, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 
3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499549, 
3716748; 499549, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 
3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499548, 3716748; 499547, 
3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 
3716748; 499547, 3716748; 499547, 3716748; thence returning to 499546, 
3716748. Continuing to include as Critical Habitat lands bounded by 
500357, 3718083; 500349, 3718085; 500340, 3718087; 500331, 3718087; 
500321, 3718087; 500315, 3718086; 500311, 3718086; 500302, 3718083; 
500296, 3718082; 500293, 3718081; 500288, 3718079; 500288, 3718079; 
500274, 3718074; 500274, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 
500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 500273, 3718074; 
500273, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 
500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500272, 3718074; 500271, 3718074; 
500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 
500271, 3718073; 500271, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 
500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 500270, 3718073; 
500270, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 
500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500269, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 
500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 
500268, 3718073; 500268, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 
500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 500267, 3718073; 
500267, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 500266, 3718073; 
500266, 3718073; 500251, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 
500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072; 500250, 3718072;

[[Page 28844]]

500250, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 
500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 500249, 3718072; 
500248, 3718072; 500248, 3718072; 500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071; 
500248, 3718071; 500248, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 
500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 500247, 3718071; 
500247, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 
500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 500246, 3718071; 
500245, 3718071; 500245, 3718071; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 
500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 500245, 3718070; 
500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 
500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500244, 3718070; 500243, 3718070; 
500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 
500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500243, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 
500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718069; 500242, 3718068; 
500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 500242, 3718068; 
500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718068; 
500241, 3718068; 500241, 3718067; 500241, 3718067; 500241, 3718067; 
500241, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718067; 
500240, 3718067; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 
500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 500240, 3718066; 
500239, 3718066; 500239, 3718066; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 
500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718065; 
500239, 3718065; 500239, 3718064; 500239, 3718064; 500239, 3718064; 
500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718064; 
500238, 3718064; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 
500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 500238, 3718063; 
500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 500238, 3718062; 
500238, 3718062; 500237, 3718062; 500237, 3718062; 500237, 3718061; 
500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 
500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718061; 500237, 3718060; 500232, 3718060; 
500227, 3718060; 500226, 3718060; 500224, 3718060; 500222, 3718060; 
500222, 3718060; 500222, 3718050; 500222, 3718050; 500222, 3718050; 
500222, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 
500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 500221, 3718050; 
500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 
500220, 3718050; 500220, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 
500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 500219, 3718050; 
500219, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 
500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500218, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 
500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 
500217, 3718050; 500217, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 
500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 500216, 3718050; 
500216, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 
500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500215, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 
500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 
500214, 3718050; 500214, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 
500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 500213, 3718050; 
500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 
500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500212, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 
500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 500211, 3718050; 
500211, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 
500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 500210, 3718050; 
500209, 3718050; 500209, 3718050; 500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 
500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 500209, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 
500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 500208, 3718049; 
500208, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 
500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 500207, 3718049; 
500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 
500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500206, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 
500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 500205, 3718049; 
500205, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 
500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 500204, 3718049; 
500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 
500203, 3718049; 500203, 3718049; 500202, 3718049; 500202, 3718049; 
500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 500202, 3718048; 
500202, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 
500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 500201, 3718048; 
500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 
500200, 3718048; 500200, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 
500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 500199, 3718048; 
500199, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 
500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 500198, 3718048; 
500197, 3718048; 500197, 3718048; 500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 
500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 500197, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 
500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 500196, 3718047; 
500196, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 
500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 500195, 3718047; 
500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 
500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500194, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 
500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718047; 500193, 3718046; 
500193, 3718046; 500193, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 
500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 500192, 3718046; 
500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 
500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500191, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 
500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 
500190, 3718046; 500190, 3718046; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 
500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 500189, 3718045; 
500189, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 
500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 500188, 3718045; 
500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718045; 
500187, 3718045; 500187, 3718044; 500187, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 
500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 
500186, 3718044; 500186, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 
500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 500185, 3718044; 
500185, 3718044; 500184, 3718044; 500184, 3718044; 500184, 3718043; 
500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 500184, 3718043; 
500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 
500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500183, 3718043; 500182, 3718043; 
500182, 3718043; 500182, 3718045; 500180, 3718050; 500178, 3718056; 
500178, 3718062; 500177, 3718067; 500178, 3718073; 500178, 3718079; 
500179, 3718084; 500181, 3718090; 500185, 3718099; 500186, 3718102; 
500187, 3718105; 500187, 3718109; 500188, 3718115; 500187, 3718119;

[[Page 28845]]

500186, 3718125; 500185, 3718129; 500182, 3718135; 500136, 3718206; 
500132, 3718212; 500127, 3718218; 500121, 3718223; 500115, 3718228; 
500109, 3718232; 500102, 3718236; 500096, 3718239; 500088, 3718242; 
500085, 3718242; 500087, 3718268; 500087, 3718276; 500086, 3718284; 
500084, 3718292; 500081, 3718299; 500078, 3718310; 500074, 3718322; 
500071, 3718333; 500070, 3718345; 500068, 3718357; 500068, 3718369; 
500068, 3718381; 500069, 3718398; 500069, 3718404; 500069, 3718409; 
500068, 3718415; 500067, 3718421; 500065, 3718426; 500062, 3718431; 
500033, 3718490; 500031, 3718495; 500029, 3718500; 500026, 3718504; 
500023, 3718508; 500020, 3718512; 500016, 3718516; 500006, 3718524; 
500003, 3718526; 499999, 3718530; 499995, 3718535; 499992, 3718540; 
499989, 3718545; 499987, 3718551; 499985, 3718557; 499983, 3718563; 
499982, 3718568; 499980, 3718578; 499977, 3718587; 499973, 3718596; 
499967, 3718607; 499961, 3718619; 499955, 3718631; 499954, 3718631; 
499952, 3718637; 499949, 3718644; 499947, 3718651; 499946, 3718658; 
499931, 3718759; 499931, 3718765; 499931, 3718771; 499932, 3718776; 
499933, 3718782; 499934, 3718788; 499937, 3718795; 499940, 3718800; 
499941, 3718803; 499942, 3718804; 499946, 3718813; 499949, 3718821; 
499951, 3718829; 499953, 3718837; 499954, 3718845; 499954, 3718853; 
499953, 3718862; 499952, 3718870; 499936, 3718933; 499926, 3718951; 
499944, 3718947; 499944, 3718947; 499960, 3718944; 500049, 3718925; 
500207, 3718936; 500207, 3718934; 500208, 3718913; 500210, 3718777; 
500212, 3718650; 500213, 3718633; 500213, 3718619; 500214, 3718536; 
500366, 3718536; 500366, 3718536; 500369, 3718517; 500378, 3718435; 
500422, 3718059; 500422, 3718059; 500403, 3718058; 500403, 3718058; 
500400, 3718060; 500400, 3718060; 500400, 3718061; 500393, 3718066; 
500385, 3718072; 500376, 3718076; 500368, 3718080; 500368, 3718080; 
500360, 3718083; 500359, 3718083; thence returning to 500357, 3718083. 
Continue to 500187, 3717622; 500000, 3717623; 499967, 3717713; 499917, 
3717846; 499917, 3717857; 499923, 3717858; 499927, 3717859; 499931, 
3717860; 499938, 3717863; 499942, 3717865; 499945, 3717868; 499948, 
3717870; 499953, 3717876; 499955, 3717880; 499957, 3717883; 499960, 
3717891; 499962, 3717895; 499964, 3717898; 499967, 3717901; 499969, 
3717904; 499972, 3717907; 499976, 3717910; 499979, 3717912; 499983, 
3717914; 499986, 3717916; 499990, 3717917; 499994, 3717918; 499998, 
3717918; 500002, 3717919; 500026, 3717919; 500026, 3717919; 500213, 
3717924; 500224, 3717924; 500224, 3717922; 500225, 3717921; 500225, 
3717921; 500230, 3717622; 500230, 3717622; thence returning to 500187, 
3717622. Continue to 491502, 3714828; 491542, 3714827; 491542, 3714827; 
491506, 3714754; 491500, 3714742; 491398, 3714534; 491396, 3714529; 
491376, 3714490; 491306, 3714347; 491302, 3714339; 491302, 3714339; 
491303, 3714339; 490908, 3713519; 490764, 3713221; 490740, 3713172; 
490622, 3712839; 490613, 3712849; 490573, 3712746; 490564, 3712723; 
490542, 3712723; 490550, 3712747; 490611, 3712919; 490620, 3712944; 
490707, 3713186; 490720, 3713214; 491262, 3714337; 491261, 3714337; 
491267, 3714350; 491267, 3714350; 491335, 3714489; 491336, 3714492; 
491409, 3714641; 491463, 3714749; 491500, 3714824; thence returning to 
491502, 3714828. Continue to 493853, 3712379; 493853, 3712254; 493776, 
3712306; 493776, 3712403; 493853, 3712388; thence returning to 493853, 
3712379.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Skinner/Johnson follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 28846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28847]]

    (7) Unit 3: Sage Unit, Riverside County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Sage. Land bounded by the 
following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 
1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 505035, 3716405; 505035, 3716405; 
505175, 3716404; 505175, 3716404; 505245, 3716403; 505267, 3716403; 
505380, 3716402; 505427, 3716402; 505429, 3716017; 505429, 3715985; 
505432, 3715985; 505727, 3715975; 505831, 3715971; 505831, 3715971; 
505831, 3715774; 505831, 3715547; 505025, 3715591; 505025, 3715611; 
505026, 3715641; 505027, 3715789; 505027, 3715789; 505029, 3715890; 
505030, 3715988; 505032, 3716141; 505032, 3716189; 505032, 3716189; 
thence returning to 505035, 3716405.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Sage Unit), Unit 4 (Wilson Valley Unit), 
and Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Unit) follows:

[[Page 28848]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28849]]

