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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A08-105

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** January 17, 2008
- **Citation:** 73 FR 3328

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006, 92210-1117-0000, ABC Code: B4]
50 CFR Part 17
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:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise currently designated critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
Euphydryas editha quino
) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 98,487 acres (ac) (39,857 hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed revised critical habitat designation: 23,494 ac (9,508 ha) are federally owned; 7,756 ac (3,139 ha) are owned by the State of California; 4,359 ac (1,764 ha) are Tribal lands; 7,739 ac (3,132 ha) are owned by city or county governments; and 55,139 ac (22, 314 ha) are privately owned. Of these 98,487 ac (39,857 ha), we are considering excluding 1,684 ac (681 ha) of land within the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan's City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, and 37,245 ac (15,073) of non-Federal land within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. Areas included in the proposed revision are in Riverside and San Diego Counties, California.

DATES:

We will accept comments from all interested parties until March 17, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
ADDRESSES
section by March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your comments and materials by one of the following methods:

•
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•
U.S. mail or hand-delivery:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1018-AV23; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the subspecies from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent;

(2) Specific information on:

• The amount and distribution of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat;

• What areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain features essential to the conservation of the subspecies we should include in the designation and why; and

• What areas not within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the subspecies and why;

(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat;

(4) Any probable economic, national security, or other impacts of designating any areas that may be included in the final designation, and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;

(5) Whether the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (under the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program):

• Is being implemented as set forth in the Plan;

• Provides the same or better level of protection from adverse modification or destruction than that provided through a consultation under section 7 of the Act;

• Provides for the implementation of conservation management strategies and actions for the foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or regulations; and

• Provides conservation strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology;

(6) Whether the Western Riverside County MSHCP:

• Is being implemented as set forth in the MSHCP and Implementing Agreement (IA) with regard to the Quino checkerspot butterfly;

• Provides the same or better level of protection from adverse modification or destruction of habitat essential to the conservation of the subspecies than that provided through consultation under section 7 of the Act;

• Provides for the implementation of conservation management strategies and actions for the foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or regulations; and

• Provides conservation strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology;

(7) Whether we should include or exclude the Tribal lands of the Cahuilla Band of Indians and Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians from final revised critical habitat and why;

(8) Whether there are areas we previously designated, but are not proposing for revised designation here, that should be designated as critical habitat; and

(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES
section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the
DATES
section in our final determination.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
http://www.regulations.gov
. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from

public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov
, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440.

Background

We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more information on the Quino checkerspot butterfly, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register
on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), the final rule designating critical habitat published in the
Federal Register
on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356), and the Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (
Euphydryas editha quino
) (recovery plan; Service 2003a). The recovery plan was co-authored by a Technical Recovery Team of seven expert biologists and ecologists (Service 2003a, p. ii), and provides a comprehensive scientific review and analysis of published and non-published information through 2002 relevant to conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. While an extensive amount of peer-reviewed, published scientific information is available on the species
Euphydryas editha
(Edith's checkerspot butterfly), such information specific to the Quino checkerspot butterfly subspecies is relatively sparse. Therefore, much of the information used in the final listing rule (62 FR 2313, January 16, 1997), the previous final rule designating critical habitat (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002), and the recovery plan (Service 2003a) has been based on research on other subspecies of Edith's checkerspot. A number of biological and ecological similarities exist among subspecies of Edith's checkerspot (Service 2003a, p. 7), including similar life histories, shared or related host plant species, and similar movement behavior. We believe that extrapolation of data collected on other Edith's checkerspot butterfly subspecies, particularly the federally endangered bay checkerspot butterfly (
Euphydryas editha bayensis
), to the Quino checkerspot butterfly is justified in most cases (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002).

Taxonomy and Biology

The Quino checkerspot butterfly is a member of the family Nymphalidae (brushfooted butterflies) and the subfamily Melitaeinae (checkerspots and fritillaries). The life cycle of the Quino checkerspot butterfly includes four distinct life stages: Egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and adult, with the larval stage divided into 5 to 7 instars (periods between molts, or shedding skin) (Service 2003a, p. 157). Typically there is one generation of adults per year, although larvae may remain in diapause (summer dormancy) for multiple years prior to maturation (Service 2003a, p. 8).

Distribution

The Quino checkerspot butterfly was historically distributed throughout the coastal portion of southern California (Los Angeles, Orange, western Riverside, San Diego, and southwestern San Bernardino Counties; Service 2003a, p. 32), and northern Baja California, Mexico (Mattoni,
et al.
1997, p. 105). The historical distribution of the Quino checkerspot butterfly included the westernmost slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles Plain and Transverse Ranges to the edge of the upper Anza-Borrego Desert, and south to El Rosario in Baja California, Mexico (Mattoni,
et al.
1997, pp. 104-105). Extant U.S. populations are apparently restricted to southwest Riverside and southern San Diego Counties (Service 2003a, p. 3; see further discussion below under Status and Local Distribution of Populations).

Behavior and Population Structure

Scientific information indicates that Quino checkerspot butterfly populations display metapopulation dynamics characterized by highly variable habitat occupancy patterns, 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 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, their probabilities of existing at a given time are 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). Ehrlich and Murphy (1987, p. 127) noted that the minimum viable population approach favored by many conservation biologists may not be appropriate for the Edith's checkerspot butterfly; instead, focus should be shifted toward “minimum viable metapopulations.” Minimum viable metapopulation size is the minimum number of interacting local populations (and available habitat patches) required to balance subpopulation extirpations and recolonizations, and therefore required for long-term persistence (Hanski,
et al.
1996, p. 527). No minimum viable metapopulation sizes have been assessed for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Metapopulation viability analyses have been conducted for other species of nymphalid butterflies (Schtickzelle and Baguette 2004, p. 277; Schtickzelle,
et al.
2005, p. 89) and one species within the genus
Euphydryas
(Wahlberg,
et al.
2002, p. 224); however, these analyses are not applicable to Quino checkerspot butterfly as these studies all examined species that occur in other types of habitats (e.g., forest clear cuts, bogs, and marshes).

Harrison (1989, p. 1241) found that, although dispersal direction from habitat patches seemed to be random in the bay checkerspot butterfly, dispersing butterflies were likely to move into habitat patches when they passed within approximately 163 feet (ft) (50 meters (m)) of those habitat patches. Dispersing butterflies were most likely to remain in habitat patches where existing bay checkerspot 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 consistently occupied “source” habitat. High habitat colonization rates probably only occur during rare outbreak years, when 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 subspecies' survival (Murphy and White 1984, p. 353; Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127).

Delineating Population Footprints (Distribution)

Our ability to delineate individual population footprints (distribution) for

the Quino checkerspot butterfly is limited to correlating presence-absence survey observations with mapped habitat components. Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat patches are defined in any given year by adult movement within annually shifting host plant and nectar source distributions. Geographic population footprints have not been quantified for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, the recovery plan discusses Quino checkerspot butterfly population locations in terms of “occurrence complexes” (Service 2007, p. 35), which are our best estimators based on recorded movement distances (see below discussion). Occurrence complexes are mapped in the recovery plan using a 0.6 mile (mi) (1 kilometer (km)) movement radius from each butterfly observation, and may be based on the observation of a single individual. Occurrences within approximately 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 the observed butterflies were likely to have come from the same population (Service 2003a, p. 35). All post-listing butterfly observations are classified as occurrence complexes, and the only one considered extirpated is Harford Springs. Occurrence complexes may expand due to new observation locations, or contract due to habitat loss (e.g. occurrence complexes defined in part by development, see Service 2003a, p. 78). Information regarding habitat within and contiguous with an occurrence complex must be used to estimate population distributions associated with occurrence complexes (Service 2003a, p. 35).