    (8) Unit 4: Wilson Valley Unit, Riverside County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Cahuilla Mountain, Sage, and 
Vail Lake. Land bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator 
(UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 510234, 
3707784; 510234, 3707785; 510234, 3707800; 510234, 3707808; 509911, 
3707810; 509378, 3707813; 509357, 3707813; 509356, 3707812; 509356, 
3707812; 509094, 3707816; 509094, 3707816; 509094, 3707816; 509092, 
3707833; 509092, 3707835; 509064, 3708174; 509061, 3708213; 509060, 
3708216; 509060, 3708217; 509311, 3708214; 509360, 3708214; 509412, 
3708213; 509447, 3708213; 509447, 3708213; 509535, 3708212; 509558, 
3708212; 509712, 3708211; 509854, 3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509870, 
3708209; 509870, 3708209; 509935, 3708209; 510386, 3708205; 510689, 
3708203; 511420, 3708197; 511480, 3708197; 511507, 3708197; 511507, 
3708197; 511507, 3708172; 511507, 3708066; 511507, 3708066; 511506, 
3707959; 511506, 3707934; 511505, 3707784; 511504, 3707636; 511504, 
3707594; 511503, 3707514; 511503, 3707503; 511503, 3707503; 511503, 
3707375; 511502, 3707375; 511087, 3707383; 510706, 3707390; 510706, 
3707390; 510706, 3707390; 510706, 3707424; 510704, 3707599; 510702, 
3707780; 510680, 3707780; 510595, 3707781; thence returning to 510234, 
3707784. Continue to 510706, 3707390; 510707, 3707301; 510715, 3706625; 
510715, 3706625; 510035, 3706610; 510035, 3706610; 510025, 3706704; 
510024, 3706709; 510024, 3706712; 510015, 3706798; 509994, 3707007; 
509994, 3707007; 509973, 3707206; 509973, 3707206; 509963, 3707305; 
509953, 3707404; 509953, 3707404; 510609, 3707392; 510678, 3707390; 
thence returning to 510706, 3707390.
    (ii) Note: Unit 4 (Wilson Valley) for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly is depicted on the map in paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry.
    (8) Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain Unit, Riverside County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Bachelor Mountain, Sage, 
Pechanga, and Vail Lake. Land bounded by the following Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 
coordinates (E, N): 501858, 3709596; 501858, 3709596; 502139, 3709646; 
502615, 3709631; 502626, 3709625; 502643, 3709615; 502643, 3709609; 
502642, 3709465; 502642, 3709465; 502641, 3709286; 502641, 3709256; 
502640, 3709087; 502640, 3709074; 502640, 3709046; 503036, 3709037; 
503036, 3709037; 503174, 3709034; 503340, 3709031; 503433, 3709028; 
503434, 3708993; 503434, 3708987; 503434, 3708987; 503434, 3708899; 
503435, 3708725; 503435, 3708713; 503435, 3708707; 503435, 3708707; 
503437, 3708213; 503437, 3708213; 503437, 3708213; 501828, 3708226; 
501828, 3708226; 501828, 3708226; 501829, 3708245; 501829, 3708258; 
501841, 3708792; 501844, 3708936; 501849, 3709192; 501853, 3709344; 
501853, 3709354; 501853, 3709364; thence returning to 501858, 3709596. 
Continue to 500229, 3708250; 500085, 3708249; 499766, 3708247; 499671, 
3708246; 499671, 3708246; 499668, 3708295; 499768, 3708331; 499694, 
3708419; 499652, 3708468; 499727, 3708495; 499768, 3708510; 499887, 
3708558; 499915, 3708657; 499987, 3708725; 500070, 3708773; 500134, 
3708820; 500154, 3708832; 500220, 3708869; 500220, 3708868; thence 
returning to 500229, 3708250. Continue to 501828, 3708226; 501830, 
3708001; 501831, 3707844; 501833, 3707599; 501834, 3707442; 501835, 
3707394; 501835, 3707318; 501835, 3707318; 501550, 3707363; 501429, 
3707383; 501022, 3707448; 500616, 3707513; 500397, 3707548; 500210, 
3707578; 500210, 3707578; 500210, 3707582; 500214, 3707723; 500226, 
3708156; 500229, 3708250; 500229, 3708250; 500229, 3708250; 500719, 
3708249; 501023, 3708249; 501441, 3708237; 501466, 3708236; 501737, 
3708229; 501801, 3708227; 501817, 3708226; thence returning to 501828, 
3708226. Continue to 507529, 3701874; 507531, 3701777; 507532, 3701729; 
507532, 3701729; 507513, 3701663; 507489, 3701583; 507470, 3701544; 
507352, 3701469; 507350, 3701469; 507350, 3701467; 507271, 3701434; 
507218, 3701448; 507155, 3701416; 507129, 3701371; 507113, 3701304; 
507071, 3701262; 506993, 3701239; 506916, 3701235; 506865, 3701235; 
506805, 3701244; 506703, 3701200; 506640, 3701170; 506568, 3701135; 
506494, 3701063; 506399, 3701047; 506264, 3701054; 506246, 3701061; 
506242, 3701061; 506242, 3701072; 505840, 3701071; 505840, 3701071; 
505840, 3701068; 505840, 3701068; 505833, 3701068; 505723, 3701058; 
505713, 3701052; 505415, 3701052; 505035, 3701052; 505013, 3701052; 
504656, 3701290; 504313, 3701648; 504171, 3701886; 503985, 3702199; 
503837, 3702780; 503528, 3702954; 503528, 3702954; 503494, 3702973; 
503477, 3702981; 503477, 3702981; 503417, 3703009; 503271, 3703077; 
503258, 3703095; 503250, 3703106; 503340, 3703114; 503415, 3703121; 
503866, 3703163; 503873, 3703164; 503946, 3703171; 503953, 3703172; 
505023, 3703271; 505023, 3703271; 505026, 3703040; 505026, 3703040; 
505029, 3702852; 505029, 3702852; 505030, 3702776; 505031, 3702723; 
505031, 3702702; 505039, 3702145; 505043, 3701881; 505043, 3701881; 
505266, 3701880; 505443, 3701879; 505443, 3701879; 505722, 3701878; 
505843, 3701877; 505848, 3701877; 506242, 3701875; 506242, 3701875; 
506242, 3702278; 506244, 3702278; 506643, 3702274; 506643, 3702106; 
506642, 3702087; 506642, 3701873; 506642, 3701873; 506657, 3701873; 
506684, 3701873; 507103, 3701873; 507282, 3701874; thence returning to 
507529, 3701874.
    (ii) Note: Unit 5 (Vail Lake/Oak Mountain) for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly is depicted on the map in paragraph (7)(ii) of 
this entry.
    (10) Unit 6: Tule Peak Unit, Riverside County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Aguanga, Beauty Mountain, and 
Anza. Land bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527628, 
3703575; 527233, 3703541; 527233, 3703541; 527232, 3703658; 527230, 
3703925; 527230, 3703934; 527229, 3704074; 527228, 3704118; 527226, 
3704307; 526831, 3704287; 526824, 3704287; 526813, 3704286; 526813, 
3704286; 526811, 3704467; 526806, 3704812; 526803, 3705067; 527305, 
3705070; 527625, 3705073; 527626, 3704522; 527626, 3704231; 527627, 
3703961; 527627, 3703809; 527627, 3703725; 527627, 3703709; 527628, 
3703696; 527628, 3703575; thence returning to 527628, 3703575. Continue 
to 526311, 3703859; 526400, 3703866; 526403, 3703470; 526403, 3703470; 
526365, 3703467; 526040, 3703439; 525983, 3703434; 525980, 3703823; 
525980, 3703835; thence returning to 526311, 3703859. Continue to 
528328, 3703573; 528328, 3703573; 528310, 3703558; 528208, 3703471; 
528051, 3703364; 527873, 3703263; 527737, 3703197; 527631, 3703161; 
527630, 3703161; 527630, 3703161; 527628, 3703575; 527628, 3703575; 
528134, 3703574; 528153, 3703574; thence returning to 528328, 3703573. 
Continue to 526412, 3702730; 526363, 3702718; 525995, 3702627; 525987, 
3702626; 525605, 3702584; 525588, 3702582; 525588, 3702582; 525588, 
3702696; 525588, 3702696; 525854, 3702707; 525986, 3702713; 526140, 
3702719; 526368, 3702728; thence returning to 526412, 3702730.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Tule Peak) and Unit 7 (Bautista) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 28850]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28851]]

    (8) Unit 7: Bautista Unit, Riverside County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Anza, Butterfly Peak, Blackburn 
Canyon, and Idyllwild. Land bounded by the following Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 
coordinates (E, N): 524940, 3714398; 524927, 3714405; 524915, 3714413; 
524912, 3714415; 524909, 3714416; 524891, 3714427; 524867, 3714442; 
524861, 3714445; 524843, 3714457; 524824, 3714470; 524819, 3714473; 
524796, 3714488; 524773, 3714505; 524750, 3714521; 524727, 3714538; 
524704, 3714555; 524702, 3714557; 524687, 3714568; 524679, 3714573; 
524654, 3714586; 524629, 3714600; 524617, 3714607; 524605, 3714614; 
524580, 3714629; 524556, 3714644; 524532, 3714659; 524513, 3714671; 
524509, 3714674; 524492, 3714686; 524485, 3714690; 524480, 3714693; 
524481, 3714769; 524482, 3715168; 524477, 3716096; 524477, 3716098; 
524477, 3716098; 524477, 3716100; 524471, 3716251; 524469, 3716299; 
524465, 3716399; 524461, 3716501; 524460, 3716518; 524266, 3716521; 
524066, 3716524; 524027, 3716524; 523864, 3716521; 523861, 3716521; 
523854, 3716740; 523656, 3716816; 523633, 3716826; 523462, 3716890; 
523431, 3716902; 523428, 3716906; 523360, 3717007; 523341, 3717034; 
523361, 3717047; 523540, 3717157; 523666, 3717226; 523707, 3717229; 
523748, 3717231; 523775, 3717233; 523867, 3717239; 523874, 3717240; 
523880, 3717246; 523937, 3717306; 523947, 3717323; 523947, 3717323; 
523970, 3717369; 523961, 3717692; 523961, 3717716; 523961, 3717716; 
523960, 3717730; 523983, 3717727; 524035, 3717723; 524048, 3717721; 
524066, 3717720; 524069, 3717725; 524206, 3717824; 524277, 3717924; 
524258, 3717981; 524258, 3718099; 524324, 3718142; 524348, 3718208; 
524249, 3718307; 524196, 3718411; 524225, 3718430; 524431, 3718538; 
524632, 3718643; 524731, 3718695; 524845, 3718714; 524902, 3718643; 
524906, 3718567; 524864, 3718525; 524797, 3718482; 524741, 3718468; 
524807, 3718373; 524873, 3718312; 524925, 3718302; 524982, 3718350; 
525058, 3718397; 525081, 3718405; 525131, 3718553; 525220, 3718672; 
525468, 3718851; 525745, 3719098; 525416, 3719350; 525111, 3719584; 
524566, 3719376; 524430, 3719396; 524239, 3719425; 523912, 3719713; 
523615, 3719822; 523367, 3719822; 523190, 3720727; 523182, 3720746; 
523189, 3720781; 523152, 3720828; 523144, 3720939; 523142, 3720964; 
522899, 3721091; 522836, 3721107; 522744, 3721130; 522579, 3721130; 
522394, 3721100; 522200, 3721091; 521967, 3721149; 521734, 3721139; 
521510, 3721159; 521365, 3721149; 521205, 3721194; 521190, 3721198; 
520928, 3721236; 520850, 3721100; 520626, 3721120; 520374, 3721275; 
520189, 3721304; 519995, 3721343; 519791, 3721460; 519582, 3721532; 
519574, 3721535; 519479, 3721553; 519098, 3721695; 518771, 3721772; 
518561, 3721822; 518505, 3721878; 518487, 3721892; 518467, 3721909; 
518364, 3721991; 518293, 3722048; 518329, 3722089; 518346, 3722109; 
518477, 3722260; 518335, 3722443; 518113, 3722392; 517968, 3722358; 
517956, 3722392; 517925, 3722480; 517918, 3722500; 517913, 3722512; 
517756, 3722952; 517601, 3723163; 517479, 3723317; 517374, 3723450; 
517333, 3723502; 517919, 3723509; 517950, 3723509; 518230, 3723509; 
518526, 3723509; 518809, 3723538; 519119, 3723580; 519345, 3723580; 
519570, 3723641; 519712, 3723679; 520150, 3723679; 520362, 3723622; 
520419, 3723354; 520334, 3723156; 520673, 3723086; 521194, 3723178; 
521273, 3723192; 521570, 3723192; 521824, 3723135; 521993, 3722895; 
522318, 3722881; 522445, 3722881; 522700, 3722796; 522826, 3722686; 
522926, 3722599; 522949, 3722552; 523039, 3722373; 523180, 3722147; 
523392, 3722118; 523674, 3722203; 523858, 3722132; 524070, 3721836; 
524211, 3721511; 524310, 3721158; 524427, 3721017; 524485, 3720947; 
524487, 3720945; 524515, 3720927; 524945, 3720678; 525609, 3720409; 
526076, 3720080; 526329, 3719901; 526492, 3719823; 526491, 3719804; 
526480, 3719413; 526509, 3719413; 526519, 3719413; 526520, 3719365; 
526884, 3719367; 526885, 3719348; 526890, 3719196; 526912, 3718594; 
526923, 3718593; 526923, 3718516; 527300, 3718525; 527316, 3718184; 
527316, 3718184; 527316, 3718184; 527343, 3718185; 527345, 3718115; 
527707, 3718119; 528111, 3718123; 528117, 3717769; 528144, 3717769; 
528505, 3717777; 528510, 3717777; 528913, 3717788; 528913, 3717618; 
528912, 3717449; 528914, 3717449; 528915, 3717385; 529317, 3717395; 
529323, 3717396; 529719, 3717401; 529719, 3717427; 529720, 3717427; 
529718, 3717640; 529717, 3717803; 529716, 3717803; 529716, 3717836; 
529714, 3718072; 529749, 3718072; 529839, 3718072; 530135, 3718199; 
530263, 3718411; 530503, 3718693; 530573, 3718891; 530644, 3719188; 
530921, 3719188; 530969, 3719188; 531294, 3718934; 531322, 3718679; 
531322, 3718439; 531251, 3718143; 531491, 3717888; 531627, 3717821; 
531717, 3717775; 532000, 3717790; 532155, 3717719; 532141, 3717521; 
531957, 3717366; 531816, 3717083; 532000, 3717055; 532212, 3717069; 
532593, 3717069; 532664, 3717394; 532732, 3717483; 532861, 3717648; 
533144, 3717451; 533341, 3717239; 533666, 3716999; 533920, 3716759; 
534274, 3716603; 534347, 3716608; 534683, 3716631; 534881, 3716815; 
535149, 3716928; 535516, 3716857; 535534, 3716835; 535542, 3716823; 
535700, 3716617; 535815, 3716473; 535971, 3716278; 535982, 3716264; 
536051, 3716216; 536103, 3716180; 536178, 3716127; 536251, 3716077; 
536265, 3716067; 536326, 3716031; 536404, 3715985; 536513, 3715922; 
536527, 3715914; 536604, 3715869; 536705, 3715667; 536725, 3715627; 
536731, 3715615; 536731, 3715614; 537028, 3715276; 537338, 3715276; 
537391, 3715260; 537443, 3715246; 537505, 3715228; 537525, 3715222; 
537635, 3715191; 537925, 3715191; 538016, 3715191; 538100, 3715186; 
538120, 3715185; 538203, 3715180; 538482, 3715163; 538580, 3715082; 
538722, 3714964; 538737, 3714952; 538892, 3714824; 539038, 3714870; 
539245, 3714937; 539434, 3714891; 539515, 3714872; 539528, 3714869; 
539717, 3714824; 539895, 3714781; 539895, 3714777; 539923, 3714762; 
539922, 3714300; 539919, 3713604; 539919, 3713579; 539917, 3713220; 
539923, 3712426; 539923, 3712307; 539524, 3712228; 539368, 3712239; 
539033, 3712239; 538609, 3712253; 538328, 3712372; 538242, 3712409; 
538327, 3712634; 538327, 3712635; 538369, 3712974; 538324, 3713016; 
538322, 3713018; 538214, 3713120; 538143, 3713185; 537939, 3713208; 
537928, 3713209; 537922, 3713209; 537890, 3713213; 537621, 3713242; 
537084, 3713242; 537024, 3713218; 537002, 3713210; 536999, 3713209; 
536973, 3713209; 536963, 3713209; 536732, 3713207; 536712, 3713207; 
536326, 3713211; 536104, 3713213; 536087, 3713214; 536086, 3713214; 
536072, 3713200; 536030, 3713158; 535993, 3713121; 535965, 3713119; 
535889, 3713112; 535844, 3713108; 535753, 3713089; 535577, 3713167; 
535565, 3713177; 535543, 3713196; 535461, 3713264; 535419, 3713298; 
535402, 3713313; 535343, 3713362; 535202, 3713459; 535132, 3713508; 
535090, 3713537; 534887, 3713657; 534804, 3713706; 534693, 3713771; 
534677, 3713790; 534649, 3713822; 534550, 3713934; 534375, 3714083; 
534261, 3714142; 534173, 3714187; 534056, 3714213; 533907, 3714343; 
533857, 3714382;