Long-distance movement in bay checkerspot butterflies has been documented as far as 4 mi (6.4 km; 1 male) (Murphy and Ehrlich 1980, p. 319), 3.5 mi (5.6 km; 1 male), and 2 mi (3 km; 1 female) (Harrison 1989, p. 1239). White and Levin (1981) conducted the only mark-recapture movement study including Quino checkerspot butterflies. White and Levin (1981) studied within-habitat patch movement of the Quino and bay checkerspot butterfly subspecies. They concluded that patterns of dispersal changed “dramatically” from year to year (White and Levin 1981, p. 348), and Quino checkerspot butterflies were less sedentary than the more heavily studied bay checkerspot butterflies (White and Levin 1981, p. 105). The high rate of dispersal observed by White and Levin (1981, p. 348), when it occurs during outbreak events, would result in expansion of existing population distributions, and recolonization of habitat patches where subpopulations have been extirpated within a metapopulation distribution, as hypothesized by Murphy and White (1984, p. 353).

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), recorded movement distances were limited by 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” (1981, p. 353). 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 (Service 2003a, p. 35). The size of occurrence complexes is defined as the total area encompassed by all 1.2 mi (2 km) movement radii from individual butterfly observation locations. New occurrence information since 2002 supports expanding some occurrence complexes and/or merging some separate occurrence complexes that were previously described in the Quino checkerspot butterfly recovery plan.

Some occurrence complexes were identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 35) as “core.” Core occurrence complexes are those that, based on geographic size, number of reported individuals, and repeated observations, appear to be centers of population density. Such population density centers are likely to contain “source” habitat (supporting “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), 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). A source population is one in which the emigration rate typically exceeds the immigration rate (therefore a source of colonists for unoccupied habitat patches within a population footprint), although they are not necessarily more stable than non-source populations (Service 2003a, p. 166).

Status and Local Distribution of Populations in Riverside County

The recovery plan identified 7 core and 18 non-core occurrence complexes in western Riverside County: Harford Springs (non-core); Canyon Lake (non-core); Warm Springs Creek (core); Warm Springs Creek North (non-core); Skinner/Johnson (core); Domenigoni Valley (non-core); Sage (core); Black Hills (non-core); San Ignaciao (non-core); Rocky Ridge (non-core); Wilson Valley (core); Vail Lake (core); Butterflied/Radec (non-core); Aguanga (non-core); Dameron Valley (non-core); Billy Goat Mountain (non-core); Brown Canyon (non-core); Southwest Cahuilla (non-core); Tule Peak (core); Silverado (core); Spring Canyon (non-core); Cahuilla Creek (non-core); Bautista Road (non-core); Pine Meadow (non-core); and Lookout Mountain (non-core) (Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41, 44). Occurrence data collected in Riverside County since the recovery plan was published in 2003 has resulted in expansion of all core occurrence complexes, and merging of some core occurrence complexes with non-core occurrence complexes (see discussion below). Quino checkerspot butterflies have not been observed in the Harford Springs (non-core) Occurrence Complex or other proximal historic locations since 1986, and therefore are no longer considered extant in that area.

Development has reduced the quality, connectivity, and amount of associated habitat in the Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex since the recovery plan was published in 2003 (Allen and Preston 2006, p. 7). Although habitat associated with this core occurrence complex may support a declining population, the Quino checkerspot butterfly captive rearing facility is also located within this area, and it is likely to be a site of focused population management and augmentation in the future. Despite concern for the viability of this population, several experts have expressed the opinion that this core occurrence complex represents an important Quino checkerspot butterfly population that has potential to persist indefinitely if the remaining habitat is conserved and managed (Ballmer,
et al.
2003, p. 2; Ballmer and Osborne 2005, pp. 1-2; Allen and Preston 2006, pp. 10-12). Because the Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex has been isolated from other core occurrence complexes (Service 2003a, p. 41) and recent development has reduced and fragmented habitat in this area (Allen and Preston 2006, p. 7),

remaining contiguous habitat, including habitat more than one km distant from observation locations (outside of the mapped occurrence complexes), is likely the minimum area needed to support a viable managed population. Therefore, we have determined that the Warm Springs Creek North (non-core) Occurrence Complex (Service 2003a, p. 39) and habitat contiguous with the Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex habitat should be considered a single population footprint and merged with the Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a) into a single, expanded Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex. The expanded Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex is a constrained population distribution defined by remaining undeveloped, connected habitat associated with Quino checkerspot butterfly observations in this area.

Occurrence data collected in Riverside County since listing (62 FR 2313, January 16, 1997) has continued almost annually to expand the known northeastern limits of the subspecies' range (Pratt,
et al.
2001, pp. 169-171; Service 2003a, p. 44; Poopatanapong 2008, pp. 2, 4). The recovery plan identified four non-core occurrence complexes east of Temecula in the foothills and valleys south of Mount San Jacinto: Brown Canyon (Service 2003a, p. 41), Bautista Road, Pine Meadow, and Lookout Mountain (Service 2003a, p. 44). The Bautista Road (described as non-core in the recovery plan) Occurrence Complex is in a valley east of Temecula and north of the town of Anza. Multiple new observations have occurred within and around the Bautista Road Occurrence Complex (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Mooney Jones & Stokes 2005, p. 10). Consistent with criteria outlined in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 35), we now consider the Bautista Road Occurrence Complex to be a core occurrence complex. As described below, from 2004 to 2006, multiple new observation locations were also reported in the town of Anza, and north and northwest of the Bautista Road (core), Pine Grove (non-core), and Lookout Mountain (non-core) occurrence complexes, resulting in new non-core occurrence complexes and expansion of the subspecies' known range (Service Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database). The new non-core occurrence complexes are: the Cave Rocks Occurrence Complex within the town of Anza, just north of the intersection of Bautista Road and State Route (SR) 371 (AMEC 2004, p. 9); the Quinn Flat Occurrence Complex located between Forbes Ranch Road and Morris Ranch Road northeast of Quinn Flat and SR 74 (Pratt 2005, p. 1; Toth 2005, p. 1; San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) GIS database); the Horse Creek Occurrence Complex adjacent to Bautista Road, southeast of Bautista Spring (AMEC 2004, p. 6; Malisch 2006, p. 1); and the North Rouse Ridge Occurrence Complex located on Rouse Ridge in the hills east of Bautista Canyon, near where Bautista Road exits the foothills (Toth 2005, p. 1; Poopatanapong 2007, pp. 2, 4; SBNF GIS database).

Recent monitoring information indicates that 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 footprint supporting periodic outbreak events, similar to historic events (Service 2003a, p. 29) such as the 1977 outbreak reported by Murphy and White (1984, p. 351; Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127) in San Diego County (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). The hundreds of adults observed during surveys in the Tule Peak Core Occurrence Complex in 2001 were unprecedented, 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 2007a, p. 1; CFWO 2004; Pratt 2004, pp. 16, 17). Moreover, over 30 new occurrence locations with high adult densities were reported in 2004 in the vicinity of Tule Peak Road (92 to over 100 observations in a single day) south of the Cahuilla Band of Indians Tribal lands and the town of Anza (Osborne 2004, pp. 1-6, 8-10; Anderson 2007a, p. 5; CFWO 2004; Osborne 2007, pp. 13-16). These new observations prompted us 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.