[[Page 28852]]

533725, 3714486; 533690, 3714520; 533523, 3714681; 533348, 3714837; 
533192, 3714909; 533165, 3714935; 533114, 3714987; 533075, 3715344; 
532860, 3715448; 532735, 3715539; 532672, 3715585; 532528, 3715650; 
532423, 3715698; 532386, 3715715; 532326, 3715725; 532237, 3715740; 
532230, 3715741; 532149, 3715797; 532106, 3716045; 532030, 3716121; 
532029, 3716122; 532010, 3716141; 531908, 3716243; 531589, 3716251; 
531547, 3716135; 531543, 3716125; 531541, 3716120; 531525, 3716075; 
531609, 3715995; 531878, 3715737; 531878, 3715737; 531712, 3715735; 
531577, 3715733; 531511, 3715732; 531321, 3715730; 531309, 3715732; 
531302, 3715733; 531207, 3715747; 531107, 3715762; 531087, 3715765; 
530947, 3715786; 530698, 3715760; 530680, 3715758; 530607, 3715727; 
530454, 3715659; 530329, 3715726; 530289, 3715748; 530257, 3715765; 
530080, 3715751; 529885, 3715735; 529820, 3715730; 529736, 3715723; 
529608, 3715714; 529480, 3715720; 529473, 3715720; 529402, 3715723; 
529304, 3715728; 529281, 3715775; 529226, 3715884; 529078, 3715890; 
529069, 3715890; 529064, 3715891; 529065, 3715917; 529069, 3715977; 
529070, 3716008; 529049, 3716018; 528908, 3716092; 528869, 3716112; 
528776, 3716112; 528684, 3716112; 528446, 3716112; 528446, 3716120; 
528433, 3716352; 528421, 3716352; 528320, 3716352; 528303, 3716352; 
528297, 3716138; 528199, 3716131; 528199, 3716119; 528198, 3716105; 
528193, 3715962; 528093, 3715970; 527969, 3715979; 527770, 3715995; 
527770, 3716116; 527771, 3716519; 527771, 3716525; 527766, 3716525; 
527558, 3716535; 527558, 3716519; 527560, 3716315; 527560, 3716221; 
527561, 3716130; 527561, 3716125; 527155, 3716125; 527153, 3716125; 
526959, 3716125; 526853, 3716124; 526753, 3716124; 526621, 3716124; 
526539, 3716123; 526540, 3716116; 526549, 3715911; 526549, 3715911; 
526648, 3715908; 526751, 3715906; 526886, 3715902; 526932, 3715901; 
526939, 3715690; 526946, 3715476; 526760, 3715480; 526655, 3715482; 
526551, 3715483; 526550, 3715483; 526547, 3715571; 526543, 3715682; 
526543, 3715689; 526439, 3715689; 526343, 3715689; 526343, 3715678; 
526342, 3715569; 526341, 3715534; 526340, 3715474; 526237, 3715468; 
526138, 3715462; 526138, 3715449; 526138, 3715227; 526138, 3715029; 
526138, 3714927; 526138, 3714911; 526139, 3714828; 526139, 3714627; 
526139, 3714428; 526139, 3714417; 526136, 3714417; 526124, 3714417; 
526125, 3714112; 526121, 3714112; 526052, 3714115; 526036, 3714116; 
526017, 3714118; 525989, 3714122; 525972, 3714124; 525961, 3714125; 
525933, 3714129; 525929, 3714130; 525905, 3714133; 525878, 3714138; 
525857, 3714139; 525828, 3714140; 525800, 3714142; 525791, 3714142; 
525772, 3714144; 525744, 3714146; 525725, 3714148; 525716, 3714149; 
525687, 3714152; 525670, 3714154; 525659, 3714156; 525631, 3714160; 
525603, 3714164; 525576, 3714169; 525549, 3714174; 525548, 3714174; 
525520, 3714179; 525516, 3714180; 525492, 3714185; 525465, 3714192; 
525437, 3714198; 525410, 3714206; 525403, 3714207; 525383, 3714213; 
525355, 3714221; 525328, 3714229; 525301, 3714238; 525297, 3714239; 
525287, 3714243; 525286, 3714243; 525275, 3714247; 525248, 3714256; 
525243, 3714258; 525221, 3714266; 525195, 3714276; 525172, 3714286; 
525169, 3714287; 525143, 3714298; 525117, 3714309; 525091, 3714321; 
525065, 3714333; 525040, 3714345; 525035, 3714348; 525014, 3714358; 
524989, 3714371; 524964, 3714385; thence returning to 524940, 3714398. 
Excluding land bounded by 525336, 3717346; 525538, 3717338; 525526, 
3717651; 525245, 3717656; 525259, 3717478; 525275, 3717451; and 
excluding land bounded by 525483, 3717132; 525482, 3717132; 525478, 
3717134; 525478, 3717134; 525473, 3717137; 525473, 3717137; 525468, 
3717139; 525468, 3717139; 525463, 3717142; 525463, 3717142; 525459, 
3717145; 525458, 3717145; 525454, 3717148; 525454, 3717148; 525449, 
3717151; 525449, 3717151; 525445, 3717154; 525445, 3717154; 525440, 
3717157; 525440, 3717157; 525436, 3717160; 525436, 3717160; 525431, 
3717164; 525431, 3717164; 525427, 3717167; 525427, 3717167; 525423, 
3717170; 525423, 3717171; 525419, 3717174; 525418, 3717174; 525414, 
3717178; 525414, 3717178; 525410, 3717181; 525410, 3717181; 525406, 
3717185; 525406, 3717185; 525402, 3717189; 525402, 3717189; 525398, 
3717193; 525398, 3717193; 525395, 3717197; 525394, 3717197; 525391, 
3717201; 525391, 3717201; 525387, 3717205; 525387, 3717205; 525384, 
3717209; 525383, 3717209; 525380, 3717213; 525380, 3717213; 525377, 
3717217; 525376, 3717218; 525373, 3717222; 525373, 3717222; 525370, 
3717226; 525370, 3717226; 525367, 3717231; 525366, 3717231; 525363, 
3717235; 525363, 3717235; 525360, 3717240; 525360, 3717240; 525357, 
3717244; 525357, 3717244; 525354, 3717249; 525354, 3717249; 525351, 
3717254; 525255, 3717419; 525269, 3717240; 525299, 3716874; 525328, 
3716873; 525366, 3716908; 525367, 3716909; 525367, 3716909; 525368, 
3716910; 525368, 3716910; 525369, 3716911; 525369, 3716911; 525370, 
3716911; 525370, 3716912; 525371, 3716912; 525371, 3716913; 525372, 
3716913; 525372, 3716914; 525372, 3716914; 525373, 3716914; 525373, 
3716915; 525374, 3716915; 525374, 3716916; 525375, 3716916; 525375, 
3716917; 525376, 3716917; 525376, 3716917; 525377, 3716918; 525377, 
3716918; 525378, 3716919; 525378, 3716919; 525379, 3716919; 525379, 
3716920; 525380, 3716920; 525380, 3716921; 525381, 3716921; 525381, 
3716921; 525382, 3716922; 525382, 3716922; 525383, 3716923; 525383, 
3716923; 525384, 3716923; 525384, 3716924; 525385, 3716924; 525385, 
3716925; 525386, 3716925; 525386, 3716925; 525387, 3716926; 525387, 
3716926; 525388, 3716927; 525388, 3716927; 525389, 3716927; 525389, 
3716928; 525390, 3716928; 525390, 3716929; 525391, 3716929; 525392, 
3716929; 525392, 3716930; 525393, 3716930; 525393, 3716930; 525394, 
3716931; 525394, 3716931; 525395, 3716932; 525395, 3716932; 525396, 
3716932; 525396, 3716933; 525397, 3716933; 525397, 3716933; 525398, 
3716934; 525398, 3716934; 525399, 3716935; 525399, 3716935; 525400, 
3716935; 525400, 3716936; 525401, 3716936; 525402, 3716936; 525402, 
3716937; 525403, 3716937; 525403, 3716937; 525404, 3716938; 525404, 
3716938; 525405, 3716938; 525405, 3716939; 525406, 3716939; 525406, 
3716939; 525407, 3716940; 525408, 3716940; 525408, 3716940; 525409, 
3716941; 525409, 3716941; 525410, 3716941; 525410, 3716942; 525411, 
3716942; 525411, 3716942; 525412, 3716943; 525412, 3716943; 525413, 
3716943; 525414, 3716944; 525414, 3716944; 525415, 3716944; 525415, 
3716945; 525416, 3716945; 525416, 3716945; 525417, 3716946; 525418, 
3716946; 525418, 3716946; 525419, 3716947; 525419, 3716947; 525420, 
3716947; 525420, 3716948; 525421, 3716948; 525421, 3716948; 525422, 
3716948; 525423, 3716949; 525423, 3716949; 525424, 3716949; 525424, 
3716950; 525425, 3716950; 525425, 3716950; 525426, 3716950; 525427, 
3716951; 525427, 3716951; 525428, 3716951; 525428, 3716952; 525429, 
3716952; 525430, 3716952; 525430, 3716952; 525431, 3716953; 525431, 
3716953; 525432, 3716953; 525432, 3716954; 525433, 3716954; 525434, 
3716954; 525434, 3716954; 525435, 3716955; 525435, 3716955; 525436,

[[Page 28853]]

3716955; 525436, 3716955; 525437, 3716956; 525438, 3716956; 525438, 
3716956; 525439, 3716957; 525439, 3716957; 525440, 3716957; 525441, 
3716957; 525441, 3716958; 525442, 3716958; 525442, 3716958; 525443, 
3716958; 525444, 3716959; 525444, 3716959; 525445, 3716959; 525445, 
3716959; 525446, 3716960; 525447, 3716960; 525447, 3716960; 525448, 
3716960; 525448, 3716960; 525449, 3716961; 525449, 3716961; 525450, 
3716961; 525450, 3716961; 525451, 3716961; 525451, 3716962; 525452, 
3716962; 525452, 3716962; 525453, 3716962; 525453, 3716962; 525454, 
3716963; 525455, 3716963; 525455, 3716963; 525456, 3716963; 525456, 
3716963; 525457, 3716964; 525457, 3716964; 525458, 3716964; 525458, 
3716964; 525459, 3716965; 525459, 3716965; 525460, 3716965; 525460, 
3716965; 525461, 3716965; 525461, 3716966; 525462, 3716966; 525462, 
3716966; 525463, 3716966; 525463, 3716967; 525464, 3716967; 525464, 
3716967; 525465, 3716967; 525466, 3716968; 525466, 3716968; 525467, 
3716968; 525467, 3716968; 525468, 3716969; 525468, 3716969; 525469, 
3716969; 525469, 3716969; 525470, 3716970; 525470, 3716970; 525471, 
3716970; 525471, 3716970; 525472, 3716971; 525472, 3716971; 525473, 
3716971; 525473, 3716971; 525474, 3716972; 525474, 3716972; 525475, 
3716972; 525475, 3716972; 525476, 3716973; 525476, 3716973; 525477, 
3716973; 525477, 3716974; 525478, 3716974; 525478, 3716974; 525479, 
3716974; 525479, 3716975; 525480, 3716975; 525480, 3716975; 525481, 
3716976; 525481, 3716976; 525482, 3716976; 525482, 3716976; 525483, 
3716977; 525483, 3716977; 525484, 3716977; 525484, 3716978; 525485, 
3716978; 525485, 3716978; 525486, 3716979; 525486, 3716979; 525487, 
3716979; 525487, 3716979; 525487, 3716980; 525488, 3716980; 525488, 
3716980; 525489, 3716981; 525489, 3716981; 525490, 3716981; 525490, 
3716982; 525491, 3716982; 525491, 3716982; 525492, 3716983; 525492, 
3716983; 525493, 3716983; 525493, 3716984; 525494, 3716984; 525494, 
3716984; 525495, 3716984; 525495, 3716985; 525496, 3716985; 525496, 
3716985; 525496, 3716986; 525497, 3716986; 525497, 3716986; 525498, 
3716987; 525498, 3716987; 525499, 3716987; 525499, 3716988; 525500, 
3716988; 525500, 3716989; 525501, 3716989; 525501, 3716989; 525502, 
3716990; 525502, 3716990; 525502, 3716990; 525503, 3716991; 525503, 
3716991; 525504, 3716991; 525504, 3716992; 525505, 3716992; 525505, 
3716992; 525506, 3716993; 525506, 3716993; 525506, 3716993; 525507, 
3716994; 525507, 3716994; 525508, 3716995; 525508, 3716995; 525509, 
3716995; 525509, 3716996; 525510, 3716996; 525510, 3716996; 525510, 
3716997; 525511, 3716997; 525511, 3716997; 525512, 3716998; 525512, 
3716998; 525513, 3716999; 525513, 3716999; 525513, 3716999; 525514, 
3717000; 525514, 3717000; 525515, 3717001; 525515, 3717001; 525516, 
3717001; 525516, 3717002; 525516, 3717002; 525517, 3717002; 525517, 
3717003; 525518, 3717003; 525518, 3717004; 525518, 3717004; 525519, 
3717004; 525519, 3717005; 525520, 3717005; 525520, 3717006; 525520, 
3717006; 525521, 3717006; 525521, 3717007; 525522, 3717007; 525522, 
3717008; 525522, 3717008; 525523, 3717008; 525523, 3717009; 525524, 
3717009; 525524, 3717010; 525524, 3717010; 525525, 3717011; 525525, 
3717011; 525526, 3717011; 525526, 3717012; 525526, 3717012; 525527, 
3717013; 525527, 3717013; 525528, 3717013; 525528, 3717014; 525528, 
3717014; 525529, 3717015; 525529, 3717015; 525530, 3717016; 525530, 
3717016; 525530, 3717016; 525531, 3717017; 525531, 3717017; 525531, 
3717018; 525532, 3717018; 525532, 3717019; 525533, 3717019; 525533, 
3717019; 525533, 3717020; 525534, 3717020; 525534, 3717021; 525534, 
3717021; 525535, 3717022; 525535, 3717022; 525535, 3717023; 525536, 
3717023; 525536, 3717023; 525536, 3717024; 525537, 3717024; 525537, 
3717025; 525538, 3717025; 525538, 3717026; 525538, 3717026; 525539, 
3717027; 525539, 3717027; 525539, 3717027; 525540, 3717028; 525540, 
3717028; 525540, 3717029; 525541, 3717029; 525541, 3717030; 525541, 
3717030; 525542, 3717031; 525542, 3717031; 525542, 3717032; 525543, 
3717032; 525543, 3717033; 525543, 3717033; 525544, 3717033; 525544, 
3717034; 525544, 3717034; 525545, 3717035; 525545, 3717035; 525545, 
3717036; 525546, 3717036; 525546, 3717037; 525546, 3717037; 525547, 
3717038; 525547, 3717038; 525547, 3717039; 525548, 3717039; 525548, 
3717040; 525548, 3717040; 525548, 3717041; 525549, 3717041; 525549, 
3717042; 525549, 3717042; 525550, 3717043; 525550, 3717043; 525550, 
3717043; 525551, 3717044; 525551, 3717044; 525551, 3717045; 525551, 
3717045; 525552, 3717046; 525552, 3717046; 525552, 3717047; 525553, 
3717047; 525553, 3717048; 525553, 3717048; 525553, 3717049; 525554, 
3717049; 525554, 3717050; 525554, 3717050; 525555, 3717051; 525555, 
3717051; 525555, 3717052; 525555, 3717052; 525556, 3717053; 525556, 
3717053; 525556, 3717054; 525557, 3717054; 525557, 3717055; 525557, 
3717055; 525557, 3717056; 525558, 3717056; 525558, 3717057; 525558, 
3717057; 525558, 3717058; 525559, 3717058; 525559, 3717059; 525559, 
3717059; 525559, 3717060; 525560, 3717060; 525560, 3717061; 525560, 
3717061; 525560, 3717062; 525561, 3717063; 525561, 3717063; 525561, 
3717064; 525561, 3717064; 525562, 3717065; 525562, 3717065; 525562, 
3717066; 525562, 3717066; 525563, 3717067; 525563, 3717067; 525563, 
3717068; 525563, 3717068; 525564, 3717069; 525564, 3717069; 525564, 
3717070; 525564, 3717070; 525564, 3717071; 525565, 3717071; 525565, 
3717072; 525565, 3717072; 525565, 3717073; 525565, 3717074; 525566, 
3717074; 525566, 3717075; 525566, 3717075; 525566, 3717076; 525567, 
3717076; 525567, 3717077; 525567, 3717077; 525567, 3717078; 525567, 
3717078; 525568, 3717079; 525568, 3717079; 525568, 3717080; 525568, 
3717080; 525568, 3717081; 525569, 3717082; 525569, 3717082; 525570, 
3717091; 525560, 3717105; 525560, 3717105; 525555, 3717106; 525555, 
3717106; 525550, 3717107; 525550, 3717107; 525544, 3717109; 525544, 
3717109; 525539, 3717110; 525539, 3717110; 525534, 3717111; 525534, 
3717111; 525529, 3717113; 525528, 3717113; 525523, 3717115; 525523, 
3717115; 525518, 3717117; 525518, 3717117; 525513, 3717118; 525513, 
3717118; 525508, 3717120; 525508, 3717120; 525503, 3717122; 525503, 
3717123; 525498, 3717125; 525497, 3717125; 525493, 3717127; 525492, 
3717127; 525488, 3717129; 525487, 3717129; and excluding land bounded 
by 525380, 3716871; 525388, 3716870; 525389, 3716878; 525375, 3716878; 
525372, 3716871; and excluding land bounded by 525434, 3716924; 525433, 
3716924; 525433, 3716924; 525432, 3716923; 525432, 3716923; 525431, 
3716923; 525431, 3716923; 525430, 3716922; 525430, 3716922; 525429, 
3716922; 525429, 3716921; 525428, 3716921; 525428, 3716921; 525427, 
3716921; 525427, 3716920; 525426, 3716920; 525426, 3716920; 525425, 
3716919; 525425, 3716919; 525424, 3716919; 525424, 3716918; 525423, 
3716918; 525423, 3716918; 525422, 3716918; 525422, 3716917; 525421, 
3716917; 525421, 3716917; 525420, 3716916; 525420, 3716916; 525419, 
3716916; 525419, 3716915; 525418, 3716915; 525418, 3716915; 525417, 
3716915; 525417, 3716914; 525416, 3716914; 525416, 3716914; 525415,

[[Page 28854]]