Available scientific information (including recent outbreaks in the closest core occurrence complexes) suggests the new Bautista Core Occurrence Complex and other non-core occurrence complexes north of the town of Anza are the result of recent colonization events and an ongoing range shift for this subspecies northward and upward in elevation. Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that the average position of known Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations (including the Quino checkerspot butterfly) has shifted northward and upward in elevation, apparently due to a warming, drying climate, and the recovery plan confirms this (Service 2003a, p. 64). Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) compared the distribution of 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 range-wide patterns of local extirpations of Edith's checkerspot butterflies, and noted that populations in the southern part of the range (primarily the Quino checkerspot butterfly) experienced 80 percent of all recorded local extirpations (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766). Parmesan (1996, pp. 765-766) concluded that this pattern of extirpations indicated contraction of the southern boundary of the subspecies' overall distribution by almost 100 mi (160 km), and a shift in the average location of a Edith's checkerspot butterfly occurrence northward by 57 mi (92 km). This shift in range closely matched shifts in mean yearly temperature (Parmesan 1996, pp. 765-766). Studies have demonstrated a correlation of population distribution and phenology changes with climate changes 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; Thomas,
et al.
2006, pp. 146-147, 251; 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 also 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). Such similar climate response patterns in related and co-occurring insect species further support the validity of Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766) Quino

checkerspot butterfly observations and conclusions.

Documentation of climate-related 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; Brashears,
et al.
2005, p. 15144), and future drought predictions for California (e.g., 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; Brashears,
et al.
2005, p. 15144; Seager,
et al.
2007, p. 1181) and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9) indicate prolonged drought and other climate-related changes will continue into the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these changes will affect Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat and populations. Thomas,
et al.
(2004, p. 147) estimated 29 percent of species in scrublands (habitat for 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). The most-recent subspecies-specific evidence corresponds with the hypothesis that drought conditions at the northern edge of the subspecies' range is resulting in ongoing range shift at the northern edge of the range to more northern and higher elevation areas that experience higher precipitation: Surveyors noted that during drought conditions in 2007, 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).

The Anza/Mount San Jacinto foothills area (Bautista care occurrence complex) is the northern extent of the range of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and supports the greatest elevational gradient within the extant range of the butterfly. Indications that maintenance of the Tule Peak/Silverado and Bautista Road core occurrence complexes, and maintenance of habitat connectivity to higher elevation non-core occurrence complexes, is needed to prevent a significant increase in the subspecies' extinction probability (Service 2003a, pp. 46, 47; Osborne 2007, pp. 9-10) include the following: Parmesan's subspecies-specific study (Parmesan 1996); recent documented Quino checkerspot butterfly outbreak events (discussed above); the complete lack of Quino checkerspot butterfly observations in Riverside County during 2007 monitoring; documented drought conditions and the likelihood that recurrent drought conditions will persist into the foreseeable future; and the likelihood that the new non-core occurrence complexes in the most northern, highest elevation habitat areas (Pine Grove, Lookout Mountain, Quinn Flat, Horse Creek, Cave Rocks, and the North Rouse Ridge) are a result of colonization from lower elevation populations over the past 10-15 years (such as the Bautista Road and Tule Peak/Silverado core occurrence complexes). Parmesan's (1996, pp. 765-766) range-shift statistics predict the following Quino checkerspot butterfly population changes: (1) Declines in, and losses of, the southernmost and/or lowest elevation populations, especially in drier areas where rainfall is most variable (such as southwest Riverside County; Anderson 2000, pp. 3, 6); (2) increases in the density and resilience of the most northern and/or highest elevation populations, especially in wetter areas (such as the Anza area; Service 2003a, p. 44); and (3) establishment of new populations, or expansion of existing populations, northward and upward in elevation where range shift is the least impeded by habitat loss due to land-use changes (such as the Mount San Jacinto foothills; Service GIS database and satellite imagery). Anza area core occurrence complexes (Tule Peak/Silverado and Bautista Road) also support the highest (co-occurring) diversity of host plant species (
Plantago patagonica, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Cordylanthus rigidus,
and
Castilleja exserta
) within the range of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, a factor known to mitigate the effects of climate extremes on Edith's checkerspot butterfly populations (Hellman 2002, p. 925). In light of the recent warming and drying trends (see above discussion), prudent design of reserves and other managed habitats in the Anza area, where the subspecies range is expanding northward and upward in elevation should include landscape connectivity to other habitat patches and ecological connectivity (habitat patches linked by dispersal areas; Service 2003a, p. 162) in order to accommodate range shifts northward and upward in elevation (Service 2003a, p. 64). Although habitat quality may be changing throughout the subspecies range, suitable habitat north and upward in elevation of the southernmost populations is already occupied, and colonization events associated with climate change are likely only occurring in the Anza area.

Status and Local Distribution of Populations in San Diego County

The recovery plan identifies 4 core and 10 non-core occurrence complexes in southwest San Diego County surrounding Otay Mountain and Otay Lakes: West Otay Mesa (non-core), Otay Valley (core); West Otay Mountain (core); Otay Lakes/Rancho Jamul (core); Proctor Valley (non-core); Jamul (non-core); Hidden Valley (non-core); Rancho San Diego (non-core); Los Montañas (non-core); Honey Springs (non-core); Dulzura (non-core); Marron Valley (core); Barrett Junction (non-core), and Tecate (non-core) occurrence complexes (Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41, 44). 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 is further supported by the recovery plan, which noted that occupied habitat in the vicinity of Otay Lakes and Rancho Jamul is an area of key landscape connectivity for all subpopulations in southwest San Diego County (Service 2003a, pp. 53, 54).

Following publication of the recovery plan in 2003, the Otay Fire severely burned habitats where the majority of Quino checkerspot butterflies had been observed within southwest San Diego County (IBAERT 2003, pp. 89-90), including most of the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex. In 2005, the smaller Border 50 Fire burned most habitat within the Marron Valley Core Occurrence Complex west of Otay Mountain that was not burned in the 2003 Otay Fire (Service GIS database). Although post-fire monitoring surveys indicated no populations were completely extirpated by the 2003 and 2005 fires (CFWO 2004, 2005, 2006; Anderson 2007b, p. 2), Quino checkerspot butterfly densities and the extent of occupied habitat appeared to be reduced, and surveyors reported an apparent increased rate of exotic plant species invasion (Anderson 2007b, pp. 2-3). An indirect threat exacerbated by fire damage is increased invasion of habitat by nonnative plant species, resulting in reduction of Quino checkerspot butterfly host plants through competition (Service 2003a, pp. 57-58, 60-61). Catastrophic fire has been implicated in the final extirpation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly from Orange County (Service 2003a, pp. 30, 60-61), therefore widespread catastrophic fire impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat within this core occurrence complex, are likely to

affect the survival probability of the subspecies in southwest San Diego County (Service 2003a, pp. 60-61).