3716913; 525415, 3716913; 525414, 3716913; 525414, 3716912; 525413, 
3716912; 525413, 3716912; 525412, 3716911; 525412, 3716911; 525412, 
3716911; 525411, 3716910; 525411, 3716910; 525410, 3716910; 525410, 
3716909; 525409, 3716909; 525409, 3716909; 525408, 3716908; 525408, 
3716908; 525407, 3716908; 525407, 3716907; 525406, 3716907; 525406, 
3716907; 525405, 3716906; 525405, 3716906; 525405, 3716906; 525404, 
3716905; 525404, 3716905; 525403, 3716905; 525403, 3716904; 525402, 
3716904; 525402, 3716904; 525402, 3716885; 525419, 3716876; 525435, 
3716876; 525471, 3716881; 525472, 3716881; 525473, 3716881; 525473, 
3716881; 525474, 3716881; 525474, 3716881; 525475, 3716881; 525476, 
3716880; 525476, 3716880; 525477, 3716880; 525477, 3716880; 525478, 
3716879; 525478, 3716879; 525479, 3716879; 525479, 3716879; 525480, 
3716878; 525480, 3716878; 525481, 3716877; 525481, 3716877; 525482, 
3716877; 525482, 3716876; 525483, 3716876; 525483, 3716875; 525483, 
3716875; 525484, 3716874; 525484, 3716874; 525485, 3716873; 525485, 
3716873; 525485, 3716872; 525486, 3716872; 525486, 3716871; 525486, 
3716871; 525486, 3716870; 525487, 3716870; 525487, 3716869; 525487, 
3716868; 525487, 3716868; 525487, 3716867; 525487, 3716867; 525715, 
3716858; 526066, 3716845; 526065, 3716845; 526061, 3716847; 526061, 
3716847; 526057, 3716849; 526057, 3716849; 526052, 3716850; 526052, 
3716850; 526048, 3716852; 526048, 3716852; 526044, 3716854; 526044, 
3716854; 526039, 3716856; 526039, 3716856; 526035, 3716858; 526035, 
3716858; 526031, 3716860; 526031, 3716860; 526027, 3716862; 526027, 
3716863; 526023, 3716865; 526022, 3716865; 526019, 3716867; 526018, 
3716867; 526014, 3716869; 526014, 3716870; 526010, 3716872; 526010, 
3716872; 526007, 3716875; 526006, 3716875; 526003, 3716877; 526002, 
3716877; 525999, 3716880; 525999, 3716880; 525995, 3716883; 525995, 
3716883; 525991, 3716885; 525991, 3716886; 525987, 3716888; 525987, 
3716888; 525984, 3716891; 525984, 3716891; 525980, 3716894; 525980, 
3716894; 525977, 3716897; 525976, 3716897; 525973, 3716901; 525973, 
3716901; 525970, 3716904; 525969, 3716904; 525966, 3716907; 525966, 
3716907; 525963, 3716910; 525963, 3716910; 525960, 3716914; 525959, 
3716914; 525956, 3716917; 525956, 3716917; 525953, 3716921; 525953, 
3716921; 525950, 3716924; 525950, 3716924; 525947, 3716928; 525947, 
3716928; 525944, 3716931; 525944, 3716932; 525941, 3716935; 525941, 
3716935; 525938, 3716939; 525938, 3716939; 525935, 3716943; 525935, 
3716943; 525933, 3716947; 525933, 3716947; 525930, 3716951; 525930, 
3716951; 525927, 3716954; 525927, 3716955; 525925, 3716958; 525925, 
3716959; 525923, 3716962; 525922, 3716963; 525920, 3716967; 525920, 
3716967; 525918, 3716971; 525918, 3716971; 525916, 3716975; 525916, 
3716975; 525914, 3716978; 525912, 3716981; 525909, 3716985; 525906, 
3716989; 525902, 3716992; 525899, 3716996; 525896, 3716999; 525892, 
3717003; 525889, 3717006; 525886, 3717010; 525882, 3717013; 525878, 
3717016; 525875, 3717019; 525871, 3717023; 525867, 3717026; 525863, 
3717029; 525860, 3717031; 525856, 3717034; 525852, 3717037; 525848, 
3717040; 525844, 3717042; 525840, 3717045; 525835, 3717047; 525831, 
3717050; 525827, 3717052; 525823, 3717055; 525818, 3717057; 525814, 
3717059; 525810, 3717061; 525805, 3717063; 525801, 3717065; 525796, 
3717067; 525792, 3717068; 525787, 3717070; 525783, 3717072; 525778, 
3717073; 525773, 3717074; 525769, 3717076; 525764, 3717077; 525759, 
3717078; 525755, 3717079; 525750, 3717080; 525745, 3717081; 525740, 
3717082; 525736, 3717083; 525731, 3717083; 525724, 3717084; 525612, 
3717098; 525596, 3717085; 525595, 3717076; 525595, 3717075; 525594, 
3717074; 525594, 3717073; 525594, 3717073; 525594, 3717072; 525593, 
3717071; 525593, 3717071; 525593, 3717070; 525593, 3717069; 525592, 
3717069; 525592, 3717068; 525592, 3717068; 525592, 3717067; 525592, 
3717066; 525591, 3717066; 525591, 3717065; 525591, 3717065; 525591, 
3717064; 525590, 3717063; 525590, 3717063; 525590, 3717062; 525590, 
3717062; 525589, 3717061; 525589, 3717060; 525589, 3717060; 525589, 
3717059; 525588, 3717059; 525588, 3717058; 525588, 3717057; 525588, 
3717057; 525587, 3717056; 525587, 3717056; 525587, 3717055; 525587, 
3717055; 525586, 3717054; 525586, 3717053; 525586, 3717053; 525585, 
3717052; 525585, 3717052; 525585, 3717051; 525585, 3717050; 525584, 
3717050; 525584, 3717049; 525584, 3717049; 525583, 3717048; 525583, 
3717047; 525583, 3717047; 525583, 3717046; 525582, 3717046; 525582, 
3717045; 525582, 3717045; 525581, 3717044; 525581, 3717043; 525581, 
3717043; 525581, 3717042; 525580, 3717042; 525580, 3717041; 525580, 
3717041; 525579, 3717040; 525579, 3717039; 525579, 3717039; 525578, 
3717038; 525578, 3717038; 525578, 3717037; 525577, 3717037; 525577, 
3717036; 525577, 3717036; 525576, 3717035; 525576, 3717034; 525576, 
3717034; 525575, 3717033; 525575, 3717033; 525575, 3717032; 525574, 
3717032; 525574, 3717031; 525574, 3717031; 525573, 3717030; 525573, 
3717029; 525573, 3717029; 525572, 3717028; 525572, 3717028; 525572, 
3717027; 525571, 3717027; 525571, 3717026; 525571, 3717026; 525570, 
3717025; 525570, 3717024; 525570, 3717024; 525569, 3717023; 525569, 
3717023; 525569, 3717022; 525568, 3717022; 525568, 3717021; 525567, 
3717021; 525567, 3717020; 525567, 3717020; 525566, 3717019; 525566, 
3717019; 525566, 3717018; 525565, 3717018; 525565, 3717017; 525564, 
3717016; 525564, 3717016; 525564, 3717015; 525563, 3717015; 525563, 
3717014; 525563, 3717014; 525562, 3717013; 525562, 3717013; 525561, 
3717012; 525561, 3717012; 525561, 3717011; 525560, 3717011; 525560, 
3717010; 525559, 3717010; 525559, 3717009; 525559, 3717009; 525558, 
3717008; 525558, 3717008; 525557, 3717007; 525557, 3717007; 525557, 
3717006; 525556, 3717006; 525556, 3717005; 525555, 3717005; 525555, 
3717004; 525555, 3717004; 525554, 3717003; 525554, 3717003; 525553, 
3717002; 525553, 3717002; 525553, 3717001; 525552, 3717001; 525552, 
3717000; 525551, 3717000; 525551, 3716999; 525550, 3716999; 525550, 
3716998; 525550, 3716998; 525549, 3716997; 525549, 3716997; 525548, 
3716996; 525548, 3716996; 525547, 3716995; 525547, 3716995; 525547, 
3716994; 525546, 3716994; 525546, 3716993; 525545, 3716993; 525545, 
3716992; 525544, 3716992; 525544, 3716992; 525543, 3716991; 525543, 
3716991; 525542, 3716990; 525542, 3716990; 525542, 3716989; 525541, 
3716989; 525541, 3716988; 525540, 3716988; 525540, 3716987; 525539, 
3716987; 525539, 3716986; 525538, 3716986; 525538, 3716986; 525537, 
3716985; 525537, 3716985; 525537, 3716984; 525536, 3716984; 525536, 
3716983; 525535, 3716983; 525535, 3716982; 525534, 3716982; 525534, 
3716982; 525533, 3716981; 525533, 3716981; 525532, 3716980; 525532, 
3716980; 525531, 3716979; 525531, 3716979; 525530, 3716979; 525530, 
3716978; 525529, 3716978; 525529, 3716977; 525528, 3716977; 525528, 
3716976; 525527, 3716976; 525527, 3716976; 525526, 3716975; 525526, 
3716975; 525525, 3716974; 525525, 3716974; 525524, 3716974; 525524, 
3716973; 525523, 3716973; 525523, 3716972; 525522, 3716972; 525522,

[[Page 28855]]

3716971; 525521, 3716971; 525521, 3716971; 525520, 3716970; 525520, 
3716970; 525519, 3716969; 525519, 3716969; 525518, 3716969; 525518, 
3716968; 525517, 3716968; 525517, 3716967; 525516, 3716967; 525516, 
3716967; 525515, 3716966; 525515, 3716966; 525514, 3716966; 525514, 
3716965; 525513, 3716965; 525513, 3716964; 525512, 3716964; 525512, 
3716964; 525511, 3716963; 525510, 3716963; 525510, 3716963; 525509, 
3716962; 525509, 3716962; 525508, 3716961; 525508, 3716961; 525507, 
3716961; 525507, 3716960; 525506, 3716960; 525506, 3716960; 525505, 
3716959; 525505, 3716959; 525504, 3716959; 525504, 3716958; 525503, 
3716958; 525502, 3716957; 525502, 3716957; 525501, 3716957; 525501, 
3716956; 525500, 3716956; 525500, 3716956; 525499, 3716955; 525499, 
3716955; 525498, 3716955; 525498, 3716954; 525497, 3716954; 525496, 
3716954; 525496, 3716953; 525495, 3716953; 525495, 3716953; 525494, 
3716952; 525494, 3716952; 525493, 3716952; 525492, 3716951; 525492, 
3716951; 525491, 3716951; 525491, 3716950; 525490, 3716950; 525490, 
3716950; 525489, 3716950; 525489, 3716949; 525488, 3716949; 525487, 
3716949; 525487, 3716948; 525486, 3716948; 525486, 3716948; 525485, 
3716947; 525485, 3716947; 525484, 3716947; 525483, 3716946; 525483, 
3716946; 525482, 3716946; 525482, 3716946; 525481, 3716945; 525480, 
3716945; 525480, 3716945; 525479, 3716944; 525479, 3716944; 525478, 
3716944; 525478, 3716944; 525477, 3716943; 525476, 3716943; 525476, 
3716943; 525475, 3716943; 525475, 3716942; 525474, 3716942; 525473, 
3716942; 525473, 3716941; 525472, 3716941; 525472, 3716941; 525471, 
3716941; 525471, 3716940; 525470, 3716940; 525469, 3716940; 525469, 
3716940; 525468, 3716939; 525468, 3716939; 525467, 3716939; 525466, 
3716939; 525466, 3716938; 525465, 3716938; 525465, 3716938; 525464, 
3716938; 525463, 3716937; 525463, 3716937; 525462, 3716937; 525462, 
3716937; 525461, 3716936; 525460, 3716936; 525460, 3716936; 525459, 
3716936; 525458, 3716936; 525458, 3716935; 525457, 3716935; 525457, 
3716935; 525456, 3716935; 525456, 3716935; 525455, 3716934; 525455, 
3716934; 525454, 3716934; 525454, 3716934; 525453, 3716934; 525453, 
3716933; 525452, 3716933; 525452, 3716933; 525451, 3716933; 525451, 
3716932; 525450, 3716932; 525450, 3716932; 525449, 3716932; 525449, 
3716931; 525448, 3716931; 525448, 3716931; 525447, 3716931; 525446, 
3716931; 525446, 3716930; 525445, 3716930; 525445, 3716930; 525444, 
3716930; 525444, 3716929; 525443, 3716929; 525443, 3716929; 525442, 
3716929; 525442, 3716928; 525441, 3716928; 525441, 3716928; 525440, 
3716928; 525440, 3716927; 525439, 3716927; 525439, 3716927; 525438, 
3716927; 525438, 3716926; 525437, 3716926; 525437, 3716926; 525436, 
3716926; 525436, 3716925; 525435, 3716925; 525435, 3716925; and 
excluding land bounded by 526091, 3716237; 526123, 3716234; 526132, 
3716233; 526136, 3716233; 526136, 3716292; 526136, 3716423; 526136, 
3716548; 526166, 3716550; 526362, 3716559; 526366, 3716559; 526374, 
3716741; 526380, 3716866; 526386, 3716992; 526278, 3716986; 526183, 
3717080; 526131, 3717037; 526131, 3717037; 526125, 3717031; 526122, 
3716959; 526119, 3716866; 526118, 3716843; 526104, 3716453; 525716, 
3716463; 525596, 3716466; 525300, 3716473; 525291, 3716474; 525289, 
3716474; 525223, 3716474; 525115, 3716474; 525115, 3716382; 525115, 
3716378; 525076, 3716378; 525084, 3716279; 524986, 3716282; 524885, 
3716286; 524875, 3716286; 524875, 3716101; 524875, 3716084; 524875, 
3716082; 525714, 3716048; 525704, 3716201; 525927, 3716254; and 
excluding land bounded by 525777, 3717434; 526121, 3717419; 526120, 
3717641; 525770, 3717647.
    (ii) Note: Unit 7 (Bautista) for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is 
depicted on the map in paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (8) Unit 8: Otay Unit, San Diego County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Jamul Mountains, Dulzura, Otay 
Mesa, Otay Mountain, and Tecate. Land bounded by the following 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 
(NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 505693, 3606447; 505703, 3606427; 505702, 
3606427; 505702, 3606426; 505693, 3606046; 505691, 3605963; 505687, 
3605768; 505677, 3605363; 505668, 3604969; 505635, 3604959; 505560, 
3604935; 505239, 3604836; 505150, 3604808; 505147, 3604807; 505125, 
3604572; 505124, 3604564; 504912, 3604574; 504650, 3604587; 504549, 
3604707; 504464, 3604807; 503596, 3604788; 503441, 3604784; 503423, 
3604784; 502983, 3604518; 502810, 3604205; 502732, 3604207; 502715, 
3605000; 502151, 3605003; 502141, 3605216; 502141, 3605222; 502335, 
3605289; 502913, 3605488; 502919, 3605481; 502922, 3605478; 503260, 
3605591; 503260, 3605593; 503257, 3605604; 503255, 3605606; 503274, 
3605613; 503537, 3605704; 503545, 3605706; 503856, 3605814; 503909, 
3605832; 503935, 3605840; 504176, 3605924; 504337, 3605979; 504546, 
3606052; 504617, 3606076; 504799, 3606141; 505139, 3606262; 505378, 
3606338; 505594, 3606413; 505692, 3606446; 505693, 3606447; thence 
returning to 505693, 3606447. Continue to 506421, 3607499; 506490, 
3607502; 506512, 3607503; 506510, 3607549; 506510, 3607549; 506489, 
3607885; 506564, 3607917; 506564, 3607917; 506776, 3608010; 506859, 
3608047; 506976, 3608221; 507010, 3608271; 507025, 3608294; 507168, 
3608518; 507452, 3608739; 507453, 3608758; 507569, 3608830; 507852, 
3608932; 507977, 3608971; 508040, 3609097; 508040, 3609363; 508199, 
3609449; 508324, 3609517; 508518, 3609622; 508714, 3609755; 508740, 
3609897; 508745, 3609928; 508824, 3610006; 508996, 3610006; 509114, 
3610061; 509177, 3610137; 509190, 3610152; 509192, 3610155; 509333, 
3610179; 509420, 3610202; 509490, 3610163; 509537, 3610108; 509537, 
3610202; 509553, 3610351; 509725, 3610390; 509984, 3610508; 510011, 
3610531; 510039, 3610555; 510149, 3610563; 510305, 3610500; 510517, 
3610469; 510666, 3610508; 510713, 3610641; 510792, 3610822; 510828, 
3610885; 510909, 3611025; 510930, 3611061; 511066, 3611284; 511301, 
3611402; 511497, 3611417; 511497, 3611226; 511497, 3611221; 511676, 
3611260; 511787, 3611284; 512102, 3611553; 512218, 3611653; 512210, 
3611672; 512171, 3611755; 512265, 3612060; 512273, 3612311; 512352, 
3612421; 512508, 3612507; 512610, 3612531; 512691, 3612505; 512759, 
3612484; 512785, 3612488; 512844, 3612496; 512872, 3612501; 512916, 
3612507; 513018, 3612593; 513049, 3612664; 513144, 3612719; 513261, 
3612742; 513266, 3612803; 513267, 3612819; 513269, 3612844; 513295, 
3612845; 513313, 3612846; 513418, 3612851; 513457, 3612852; 513567, 
3612758; 513567, 3612664; 513567, 3612523; 513620, 3612383; 513653, 
3612295; 513880, 3612084; 513953, 3612024; 514096, 3611906; 514147, 
3611864; 514249, 3611966; 514177, 3611992; 514163, 3611998; 514139, 
3612068; 513990, 3612209; 513888, 3612217; 513786, 3612350; 513763, 
3612499; 513810, 3612617; 513833, 3612627; 513935, 3612672; 514006, 
3612774; 514147, 3612876; 514148, 3612877; 514232, 3612971; 514280, 
3613025; 514335, 3613158; 514406, 3613236; 514471, 3613282; 514539, 
3613330; 514546, 3613351; 514552, 3613367; 514610, 3613526; 514798, 
3613636; 514939,