The effects of fire on Quino checkerspot butterfly populations in southwest San Diego County were evident in 2007. The northernmost occupied areas within the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex (Honey Springs and Dulzura non-core occurrence complexes as identified in the recovery plan) had the highest densities of adult butterflies and supported the most reproduction (observed larvae) of any known occupied areas in 2007 (CFWO 2007). These areas were not affected by the 2003 Otay and 2005 Border 50 fires. Therefore, observed relatively high Quino checkerspot butterfly abundance in 2007 in the Honey Springs and Dulzura areas (CFWO 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) was primarily due to the lack of recent fire impacts (Anderson 2007b, p. 3). In 2007, the Harris Fire perimeter encompassed approximately 72% of the new Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex, including the northern areas that were not affected by fire in 2003 or 2005 (Service GIS database). Habitat damage within the 2007 fire perimeter is still being assessed.

Several widely distributed new observation locations have been reported in central San Diego County since 2002 (Dudek 2005, p. 1; Faulkner 2005, p. 1; Tierra Environmental Services 2005, p. 4), resulting in three new San Diego County non-core occurrence complexes (Fanita Ranch, Sycamore Canyon, and Mission Trails Park). Although these Quino checkerspot butterfly populations may contribute to the subspecies' recovery (Service 2003a, pp. 86-88), 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. Given the proximity of these occurrence complexes to historical collection locations (Service 2003a, p. 3), observed and predicted climate trends and associated population dynamic/range changes (see above discussion), and the relative isolation of these occurrence complexes from areas known to be occupied at the time of listing, it is likely they represent residual, low-density populations decreasing in 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 2005, pp. 1-2; 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 core occurrence complex, 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). Although not quite proximal enough to be considered a single occurrence complex based on overlapping movement distances (Service 2003a, p. 35), we consider this cluster of new observations near Campo to belong to a new, independent La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex that we believe represents a population density center likely to contain source habitat (i.e., core occurrence complex) based on: (1) Recent documentation of these occupied habitats; (2) the small number of surveys conducted in this area in the past (Service survey report files) resulting in a low likelihood of detection; (3) contiguous habitat linked by short dispersal areas (e.g., a stream butterflies can fly over) between observation locations (Service GIS vegetation database and satellite imagery); and (4) the presence of
Antirrhinum coulterianum
(white snapdragon) host plants in occupied habitat (O'Connor 2006, pp. 2-4). White snapdragon had not been previously recorded in occupied Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat in San Diego County (Service survey report files). White snapdragon densities recorded in the vicinity of Campo (O'Connor 2006, pp. 2-4) were relatively high, and similar to those observed in the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex in Riverside County, the only core occurrence complex where recent Quino checkerspot butterfly “outbreak events” have been recorded (see above discussion).

Quino checkerspot butterflies have recently been observed in two new locations in southeast San Diego County near Jacumba (identified as the Jacumba East and Jacumba West occurrence complexes) (Essex and Osborne 2005, p. 82; Klein 2007, p. 1). Additionally, data collected from the Jacumba Occurrence Complex since publication of the recovery plan has 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 and small number of observed individuals. 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). As many as 50 individuals are estimated to have been observed in one day near Jacumba Peak (Pratt 2007c, p. 1). Furthermore, reproduction was documented in the Jacumba Occurrence Complex in 1998 and again in 2004 (Pratt 2007a, p. 1). Therefore, we now consider Jacumba to be a core occurrence complex representing what appears to be a small, but resilient, population.

The prediction that drought conditions are likely to continue into the foreseeable 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 complexes 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 likely is important for recovery and survival of the Quino checkerspot butterfly in San Diego County. These new core occurrence complexes were also the only core occurrence complexes in San Diego County (the subspecies' southern range) not affected by the fires in 2003 and 2005 (see above discussion). Therefore, new information indicates the La Posta/Campo and Jacumba core occurrence complexes contribute significantly to reducing the subspecies' extinction probability.

Previous Federal Actions

For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Quino checkerspot butterfly, refer to the final critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register
on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356) and the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register
on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). In March 2005, the Homebuilders Association of Northern California,
et al.,
filed suit against the Service challenging the merits of the final critical habitat designations for several species, including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In March 2006, a settlement was reached that required the Service to re-evaluate five final critical habitat designations, including critical habitat designated for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The settlement stipulated that any proposed revisions to the Quino checkerspot butterfly designation would be submitted for publication to the

Federal Register
on or before December 7, 2007. A court-approved amendment to the settlement agreement extended this deadline for submission to the
Federal Register
to January 8, 2008.

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 species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.

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 government or public access to 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) may apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal action agency's and the applicant'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.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must contain physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Consistent with this requirement, the Service identifies, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas on which are found primary constituent elements (PCEs), as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), and identifies the quantity and spatial arrangement of such areas to ensure that the areas designated as critical habitat are essential for the conservation of the species. To be included in the designation, the features at issue must also be ones that may require special management considerations or protection.

Under the Act, we can designate areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed as critical habitat 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 proposed 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, 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 critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine, based on scientific data not now available to the Service, are essential for the conservation of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.

Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented by the Service and other Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by 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, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available to determine areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the butterfly. We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this subspecies. These sources included, but were not limited to, the final rule to list this subspecies (62 FR 2313; January 16, 1997); data and information published in peer-reviewed articles; data and information contained in the recovery plan (Service 2003); survey and research reports submitted to the Service, including reports required by 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; information provided by subspecies experts, including the subspecies' recovery team; data submitted during section 7 consultations; and regional GIS data.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot

butterfly based on its biological needs. We consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species to be the primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. As described at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a species, and that may require special management considerations or protection, 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, 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.

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.
1007, p. 112), habitats 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 2003, pp. 10-11). White and Levin (1981, pp. 350, 351) found that adult Quino checkerspot butterfly's within-habitat patch movement distances from larval host plant patches to adult nectar sources often exceeded 656 ft (200 m).

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

Because of their exothermic (cold-blooded) metabolism (Service 2003a, p. 18) and need to complete their life cycle in as short a time as possible (Service 2003a, p. 20), larval and adult Quino checkerspot butterflies require an open, woody canopy that allows sun to penetrate and speed their metabolic rate.

Within open, woody-canopy communities, larvae seek microclimates with high solar exposure (Weiss,
et al.
1987, p. 161; Weiss,
et al.
1988, p. 1487; Osborne and Redak 2000, p. 113). 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).

Quino checkerspot butterfly oviposition (egg deposition) has most often been documented on dwarf plantain (
Plantago erecta
), woolly plantain (
Plantago patagonica
), and white snapdragon (
Anterrhinum coulterianum
) (Service 2003a, p. 14-18). Egg clusters and/or pre-diapause larval clusters (proof of adult oviposition) have also been documented in the field on thread-leaved bird's beak (
Cordylanthus rigidus
) and purple owl's-clover (
Castilleja exserta
) (Service 2003a, pp. 14-18).
Cordylanthus rigidus
and
Castilleja exserta
alone are not believed to be sufficient to support Quino checkerspot butterfly breeding; therefore, other species of host plant must co-exist within approximately 328 ft (100 m) of these species of host plant for habitat to support breeding (Service 2003, pp. 16-17).

During the first two instars, pre-diapause larvae cannot move more than a few centimeters and feed on the host plant on which the adult female butterfly deposited eggs (primary host plant species). Third instar larvae usually wander independently in search of food and may switch to feeding on a secondary host plant species (Service 2003, 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 2003, p. 17). Although
Plantago erecta
densities required for larval development have been estimated (Service 2003, pp. 22-23), it is not always possible any given year to determine typical host plant densities because germinating host plants may be entirely consumed by larvae, or when precipitation levels have been below-average, seeds may not germinate and larvae may remain in diapause (Service 2003, p. 23).