[[Page 28856]]

3613730; 515036, 3613762; 515127, 3613793; 515179, 3613793; 515192, 
3613793; 515292, 3613793; 515354, 3613848; 515235, 3613960; 515225, 
3613970; 515221, 3613973; 515228, 3613982; 515252, 3614011; 515292, 
3614059; 515297, 3614078; 515307, 3614110; 515322, 3614162; 515331, 
3614193; 515389, 3614212; 515410, 3614219; 515519, 3614255; 515707, 
3614342; 515935, 3614420; 516107, 3614428; 516264, 3614420; 516405, 
3614420; 516562, 3614420; 516686, 3614366; 516687, 3614365; 516716, 
3614316; 516746, 3614265; 516797, 3614177; 516837, 3614113; 516853, 
3614086; 516860, 3614075; 516861, 3614075; 516945, 3614047; 516977, 
3614036; 517103, 3614036; 517346, 3614028; 517487, 3613942; 517491, 
3613951; 517496, 3613962; 517496, 3613962; 517498, 3613967; 517565, 
3614114; 517565, 3614271; 517518, 3614451; 517377, 3614436; 517197, 
3614451; 517024, 3614404; 516899, 3614467; 516711, 3614530; 516687, 
3614544; 516475, 3614671; 516409, 3614712; 516391, 3614722; 516370, 
3614735; 516347, 3614749; 516309, 3614772; 516281, 3614789; 516256, 
3614804; 515982, 3614812; 515903, 3614828; 515793, 3614867; 515648, 
3614946; 515605, 3614969; 515480, 3615118; 515413, 3615147; 515370, 
3615165; 515369, 3615155; 515354, 3615024; 515322, 3614927; 515315, 
3614906; 515221, 3614843; 515237, 3614734; 515307, 3614593; 515323, 
3614451; 515252, 3614279; 515158, 3614224; 515043, 3614170; 515041, 
3614169; 515020, 3614135; 514994, 3614091; 514923, 3614005; 514839, 
3613953; 514781, 3613916; 514759, 3613903; 514737, 3613812; 514737, 
3613811; 514727, 3613769; 514637, 3613726; 514580, 3613699; 514563, 
3613691; 514536, 3613673; 514414, 3613589; 514312, 3613495; 514218, 
3613370; 514188, 3613266; 514177, 3613225; 514163, 3613174; 514100, 
3613056; 514022, 3613017; 513928, 3612938; 513818, 3612821; 513801, 
3612835; 513783, 3612852; 513747, 3612883; 513637, 3613025; 513583, 
3613059; 513490, 3613118; 513488, 3613119; 513421, 3613141; 513371, 
3613158; 513366, 3613135; 513347, 3613056; 513285, 3612993; 513120, 
3613072; 513034, 3612931; 512900, 3612907; 512806, 3612852; 512704, 
3612695; 512553, 3612659; 512540, 3612656; 512391, 3612570; 512226, 
3612531; 512140, 3612413; 512124, 3612295; 512148, 3612123; 512116, 
3611958; 512044, 3611864; 512038, 3611856; 512037, 3611856; 511981, 
3611841; 511930, 3611826; 511842, 3611802; 511764, 3611668; 511682, 
3611550; 511677, 3611543; 511513, 3611551; 511262, 3611512; 511121, 
3611425; 510870, 3611253; 510827, 3611065; 510827, 3611062; 510815, 
3611010; 510799, 3610997; 510643, 3610869; 510509, 3610845; 510376, 
3610900; 510334, 3610910; 510236, 3610934; 510180, 3610947; 510101, 
3610938; 509976, 3610924; 509929, 3610918; 509906, 3610916; 509608, 
3610767; 509563, 3610759; 509562, 3610759; 509294, 3610712; 508996, 
3610712; 508800, 3610775; 508773, 3610776; 508675, 3610783; 508637, 
3610786; 508581, 3610790; 508564, 3610802; 508385, 3610931; 508369, 
3611080; 508361, 3611159; 508354, 3611160; 508344, 3611162; 508226, 
3611186; 508126, 3611206; 508079, 3611300; 508094, 3611508; 508095, 
3611512; 507961, 3611676; 507679, 3611786; 507350, 3611778; 507136, 
3611739; 507067, 3611726; 507052, 3611723; 506926, 3611943; 506853, 
3612078; 506774, 3612225; 506770, 3612233; 506683, 3612319; 506527, 
3612374; 506370, 3612609; 506363, 3612643; 506357, 3612669; 506346, 
3612719; 506354, 3612797; 506383, 3612873; 506346, 3612867; 506269, 
3612995; 506217, 3613021; 506166, 3613008; 506094, 3613153; 506050, 
3613240; 506054, 3613375; 506054, 3613388; 506058, 3613539; 506063, 
3613717; 506075, 3613744; 506153, 3613914; 506176, 3613964; 506269, 
3614165; 506282, 3614194; 506326, 3614368; 506360, 3614505; 506427, 
3614773; 506437, 3614812; 506449, 3615804; 506449, 3615986; 506449, 
3615998; 506617, 3616036; 506765, 3616066; 507068, 3616127; 507175, 
3616245; 507215, 3616290; 507300, 3616384; 507442, 3616642; 507472, 
3616667; 507738, 3616887; 507686, 3617093; 507738, 3617389; 507825, 
3617489; 507918, 3617596; 507934, 3617618; 508086, 3617840; 508315, 
3617902; 508421, 3617931; 508726, 3617837; 508923, 3617776; 509132, 
3617601; 509478, 3617312; 509563, 3617128; 509748, 3616732; 509779, 
3616310; 509813, 3615856; 509392, 3615485; 509271, 3615379; 509234, 
3615102; 509184, 3614742; 509155, 3614529; 509236, 3614331; 509401, 
3613929; 509461, 3613782; 509571, 3613835; 509579, 3613838; 509813, 
3613727; 509982, 3613676; 510097, 3613641; 510615, 3613752; 510972, 
3613542; 511465, 3613197; 511580, 3613165; 511711, 3613129; 511838, 
3613094; 511884, 3613081; 511909, 3613074; 511954, 3613137; 512144, 
3613407; 512183, 3613549; 512214, 3613664; 512279, 3613900; 512345, 
3613974; 512575, 3614233; 512579, 3614376; 512588, 3614689; 512574, 
3614758; 512501, 3615146; 512378, 3615158; 512588, 3615441; 512711, 
3615565; 512945, 3615799; 513026, 3615830; 513204, 3615898; 513401, 
3615676; 513447, 3615669; 513512, 3615659; 513765, 3615620; 513871, 
3615620; 513890, 3615620; 513907, 3615634; 514157, 3615839; 514190, 
3615994; 514215, 3616189; 514286, 3616328; 514299, 3616355; 514300, 
3616356; 514188, 3616418; 514111, 3616472; 514046, 3616517; 513875, 
3616716; 513840, 3616758; 513526, 3617123; 513365, 3617321; 513236, 
3617480; 513229, 3617488; 513293, 3617543; 513417, 3617650; 513458, 
3617686; 513526, 3617695; 513786, 3617729; 513897, 3617788; 513928, 
3617804; 513945, 3617803; 514207, 3617798; 514893, 3617785; 514900, 
3617785; 515006, 3617796; 515058, 3617801; 515165, 3617812; 515236, 
3617819; 515478, 3617844; 515630, 3617859; 515611, 3618107; 515481, 
3618107; 515438, 3618107; 515482, 3618290; 515544, 3618554; 515611, 
3618837; 515605, 3618955; 515593, 3619214; 515528, 3619360; 515478, 
3619473; 515450, 3619536; 515478, 3619550; 515541, 3619583; 515679, 
3619654; 515772, 3619658; 515872, 3619662; 516094, 3619672; 516178, 
3619572; 516230, 3619510; 516354, 3619363; 516425, 3619358; 516661, 
3619344; 516663, 3619344; 517047, 3619350; 517124, 3619367; 517210, 
3619385; 517337, 3619412; 517334, 3619334; 517329, 3619217; 517319, 
3618961; 517571, 3618934; 517757, 3618937; 517982, 3618940; 518000, 
3618925; 518000, 3618875; 518012, 3618865; 518045, 3618837; 518090, 
3618817; 518100, 3618795; 518108, 3618778; 518121, 3618751; 518169, 
3618720; 518234, 3618738; 518243, 3618756; 518252, 3618771; 518306, 
3618751; 518445, 3618664; 518451, 3618660; 518458, 3618544; 518463, 
3618469; 518231, 3618151; 518231, 3618151; 518187, 3618129; 518103, 
3617942; 518229, 3617848; 518229, 3617766; 518232, 3617753; 518303, 
3617445; 518430, 3617371; 518451, 3617359; 518685, 3617100; 518661, 
3616792; 518661, 3616582; 518664, 3616578; 518833, 3616360; 519129, 
3616225; 519232, 3616173; 519425, 3616077; 519610, 3616089; 519795, 
3616184; 519850, 3616212; 520042, 3616311; 520216, 3616298; 520237, 
3616289; 520308, 3616194; 520313, 3616187; 520364, 3616142; 520422, 
3616027; 520537, 3615912; 520556, 3615822; 520556, 3615804; 520556, 
3615669; 520563, 3615490; 520581, 3615472; 520646, 3615406; 520646, 
3615406; 520665, 3615323; 520627, 3615272; 520590, 3615249; 520544,

[[Page 28857]]

3615221; 520460, 3615112; 520358, 3615080; 520269, 3614984; 520246, 
3614963; 520166, 3614888; 520083, 3614735; 519981, 3614619; 519891, 
3614543; 519880, 3614539; 519821, 3614517; 519674, 3614524; 519610, 
3614485; 519622, 3614402; 519712, 3614319; 519643, 3614219; 519642, 
3614216; 519386, 3614216; 519386, 3614219; 519405, 3614383; 519285, 
3614385; 519148, 3614387; 519034, 3614389; 519028, 3614285; 519027, 
3614262; 519021, 3614159; 519122, 3614154; 519149, 3614152; 519148, 
3614093; 519143, 3613551; 519166, 3613553; 519253, 3613560; 519349, 
3613567; 519392, 3613570; 519447, 3613531; 519501, 3613493; 519532, 
3613370; 519539, 3613340; 519533, 3613270; 519528, 3613264; 519469, 
3613193; 519398, 3613116; 519290, 3613026; 519304, 3613009; 519315, 
3612994; 519374, 3612994; 519386, 3612994; 519394, 3612990; 519437, 
3612969; 519522, 3612849; 519533, 3612835; 519622, 3612822; 519680, 
3612854; 519744, 3612879; 519750, 3612869; 519802, 3612777; 519816, 
3612712; 519827, 3612662; 519895, 3612614; 519921, 3612595; 519947, 
3612552; 519962, 3612526; 519999, 3612465; 520035, 3612405; 520085, 
3612322; 520188, 3612073; 520193, 3612060; 520233, 3611964; 520277, 
3611901; 520294, 3611876; 520360, 3611781; 520392, 3611736; 520405, 
3611716; 520430, 3611680; 520455, 3611471; 520559, 3611311; 520640, 
3611187; 520686, 3611192; 520899, 3611212; 521086, 3611255; 521219, 
3611286; 521276, 3611358; 521332, 3611382; 521379, 3611376; 521427, 
3611360; 521473, 3611356; 521502, 3611354; 521619, 3611301; 521669, 
3611290; 521760, 3611257; 521773, 3611251; 521827, 3611224; 521833, 
3611173; 521869, 3611162; 521933, 3611109; 521952, 3611059; 521950, 
3611026; 521983, 3611026; 522008, 3610962; 522002, 3610909; 521922, 
3610915; 521925, 3610905; 521938, 3610856; 521994, 3610865; 521992, 
3610842; 521983, 3610767; 522005, 3610678; 522066, 3610623; 522089, 
3610542; 522086, 3610499; 522086, 3610489; 522032, 3610498; 522005, 
3610503; 522000, 3610498; 521983, 3610481; 521938, 3610489; 521937, 
3610478; 521933, 3610425; 521899, 3610436; 521714, 3610428; 521710, 
3610428; 521699, 3610219; 521713, 3610183; 521728, 3610183; 521778, 
3610181; 521801, 3610181; 521813, 3610180; 521809, 3610177; 521766, 
3610133; 521705, 3610125; 521676, 3610087; 521632, 3610030; 521524, 
3609777; 521505, 3609759; 521488, 3609744; 521477, 3609719; 521469, 
3609701; 521454, 3609669; 521452, 3609613; 521463, 3609521; 521463, 
3609396; 521457, 3609341; 521452, 3609293; 521470, 3609254; 521474, 
3609246; 521478, 3608968; 521480, 3608854; 521447, 3608850; 521393, 
3608843; 521393, 3608793; 521413, 3608717; 521418, 3608695; 521454, 
3608676; 521491, 3608590; 521499, 3608523; 521500, 3608522; 521559, 
3608438; 521566, 3608428; 521619, 3608395; 521691, 3608348; 521752, 
3608309; 521758, 3608306; 521759, 3608301; 521769, 3608247; 521776, 
3608196; 521777, 3608189; 521777, 3608181; 521774, 3608092; 521758, 
3608019; 521713, 3607983; 521660, 3607967; 521566, 3607975; 521557, 
3608025; 521613, 3608092; 521474, 3608122; 521491, 3608067; 521418, 
3607914; 521251, 3607978; 521229, 3607922; 521146, 3607936; 521137, 
3607903; 521087, 3607908; 521086, 3607904; 521073, 3607852; 521123, 
3607833; 521146, 3607823; 521193, 3607802; 521257, 3607772; 521327, 
3607752; 521368, 3607752; 521385, 3607722; 521407, 3607702; 521482, 
3607691; 521482, 3607585; 521515, 3607583; 521533, 3607581; 521552, 
3607580; 521557, 3607700; 521558, 3607701; 521577, 3607789; 521584, 
3607796; 521645, 3607867; 521652, 3607875; 521678, 3607895; 521730, 
3607936; 521730, 3607936; 521797, 3607928; 521866, 3607944; 521911, 
3607967; 521914, 3607966; 521944, 3607961; 522005, 3607947; 522083, 
3607925; 522125, 3607916; 522161, 3607903; 522208, 3607900; 522269, 
3607894; 522320, 3607894; 522322, 3607894; 522406, 3607889; 522500, 
3607908; 522561, 3607883; 522586, 3607862; 522600, 3607850; 522659, 
3607844; 522728, 3607844; 522756, 3607847; 522762, 3607853; 522765, 
3607857; 522790, 3607883; 522842, 3607894; 522887, 3607880; 522910, 
3607879; 523001, 3607872; 523011, 3607872; 523020, 3607872; 523077, 
3607872; 523082, 3607872; 523122, 3607900; 523146, 3607916; 523184, 
3607935; 523213, 3607936; 523482, 3607950; 523517, 3607944; 523877, 
3607876; 523877, 3607682; 523877, 3607679; 523766, 3607383; 523766, 
3607278; 523766, 3607136; 523824, 3606885; 523852, 3606766; 523803, 
3606520; 523921, 3606493; 524081, 3606456; 524234, 3606421; 524481, 
3606347; 524690, 3606220; 524765, 3606175; 524765, 3606016; 524765, 
3605928; 524683, 3605828; 524543, 3605657; 524530, 3605361; 524650, 
3605138; 524671, 3605101; 524777, 3604904; 525282, 3604806; 525578, 
3604806; 526035, 3604695; 526230, 3604670; 526516, 3604633; 526910, 
3604411; 527231, 3604029; 527255, 3603647; 526225, 3603542; 524690, 
3603385; 524297, 3603345; 523949, 3603310; 523903, 3603328; 523826, 
3603359; 523716, 3603410; 523605, 3603418; 523436, 3603359; 523266, 
3603322; 523106, 3603322; 523097, 3603322; 522942, 3603314; 522817, 
3603233; 522669, 3603241; 522603, 3603263; 522456, 3603300; 522213, 
3603336; 522043, 3603359; 521851, 3603329; 521586, 3603373; 521484, 
3603416; 521409, 3603447; 521345, 3603523; 521328, 3603543; 521122, 
3603565; 520975, 3603646; 520739, 3603720; 520709, 3603808; 520677, 
3603808; 520628, 3603808; 520540, 3603712; 520400, 3603543; 520334, 
3603432; 520334, 3603410; 520334, 3603300; 520385, 3603115; 520385, 
3603114; 520385, 3603113; 520464, 3603111; 520464, 3603113; 520474, 
3603233; 520584, 3603292; 520761, 3603381; 520953, 3603432; 521100, 
3603395; 521196, 3603336; 521321, 3603189; 521439, 3603138; 521490, 
3603117; 521606, 3603071; 521491, 3603059; 520456, 3602953; 520365, 
3602944; 520029, 3602910; 519965, 3602946; 519875, 3602981; 519759, 
3603027; 519509, 3603020; 519398, 3603049; 519317, 3603182; 519221, 
3603292; 519182, 3603349; 519155, 3603388; 519140, 3603491; 519133, 
3603587; 519079, 3603707; 519185, 3603751; 519567, 3603838; 519740, 
3604109; 519866, 3604132; 520085, 3604171; 520274, 3604282; 520295, 
3604294; 520295, 3604553; 520272, 3604567; 520011, 3604726; 519849, 
3604862; 519616, 3605059; 519843, 3605118; 520085, 3605182; 520086, 
3605197; 520140, 3605842; 520155, 3605855; 520275, 3606158; 520282, 
3606387; 520231, 3606578; 520105, 3606689; 519958, 3606814; 519910, 
3606867; 519828, 3606956; 519789, 3606998; 519663, 3607212; 519612, 
3607448; 519612, 3607683; 519634, 3607809; 519744, 3608030; 519832, 
3608198; 519847, 3608229; 519870, 3608347; 519865, 3608495; 519862, 
3608604; 519833, 3608645; 519796, 3608697; 519783, 3608702; 519441, 
3608846; 519253, 3608924; 519089, 3608934; 519050, 3609038; 518903, 
3609193; 518903, 3609321; 518903, 3609331; 518920, 3609478; 518936, 
3609609; 518830, 3609666; 518749, 3609690; 518724, 3609690; 518664, 
3609617; 518651, 3609601; 518561, 3609584; 518504, 3609690; 518439, 
3609764; 518341, 3609837; 518264, 3609849; 518178, 3609861; 518047, 
3609764; 517933, 3609698; 517786, 3609723; 517705, 3609804; 517566, 
3609861; 517509, 3609919; 517436, 3609992; 517370, 3610049; 517352,

[[Page 28858]]