Adult checkerspot butterflies of the genus Euphydryas have a short tongue, approximately 0.43 inches (in) (11 millimeters (mm)) in length (Pratt 2007b, p. 1), and typically cannot feed on flowers that have deep corolla tubes or flowers evolved to be opened by bees (Service 2003a, p. 19). 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 (
Lomatium
spp.), goldenstar (
Muilla
spp.), fiddleneck (
Amsinckia
spp.), goldfields (
Lasthenia
spp.), and popcorn flowers (
Plagiobothrys
and
Cryptantha
spp.) (Service 2003a, p. 19). Adults may nectar on flowers with a corolla length nearly a centimeter longer than their proboscis (0.59-1.10 in (15-28 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).

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 Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae prefer to diapause in or near the base of native shrubs, such as California buckwheat (
Eriogonum fasciculatum
).

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring

Male Quino checkerspot butterflies, and to a lesser extent females, are frequently observed on hilltops and ridgelines (CFWO GIS Quino checkerspot butterfly database, Osborne 2001, pp. 1-2; Pratt 2001, p. 59). In Edith's checkerspot butterflies, this tendency of females to move upwards in elevation and of males to defend hilltops (“hilltopping behavior”) increases 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). On hilltops where males are likely to encounter virgin females, the males will defend their territory from other males; therefore, higher ground can serve as a “visual beacon” to enhance mating success (Baughman and Murphy 1988, p. 119; Ehrlich and Wheye 1988, pp. 460-461; Mattoni,
et al.
1997, p. 109). Hilltopping has been observed in Quino checkerspot butterflies (Mattoni
et al.
1997, p. 110, Osborne 2001, pp. 1-2). Like other subspecies of Edith's checkerspot, adult Quino checkerspot butterflies are reliably observed on hilltops in occupied habitat (Service GIS database), even in the absence of larval host plants (Osborne 2001, pp. 1-2; Pratt 2001, p. 59); therefore, hilltops and ridgelines provide features essential for breeding in local populations.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

For areas within the geographical area occupied by the Quino checkerspot

butterfly at the time of listing, we must identify the primary constituent elements (PCEs) 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 have determined the Quino checkerspot butterfly's PCEs are:

(1) Open areas within scrublands at least 21.5 square feet (ft) (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
, or
Antirrhinum coulterianum;
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
Plantago erecta, Plantago patagonica,
or
Antirrhinum coulterianum;
or

(D) Contain flowering plants with a corolla tube less than or equal to 0.43 inches (11 millimeters) used for Quino checkerspot butterfly growth, reproduction, and 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, linked by open areas and natural vegetation (PCE 2) to open canopy areas (PCE 1) containing an open, woody-canopy area at least 21.5 square ft (2 square m) in size used for Quino checkerspot butterfly mating (hilltopping behavior).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 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 thought to be responsible for its decline were reduction and fragmentation of habitat by urban and agricultural development and recreational activities, over-collection, vandalism, fire, and drought. Threats described in the listing rule, as well as trash dumping, nitrogen deposition, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and climate change, were listed as active or probable threats in the final designation of critical habitat (67 FR 18356) published April 15, 2002. Current threats to the subspecies and management needs were described in detail in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, pp. 55-65). They are: (1) Loss and fragmentation of habitat and landscape connectivity; (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, etc.) (Service 2003a, pp. 55-65). This results in a loss of PCEs. For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration resulted in an approximate 30 percent loss in seed production of
Plantago lanceolata
(Jablonski,
et al.
2002, p. 14), and increased temperatures caused an approximate 5 percent reduction in reproductive duration (Sherry,
et al.
2007, p. 200), indicating reduced host plant density and phenological availability under current and predicted climate conditions (Service 2003a, pp. 62-65; see Background section above). In addition, development activities can result in the loss of open, woody-canopy native scrublands and hilltops (space for normal behavior and larval diapausing sites) and fragmentation of habitat and landscape connectivity.

Management needs and actions recommended by 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 2003a, 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 2003a, 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 2003a, 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 firearm use and trash dumping in habitat (Service 2003a, p. 109); and (9) prudent design of managed habitats to include landscape connectivity (habitat) and ecological connectivity (wildlands that may not currently include habitat) (Service 2003a, pp. 65, 96).

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat

There is a lack of specific knowledge regarding distribution of occupancy within the greater historical range of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Edith's checkerspot butterfly subspecies' occupancy within population distributions is generally shifting and ephemeral (see Background Section above). Therefore, the appropriate scale for determining Quino checkerspot butterfly occupancy at the time of listing is the population distribution level, and criteria for determining habitat required to support a population should incorporate long-term occupancy data as well as movement distances in order to include all habitat necessary to support continued occupancy by the population. The process we used is described below.

To delineate proposed revised critical habitat, we first determined occupancy within the extant range of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Occupancy status was determined using occurrence data from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office GIS database and associated survey reports. Areas containing occurrence records from 1999 or later were considered currently occupied. We then 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 in the
Federal Register
on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). Core occurrence complexes recorded within 4 years of listing that contained repeated observations of a large number of individuals (relative to all known occupied locations), and were more than 4 mi (6.4 km; the maximum recorded Edith's checkerspot dispersal distance) from other occurrence complexes known to be occupied at the time of listing were also considered to be occupied at the time of listing on the basis that these parameters indicate such areas were not colonized post-listing.

Once we determined the extant range of the subspecies and identified all occupied habitat, we used the following rule set to identify areas for inclusion in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat. As described further in the Background section above, core occurrence complexes appear to be population density centers likely to contain source habitat based on

geographic size, number of reported individuals, repeated observations, and/or documented reproduction. Therefore, we believe that core occurrence complexes are the most likely to persist into the future and provide emigrants to other populations, and, as such, are essential to the recovery of this subspecies. We first identified seven core occurrence complexes that were known to be occupied at the time of listing (Warm Springs Creek, Skinner/ Johnson, Vail Lake, Sage, Wilson Valley, Tule Peak/Silverado, Otay Mountain). Furthermore, we identified two new core occurrence complexes (Bautista Road and La Posta/Campo) that were not known to have been occupied at the time of listing (see Background section above).

Within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing, to delineate all the core occurrence complexes we grouped occurrence records together that were within 0.6 mi (1 km) of each other as one core occurrence (as described further in the Background Section above). We then identified the extent of habitat needed to support each represented population by including additional contiguous habitat that contained the PCEs within 0.6 mi (1 km movement distance, see Background section above) of the mapped core occurrence complex areas. This criterion used biological and geographic information (primarily GIS host plant occurrence data, vegetation layers, and satellite imagery) to capture a habitat-based population footprint associated with each core occurrence complex necessary to support continued occupancy of each complex.

When delineating the habitat-based population footprint for each core occurrence complex, we examined all identified habitat to ensure that all areas contained one or more PCEs in the quantity and spatial arrangement to provide the features essential to this subspecies. Any areas that did not appear to contain the PCEs were removed. We did this by using biological and geographic information (primarily GIS vegetation layers and satellite imagery). Habitat delineation after addition of contiguous habitat outside of occurrence complex movement radii, and removal of non-habitat within movement radii, is our best scientific estimate of population footprints (occupied areas) associated with core occurrence complexes.

As previously stated, we identified two new core occurrence complexes that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing (Bautista Road and La Posta/Campo). At La Posta/Campo, we consider all recently identified clusters of occurrence records to be a single core occurrence complex (as described further in the Background section above). Similar to the core occurrence complexes known to be occupied at the time of listing, we grouped occurrence records together that were within 0.6 mi (1 km) of each other. We then identified the extent of habitat needed to support each represented population by including additional contiguous habitat that contained the PCEs within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the mapped core occurrence complex areas. This process grouped all recent records into one complex and identified the habitat-based population footprint associated with this core occurrence complex necessary to support continued occupancy. Finally, we examined all identified habitat to ensure that all areas contained one or more PCEs in the quantity and spatial arrangement to provide the features essential to this subspecies. Any areas that did not appear to contain the PCEs were removed.

We closely examined the new Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex and determined that the status of this core occurrence complex reflects a shift in the Quino checkerspot butterfly's range, correlated with increased temperatures and drought conditions in the region (see Background section above). Recognizing the predictions by Parmesan (1996, p. 765; 2006, pp. 647-648) and Seager,
et al.
(2007, pp. 1181, 1183, 1184), we expect range shift northward and upward in elevation in this region to continue as climate models predict above-average temperatures and drought conditions into the foreseeable future (see Background section above; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). Therefore, consistent with recommendations in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 65), we delineated additional habitat containing the PCEs that was contiguous with the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex, to also capture landscape connectivity to three non-core occurrence complexes (Pine Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek) that are higher in elevation and/or further north.

Inclusion of lands supporting core occurrence complexes is necessary to ensure the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly, and therefore consistent with 50 CFR § 424.12(e), we have delineated areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the subspecies contiguous with the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex for inclusion in the proposed revision to critical habitat. The unoccupied habitat connects this core occurrence complex with other occupied (non-core) areas at Pine Grove, Lookout Mountain, and Horse Creek.

When determining the proposed revisions to critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including (within the boundaries of the map contained within this proposed revision to critical habitat) 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 the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed revision to critical habitat have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the PCEs of critical habitat.

Our delineation of proposed revisions to critical habitat includes lands owned by the Cahuilla Band of Indians and the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. The Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex, which was occupied at the time of listing, overlaps with Cahuilla Band of Indians Tribal lands in Riverside County. These lands contain scrublands with openings of at least 21.5 square feet (ft) (2 square m) in size containing host and nectar plants for feeding, hilltops areas for mating within 656 ft (200 m) of an open area containing host and nectar plants for feeding, and natural vegetation or open areas for movement and basking. These lands support the quantity and spatial arrangement of the PCEs necessary to conserve the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex, and therefore, we are including Cahuilla Band of Indians Tribal lands in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat. Similarly, we determined that the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex, which is not known to have been occupied at the time of listing, overlaps with Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians Tribal lands in San Diego County. These lands contain scrublands with openings of at least 21.5 square feet (ft) (2 square m) in size containing host and nectar plants for feeding, hilltops areas for mating within 656 ft (200 m) of an open area containing host and nectar plants for feeding, and natural vegetation or open areas for movement and basking. These

lands support the quantity and spatial arrangement of the PCEs necessary to conserve the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex, and therefore, we are including Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians Tribal lands in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat.

No management for conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly is currently occurring on Tribal lands, nor do any draft management plans exist. However, we have met with both affected Tribes, and we have agreed to work with them to develop management plans for the subspecies prior to designation of critical habitat. Should management plans be completed prior to finalization of this critical habitat rule, we will evaluate any submitted plans in consideration of Secretarial Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (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) in relation to the conservation benefits to the subspecies, the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, and the appropriateness of excluding Tribal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

We are proposing to revise the existing critical habitat designation and propose to designate critical habitat in areas that we have determined are within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, and in areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that also are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. Information provided in comments on this proposed revision to critical habitat designation and draft economic analysis will be evaluated and considered in the development of the final revised designation of critical habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed revision of the areas we designated as critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356). The main differences include the following:

(1) Currently, four units totaling 171,605 ac (69,440 ha) are designated as critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002). This proposed revision to designated critical habitat, which is based on new occupancy and habitat information (updated GIS information on vegetation, butterfly, and host plant distribution), includes 10 units totaling 98,487 ac (39,857 ha). This proposed revision to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, if adopted, would result in a decrease of 73,118 ac (29,583 ha) from currently designated critical habitat for this subspecies. However, we are considering excluding 1,684 ac (681 ha) of land within the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan's City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan and 37,245 ac (15,073) of non-Federal land within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area from the final designation.

(2) We revised the PCE descriptions to make them more quantifiable and easy to apply in the field; however, the habitat components have not changed. Hilltops, nectar sources, host plant species, and open-canopy scrublands are the same habitat components described as PCEs in the 2002 final critical habitat rule (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002).

(3) In the 2002 critical habitat designation (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002) we based our criteria on the reasoning that habitat areas supporting core occurrence complexes, habitat areas that had the potential support for a core population complex, and habitat areas that facilitate landscape connectivity or otherwise played a significant role in maintaining metapopulation viability were essential to the long-term conservation of the subspecies. Populations on the periphery of the subspecies' range or in atypical environments were considered important for maintaining the genetic diversity of the subspecies, and possibly essential for adaptation to changing climatic and environmental conditions. In this proposed 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 information not available when critical habitat was designated on April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356). Application of new data and updated occurrence information described in the Background section above resulted in the identification of different essential habitat areas than were identified in the 2002 final critical habitat rule, and a reduced total amount of acreage that is essential to the long-term conservation of this subspecies. The large amount of new habitat and distribution information resulted in our expanding the boundaries of known core occurrence complexes to include areas that were considered to support adjacent non-core occurrence complexes in the 2002 final designation, and our identification of the new Bautista Road and La Posta/Campo core occurrence complexes (see Background Section above). These revisions capture all habitat areas necessary to sustain and recover the subspecies and are adequate to ensure the long-term conservation of this subspecies based on our current knowledge of this subspecies' life history and ecological needs as described in the Background, Primary Constituent Elements, and Special Management Considerations or Protection sections above. The new criteria capture different 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 than were identified in the 2002 critical habitat designation. For example, the new proposed revised 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. Furthermore, data collected since 2002 indicates that this area is providing the function that the more isolated, non-core, Brown Canyon subunit of currently designated Unit 2 (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)) was speculated to provide this subspecies in the 2002 critical habitat designation. Therefore, the Brown Canyon subunit is no longer considered essential (see further discussion below). We believe the proposed revised critical habitat units, which are based primarily on core occurrence complex and habitat distributions, are the areas essential for conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

(4) 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 (Sevice 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) indicates 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 (currently designated Unit 1) is functionally isolated from occupied areas or has subsequently been developed, and this non-core occurrence complex has apparently been extirpated (see Background section above). 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 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). 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 above) provides adequate landscape connectivity for conservation of the subspecies, and adequately captures areas that otherwise play a significant role in maintaining metapopulation viability.

(5) We considered but did not include in this proposed revision to critical habitat currently designated areas dominated by Tecate cypress (
Callitropsis
(
Cupressus
)
forbesii
) woodland on Otay Mountain, or currently designated areas associated with the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Rancho San Diego, NWR Los Montanas, Jamul, West Otay Mesa, Barrett Junction, and Tecate non-core occurrence complexes identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 47; current Unit 3, 67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002; 50 CFR 17.95(i)). We believe habitat captured by the expanded core occurrence complexes on Otay Mountain 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 above) provides adequate landscape connectivity for conservation of the subspecies at Otay Mountain, and adequately captures areas that otherwise play a significant role in maintaining metapopulation viability.