3610083; 517305, 3610171; 517150, 3610277; 516946, 3610343; 516710, 
3610326; 516660, 3610326; 516555, 3610326; 516473, 3610351; 516482, 
3610473; 516473, 3610579; 516514, 3610734; 516596, 3610791; 516571, 
3610864; 516490, 3611028; 516433, 3611240; 516433, 3611313; 516367, 
3611427; 516270, 3611460; 516188, 3611460; 516074, 3611525; 515878, 
3611533; 515826, 3611533; 515770, 3611533; 515584, 3611582; 515263, 
3611582; 515167, 3611555; 515092, 3611611; 515087, 3611615; 514997, 
3611634; 514932, 3611647; 514810, 3611696; 514688, 3611753; 514590, 
3611770; 514508, 3611639; 514440, 3611602; 514418, 3611590; 514263, 
3611566; 514141, 3611419; 513970, 3611354; 513774, 3611174; 513766, 
3611052; 513766, 3610954; 513760, 3610898; 513660, 3610830; 513636, 
3610721; 513574, 3610447; 513417, 3610447; 513216, 3610447; 512859, 
3610238; 512575, 3609966; 512608, 3609861; 512723, 3609486; 512255, 
3609486; 512057, 3609424; 511687, 3609288; 511661, 3609247; 511515, 
3609017; 511515, 3608758; 511626, 3608413; 511665, 3608355; 511733, 
3608254; 511835, 3608104; 511659, 3607857; 511589, 3607759; 511239, 
3607768; 511108, 3607771; 510454, 3607845; 510023, 3608043; 509996, 
3608030; 509560, 3607827; 509708, 3607543; 509814, 3607452; 509979, 
3607309; 510004, 3607259; 510115, 3607038; 510312, 3606766; 510300, 
3606629; 510288, 3606483; 510522, 3606199; 510732, 3606027; 510584, 
3605755; 510670, 3605484; 510769, 3605213; 510892, 3605077; 510898, 
3605077; 510933, 3605028; 511000, 3604987; 511089, 3604934; 511191, 
3604871; 511191, 3604777; 511207, 3604746; 511325, 3604730; 511427, 
3604691; 511591, 3604542; 511623, 3604416; 511656, 3604360; 511595, 
3604177; 511690, 3604061; 511829, 3603893; 511989, 3603560; 512187, 
3603474; 512433, 3603412; 512483, 3603178; 512483, 3602808; 512544, 
3602549; 512882, 3602163; 511729, 3602052; 511703, 3602049; 511655, 
3602045; 510059, 3601876; 509854, 3601854; 509239, 3601789; 509184, 
3601783; 509184, 3601818; 509184, 3601962; 509153, 3602049; 509148, 
3602120; 509145, 3602158; 509145, 3602237; 509011, 3602455; 509012, 
3602480; 508989, 3602528; 508918, 3602676; 508894, 3602699; 508810, 
3602802; 508785, 3602833; 508696, 3602926; 508636, 3602989; 508447, 
3603021; 508392, 3603076; 508361, 3603107; 508306, 3603201; 508328, 
3603322; 508330, 3603334; 508377, 3603515; 508377, 3603544; 508377, 
3603571; 508377, 3603732; 508377, 3603742; 508397, 3603792; 508413, 
3603831; 508494, 3604032; 508491, 3604051; 508476, 3604148; 508471, 
3604181; 508314, 3604244; 508110, 3604424; 508043, 3604558; 508024, 
3604597; 508061, 3604667; 508087, 3604714; 508133, 3604841; 508162, 
3604919; 508173, 3604949; 508162, 3604969; 508118, 3605051; 508157, 
3605263; 508094, 3605379; 508071, 3605420; 508173, 3605530; 508165, 
3605694; 508165, 3605993; 508165, 3606000; 508146, 3606094; 508126, 
3606196; 508118, 3606197; 508024, 3606209; 507875, 3606227; 507577, 
3606220; 507415, 3606091; 507391, 3606108; 507277, 3606189; 507137, 
3606288; 507023, 3606407; 506982, 3606450; 506870, 3606566; 506836, 
3606600; 506834, 3606602; 506825, 3606607; 506777, 3606635; 506582, 
3606751; 506581, 3606753; 506641, 3606774; 506671, 3606784; 506619, 
3606934; 506589, 3607018; 506430, 3607474; thence returning to 506421, 
3607499.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 8 (Otay) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 28859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.006

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28860]]

    (13) Unit 9: La Posta/Campo Unit, San Diego County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Cameron Corners, Live Oak 
Springs, Campo, Tierra Del Sol. Land bounded by the following Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 
coordinates (E, N): 555235, 3612703; 555266, 3612642; 555282, 3612538; 
555299, 3612347; 555299, 3612204; 555289, 3612185; 555286, 3612179; 
555258, 3612122; 555255, 3612116; 555250, 3612113; 555196, 3612065; 
555167, 3612040; 555141, 3612041; 554992, 3612051; 554790, 3612076; 
554773, 3612078; 554750, 3612088; 554644, 3612135; 554616, 3612172; 
555239, 3612178; thence returning to 555235, 3612703. Continue to 
556851, 3611831; 556851, 3611792; 556854, 3611388; 556857, 3610862; 
556857, 3610859; 556859, 3610589; 556859, 3610438; 556861, 3609806; 
556861, 3609643; 556862, 3608972; 556862, 3608918; 556767, 3608971; 
556662, 3609029; 556154, 3609661; 556051, 3609942; 555876, 3610417; 
555985, 3610583; 556046, 3610677; 556107, 3610771; 556044, 3611140; 
556015, 3611311; 556008, 3611382; 555969, 3611769; 556037, 3611820; 
556037, 3611884; 556041, 3611885; 556101, 3611901; 556214, 3611905; 
556239, 3611937; 556313, 3611993; 556440, 3612043; 556442, 3612043; 
556511, 3612053; 556578, 3611968; 556613, 3611912; 556684, 3611841; 
556758, 3611806; 556815, 3611806; 556832, 3611806; thence returning to 
556851, 3611831. Continue to 559269, 3608184; 559129, 3608366; 558512, 
3608706; 557788, 3608752; 557674, 3608729; 557672, 3608729; 557672, 
3608979; 557672, 3608979; 557793, 3608980; 558433, 3608985; 559266, 
3608992; 559267, 3608896; 559267, 3608810; 559267, 3608809; 559268, 
3608585; 559268, 3608448; 559268, 3608441; thence returning to 559269, 
3608184. Continue to 551183, 3617445; 551182, 3617374; 550771, 3617373; 
550851, 3617445; 551067, 3617445; thence returning to 551183, 3617445. 
Continue to 551992, 3617445; 552177, 3617445; 552670, 3617384; 552673, 
3617382; 552808, 3617319; 552870, 3617290; 552901, 3617276; 552934, 
3617205; 552977, 3617113; 553009, 3617045; 553009, 3617022; 553009, 
3616930; 553009, 3616705; 553009, 3616544; 553009, 3616397; 553101, 
3616282; 553194, 3616166; 553285, 3616149; 553340, 3616138; 553348, 
3616137; 553528, 3615859; 553528, 3615738; 553210, 3615735; 553209, 
3616137; 553101, 3616137; 552875, 3616135; 552874, 3616544; 552873, 
3616927; 552873, 3616929; 552873, 3616929; 552872, 3616985; 552810, 
3616984; 552398, 3616983; 552252, 3616983; 551991, 3616983; thence 
returning to 551992, 3617445. Continue to 556827, 3615793; 556828, 
3615737; 556830, 3615408; 556831, 3614590; 556831, 3614555; 556816, 
3614517; 556830, 3614504; 556831, 3614197; 556833, 3613792; 556834, 
3613792; 556835, 3613521; 556835, 3613453; 556837, 3613299; 556840, 
3612986; 556840, 3612930; 556842, 3612930; 556843, 3612929; 556844, 
3612929; 556844, 3612927; 556844, 3612927; 556802, 3612921; 556740, 
3612911; 556636, 3612867; 556619, 3612703; 556553, 3612654; 556515, 
3612626; 556479, 3612608; 556444, 3612590; 556423, 3612580; 556416, 
3612577; 556521, 3612314; 556400, 3612275; 556307, 3612263; 556206, 
3612250; 556186, 3612248; 556121, 3612242; 556039, 3612202; 556022, 
3612193; 556018, 3612187; 555967, 3612111; 555748, 3612067; 555710, 
3612089; 555707, 3612183; 555704, 3612270; 555660, 3612423; 555647, 
3612445; 555602, 3612514; 555590, 3612533; 555584, 3612544; 555577, 
3612572; 555545, 3612703; 555507, 3612900; 555458, 3613294; 555375, 
3613607; 555290, 3613781; 555280, 3613802; 555260, 3614054; 555275, 
3614501; 555306, 3614948; 555310, 3614990; 555337, 3615287; 555386, 
3615398; 555506, 3615673; 555626, 3615927; 555679, 3616039; 555707, 
3616099; 555753, 3616197; 556016, 3616272; 556184, 3616320; 556215, 
3616306; 556416, 3616218; 556437, 3616209; 556570, 3616151; thence 
returning to 556827, 3615793. Continue to 551599, 3614195; 551570, 
3614263; 551570, 3614263; 551526, 3614370; 551520, 3614383; 551521, 
3614511; 551527, 3615370; 551528, 3615536; 551160, 3615550; 551160, 
3615696; 551159, 3616111; 551186, 3616112; 551566, 3616122; 551567, 
3615699; 551568, 3615371; 551570, 3614568; 551600, 3614567; 551600, 
3614481; 551600, 3614370; 551599, 3614263; thence returning to 551599, 
3614195. Continue to 554425, 3615730; 554441, 3615730; 554522, 3615639; 
554643, 3615503; 554669, 3615392; 554705, 3615241; 554703, 3615200; 
554693, 3614945; 554663, 3614637; 554666, 3614487; 554669, 3614396; 
554795, 3614111; 554836, 3614027; 554844, 3614011; 554957, 3613779; 
555058, 3613574; 555093, 3613469; 555125, 3613372; 554837, 3613372; 
554834, 3613779; 554437, 3613777; 554435, 3613777; 554434, 3613580; 
554432, 3613580; 554433, 3613380; 554434, 3613175; 554435, 3613041; 
554435, 3612974; 554436, 3612795; 554436, 3612774; 554437, 3612565; 
554439, 3612565; 554440, 3612406; 554440, 3612406; 554408, 3612449; 
554411, 3612565; 554418, 3612773; 554419, 3612804; 554427, 3613038; 
554432, 3613175; 554433, 3613218; 554175, 3613196; 554175, 3613378; 
554175, 3613578; 554175, 3613771; 554102, 3613775; 554103, 3613775; 
554432, 3613777; 554433, 3613777; 554429, 3614501; 554429, 3614578; 
554425, 3615390; 554421, 3615720; 554425, 3615720; thence returning to 
554425, 3615730. Continue to 551780, 3613764; 551611, 3614166; 552008, 
3614166; 552272, 3614167; 552418, 3614167; 552419, 3613766; 552275, 
3613766; 552008, 3613765; thence returning to 551780, 3613764. Continue 
to 553772, 3613773; 553780, 3613744; 553775, 3613536; 553615, 3613536; 
553617, 3613402; 553617, 3613401; 553617, 3613344; 553549, 3613376; 
553194, 3613222; 552815, 3613352; 552815, 3613352; 552819, 3613767; 
553417, 3613772; 553612, 3613773; 553772, 3613774; thence returning to 
553772, 3613773.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 9 (La Posta/Campo) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 28861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN09.007

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 28862]]

    (14) Unit 10: Jacumba Unit, San Diego County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Jacumba, and Jacumba OE S. Land 
bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 573863, 3613297; 
574023, 3613274; 574161, 3613286; 574253, 3613292; 574396, 3613303; 
574510, 3613303; 574638, 3613245; 574759, 3613218; 574955, 3613176; 
575272, 3612817; 575656, 3612485; 575643, 3612410; 575643, 3612410; 
575586, 3612080; 575458, 3612014; 575458, 3612014; 575439, 3612004; 
575439, 3612004; 575245, 3611903; 575131, 3611815; 575017, 3611638; 
575017, 3611608; 575017, 3611608; 575017, 3611404; 574935, 3611182; 
575207, 3610803; 575428, 3610462; 575453, 3610310; 575637, 3610253; 
575798, 3610029; 575798, 3610029; 575801, 3610025; 575696, 3609704; 
575637, 3609610; 575634, 3609606; 575431, 3609284; 575322, 3609111; 
575204, 3608925; 575204, 3608842; 575204, 3608780; 575204, 3608757; 
575204, 3608606; 575204, 3608573; 575204, 3608558; 575172, 3608561; 
574790, 3608586; 574711, 3608610; 574601, 3608645; 574490, 3608679; 
574390, 3608710; 574377, 3608716; 574203, 3608800; 574198, 3608803; 
574018, 3608889; 573950, 3608954; 573770, 3609124; 573586, 3609379; 
573412, 3609620; 573227, 3609838; 573109, 3609978; 573149, 3610253; 
573259, 3610819; 573038, 3611122; 573002, 3611221; 572980, 3611281; 
572926, 3611429; 572872, 3611577; 572831, 3611688; 572824, 3611763; 
572807, 3611925; 572803, 3611958; 572762, 3612351; 572770, 3612391; 
572850, 3612772; 572860, 3612821; 573028, 3613163; 573037, 3613182; 
573049, 3613205; 573238, 3613440; 573433, 3613566; 573668, 3613480; 
573731, 3613440; 573737, 3613337; thence returning to 573863, 3613297.
    (ii) Note: Unit 10 (Jacumba) for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is 
depicted on the map in paragraph (13)(ii) of this entry.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 8, 2009,
 Jane Lyder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E9-13800 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S