(6) This proposed revision to designated critical habitat includes 8,393 ac (3,397 ha) in one unit in San Diego County (La Posta/Campo) that is not currently designated as critical habitat. We acquired occupancy data from the La Posta/Campo Unit after publication of the April 15, 2002, critical habitat rule (67 FR 18356). The proposed La Posta/Campo unit supports the newly identified La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex (see Background section above). This newly described core occurrence complex represents a population locally adapted to a unique habitat type and a warmer, drier climate (relative to the Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex). Conservation of this unique habitat provides geographic, genetic, and habitat diversity that is likely to reduce the subspecies' extinction probability due to fire and climate change (Service 2003a, pp. 60-61, 76; see Background section above).

(7) This proposed revision to designated critical habitat includes 14,014 ac (5,671 ha) in one unit in Riverside County (Bautista Road) that is not currently designated as critical habitat. We did not include the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex in the April 15, 2002, designation (67 FR 18356), because it was first documented following publication of the proposed rule (66 FR 9476, February 7, 2001), and we did not have sufficient information concerning habitat within the complex and landscape connectivity to other complexes to determine whether it was essential to the conservation of the subspecies (67 FR 18356, April 15, 2002). We have acquired substantial new occupancy and other scientific information relevant to this area since 2002 (see Background section above), and we have determined that conservation of the Bautista Unit is essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Conservation of this unique habitat provides geographic, genetic, and habitat diversity that is likely to reduce the subspecies' extinction probability due to fire and climate change (Service 2003a, pp. 63-65, 60-61; see Background section above). Recent data indicate the Bautista Road Core Occurrence Complex (identified as non-core in the recovery plan; Service 2003a, p. 44), is most accurately described as a core occurrence complex (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above), and is therefore included in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat. The Bautista Unit also includes habitat associated with the Lookout Mountain and Pine Meadows non-core occurrence complexes identified in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 44) and the recently discovered Horse Creek (non-core) Occurrence Complex, where a range shift for the subspecies is expected to continue into the foreseeable future (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above).

(8) In preparing this proposed revision to designated critical habitat, we re-examined the boundaries of core occurrence complexes described in the April 15, 2002, critical habitat designation (67 FR 18356). As a result, this proposal includes some areas adjacent to, but not within, currently designated units. This re-examination resulted in merging or expanding identified core occurrence complexes (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). In particular, new occurrence data indicates the Butterfield/Radec (non-core) Occurrence Complex south of SR 79 (Service 2003a, p. 41) is part of the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex, and we therefore reflect that in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). New occurrence data also indicates the Proctor Valley, Dulzura, and Honey Springs non-core occurrence complexes (Service 2003a, p. 47) are part of the new Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex, and we therefore reflect that in this proposed revision to designated critical habitat (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above).

Proposed Revisions to the Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 10 units as critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; all of the units are currently occupied (Table 1). The designation of these units, if finalized, would replace the existing critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in 50 CFR 17.95(i). The critical habitat areas described below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Table 1.—Occupancy Status of Proposed Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

Unit
Occupied at time of listing?

Currently
occupied?

Size of unit in acres
(hectares)

1. Warm Springs
yes
yes
2,684 (1,086)

2. Skinner/Johnson
yes
yes
12,030 (4,869)

3. Sage
yes
yes
2,693 (1,090)

4. Wilson Valley
yes
yes
4,813 (1,948)

5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain
yes
yes
8,187 (3,313)

6. Tule Peak
yes
yes
6,433 (2,603)

7. Bautista
no
yes
14,014 (5,671)

8. Otay
yes
yes
36,726 (14,863)

9. La Posta/Campo
no
yes
8,393 (3,397)

10. Jacumba
yes
yes
2,514 (1,017)

The approximate area of various land ownerships encompassed within each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.

Table
2.—Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]

Critical habitat unit

Land ownership by type
1

Size of unit in acres (hectares)

1. Warm Springs
Private
2,684 (1,086)

BLM
107 (43)

Local
3,312 (1,340)

CDFG
608 (246)

Private
8,003 (3,239)

3. Sage
BLM
126 (51)

Private
2,567 (1,039)

4. Wilson Valley
BLM
468 (189)

Private
4,345 (1,759)

5. Vail Lake/Oak Mountain
BLM
822 (333)

CNF
912 (369)

Private
6,453 (2,612)

6. Tule Peak
BLM
328 (133)

CDFG
321 (123)

Cahuilla Tribe
1,203 (487)

Private
4,581 (1,861)

7. Bautista
SBNF
8,420 (3,407)

BLM
1,223 (495)

CSLC
74 (30)

Private
4,297 (1,739)

8. Otay
BLM
7,663 (3,101)

CDFG
6,361 (2,574)

USFWS
405 (164)

Local
4,427 (1,792)

State
43 (17)

DOD
109 (44)

Private
17,718 (7,170)

9. La Posta/Campo
DOD
1,083 (438)

BLM
1,828 (740)

Campo Tribe
3,156 (1,277)

Private
2,326 (942)

10. Jacumba
CDPR
349 (141)

Private
2,165 (876)

Total

98,487 (39,857)

1
Private = private ownership, including conserved lands managed for species' recovery; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; Local = City or County owned land; CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game; CDPR = California Department of Parks and Recreation; CNF = Cleveland National Forest; CSLC = California State Lands Commission; Cahuilla Tribe = Cahuilla Band of Indians; SBNF = San Bernardino National Forest; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge; DOD = U.S. Department of Defense; Campo Tribe = Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians.

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, below.

Unit 1: Warm Springs

Unit 1 consists of approximately 2,684 ac (1,086 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover host

plants; nectar sources; open, woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 39, 41; Service GIS database). Unit 1 is located in Riverside County, north of Interstate 15, between Interstate 215 and SR 79, north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road, in the vicinity of Warm Springs Creek. This unit includes land associated with the Warm Springs Creek (core) and Warm Springs Creek North (non-core) occurrence complexes as described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79); new information indicates the Warm Springs Creek North (non-core) Occurrence Complex should be considered part of the Warm Springs Creek Core Occurrence Complex (see Background section above).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, development, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational impacts (Service 2003 pp. 41, 79; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). The majority of Unit 1 is privately owned (Table 1), but this portion of the unit is part of a plan for conservation and management under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The remaining portion of the unit is in conservation, is privately owned, and is managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) under the Assessment District 161 Habitat Conservation Plan. We are considering excluding all of this unit, which is within the MSHCP plan area, from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 2: Skinner/Johnson

Unit 2 consists of approximately 12,030 ac (4,869 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain, white snapdragon, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover 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).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, housing and utilities infrastructure development, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational impacts (Service 2003 pp. 41, 79; Service GIS satellite imagery), and elevated soil nitrogen levels (Service 2003 pp. 61, 62). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). The majority of land in Unit 2 is held in conservation and managed within the Southwest Riverside County Multiple Species preserve, or conserved and managed by CNLM. We are considering excluding 11,923 ac (4,825 ha), the non-Federal lands within the MSHCP plan area in this unit, from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 3: Sage

Unit 3 consists of approximately 2,692 ac (1,090 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover 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 as described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information indicates the San Ignaciao (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).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, rural development, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational impacts (Service 2003 p. 79; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). Land in Unit 3 is primarily privately owned (Table 2), but this area is included in the plan for conservation and management under the MSHCP. We are considering excluding 2,567 ac (1,039 ha), the non-Federal lands within the MSHCP plan area in this unit, from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 4: Wilson Valley

Unit 4 consists of approximately 4,813 ac (1,948 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain, white snapdragon, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover host plants; nectar sources; open, woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 43: Service GIS database). Unit 4 is located in Riverside County, north of SR 79, east of Oak Mountain and Temecula, in the vicinity of Wilson Valley. This unit includes land associated with the Wilson Valley Core Occurrence Complex described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, development, trash dumping, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational impacts (Service 2003 pp. 59, 79; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). A small part of the land in Unit 4 is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the majority is privately owned (Table 2). The private land in this unit is planned for conservation and management under the MSHCP. We are considering excluding 4,345 ac (1,758 ha), the non-Federal lands within the MSHCP plan area in this unit, from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 5: Vail Lake/Oak Mountain

Unit 5 consists of approximately 8,187 ac (3,313 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the

conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover 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, east of Temecula, in the vicinity of Oak Mountain and Vail Lake. This unit includes land associated with the Vail Lake (core) and Butterfield/Radec (non-core) occurrence complexes described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information indicates that the Butterfield/Radec (non-core) Occurrence Complex should be considered part of the Vail Lake Core Occurrence Complex (see Background and Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat sections above).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, development, dumping, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational impacts (Service 2003 pp. 59, 79; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). Part of the land in Unit 5 is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and part by the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but the majority is under private ownership (Table 2) and planned for conservation and management under the MSHCP. We are considering excluding 6,453 ac (2,611 ha), the non-Federal lands within the MSHCP plan area in this unit, from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 6: Tule Peak

Unit 6 consists of approximately 6,433 ac (2,603 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): dwarf plantain, woolly plantain, white snapdragon, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover host plants; nectar sources; open, woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS satellite imagery). 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 Tribal lands. This unit includes land associated with the Tule Peak (core), Southwest Cahuilla (non-core), and Silverado (core) occurrence complexes described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79). New occurrence information indicates all these occurrence complexes are better described as a single Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex (see Background section above).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, rural development, and recreational activity (Service 2003 pp. 81; Service GIS satellite imagery). In particular, recreational activity and rural development continue to result in the loss of habitat on private land (Reed 2001, pp. 1-2; TeraCor 2002, p. 7; Osborne 2007, p. 9; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion). In light of the recent climatic warming and drying trends (see Background and Special Management Considerations or Protection sections above), prudent design of reserves and other managed habitats in this unit should include landscape connectivity to other habitat areas and ecological connectivity (linkage between habitat patches joined by natural dispersal areas; Service 2003a, p. 162) with undeveloped lands to accommodate range shifts northward and upward in elevation (Service 2003a, p. 64).

Land ownership in Unit 6 includes BLM, California Department of Fish and Game, Cahuilla Band of Indians Tribal reservation, and private lands (Table 2). The majority of the unit consists of privately owned lands not included in the MSHCP Conservation Area, but within the MSHCP area boundary. We are considering excluding 6,105 ac (2,471 ha) of private lands within this unit from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). The inclusion of Tribal lands in this unit serves to ensure the persistence of the Tule Peak/Silverado Core Occurrence Complex and will contribute to the conservation and recovery of the subspecies overall. However, we recognize the importance of government-to-government relationships with Tribes, and we are seeking public comment on the appropriateness of the inclusion or the exclusion of these lands in the final designation of critical habitat (see Public Comments section above).

Unit 7: Bautista

Unit 7 consists of approximately 14,014 ac (5,671 ha) of habitat that was not within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing. This unit contains the Bautista Road (now core), Pine Meadow (non-core), and Lookout Mountain (non-core) occurrence complexes as described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 79) and the recently described Horse Creek (non-core) Occurrence Complex (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). As further discussed in the Background section, we have determined that the Bautista Road Occurrence Complex should be considered a core occurrence complex, and that habitat connectivity to higher elevation occurrence complexes is essential for the conservation of the subspecies. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): dwarf plantain, woolly plantain, white snapdragon, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover host plants; nectar sources; open, woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (Service 2003a, pp. 44-47; Service GIS database). It is located in Riverside County, north of SR 371 and the community of Anza.

Approximately half of the land in Unit 7 is within the San Bernardino National Forest. Part of the other half of the unit, which is outside the San Bernardino National Forest, is owned by the BLM. The remainder of the unit is privately owned (Table 2), and is not planned for conservation and management under the MSHCP, but is within the MSHCP area boundary. We are considering excluding 4,371 ac (1,769 ha), all of the non-Federal lands in this unit, from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 8: Otay

Unit 8 consists of approximately 36,726 ac (14,863 ha) of habitat that was occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing and that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): dwarf plantain, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover 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 north

to north of SR 94 in the vicinity of Otay Mountain and Otay Lakes. This unit includes land associated with the Otay Valley (core), West Otay Mountain (core), Otay Lakes/Rancho Jamul (core), Proctor Valley (non-core), Marron Valley (core), Dulzura (non-core), and Honey Springs (non-core) occurrence complexes as described in the recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 47). New occurrence information indicates all these occurrence complexes are better described as a single Otay Mountain Core Occurrence Complex (see Background and Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat sections above).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals, Border Patrol activity, development, trash dumping, off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, other recreational activities (Service 2003 p. 84), fire (Service 2003a, p. 61), and elevated soil nitrogen levels (Service 2003a, pp. 61, 62). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion).

Part of the land in Unit 8 is owned and managed by multiple public entities, including the BLM, the Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). However, a large portion of this unit remains privately owned (Table 2) and is within the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) area. We are considering excluding 1,684 ac (681 ha) of non-Federal lands within the MSCP City of Chula Vista subarea plan area in this unit from the final revision to designated critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Areas Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Unit 9: La Posta/Campo

Unit 9 consists of approximately 8,393 ac (3,397 ha) of habitat that was not within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing. However, this unit is now known to be occupied, and it contains the recently described La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). We determined the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex to be essential to the conservation of the subspecies because it is likely to contain a resilient source population (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): White snapdragon, thread-leaved birds-beak, and purple owl's-clover host plants; nectar sources; open, woody-canopy scrublands; and hilltops (PSBS 2005a, p. 18; 2005b, p. 26; O'Conner 2006, pp. 1-4, Alfaro and Alfaro 2007, pp. 6-8; Service GIS database).

Unit 9 is located in San Diego County, north and south of SR 94, and east of the community of Campo. Part of the land in Unit 9 is managed by the BLM and owned by the U.S. Department of Defense; other portions of the unit are privately owned and include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians Tribal lands (Table 2). The inclusion of Tribal lands in this unit serves to ensure the persistence of the La Posta/Campo Core Occurrence Complex and will contribute to the conservation and recovery of the subspecies overall. However, we recognize the importance of government-to-government relationships with Tribes, and we are seeking public comment on the appropriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of these lands in the final designation of critical habitat (see Public Comments section above).

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 that remains occupied at the present time. This unit contains all of the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies (PCEs 1, 2, and 3): Dwarf plantain and woolly plantain 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. Although it was described in the recovery plan as non-core (Service 2003a, p. 52), based on new occurrence information we now consider this to be a core occurrence complex (see Background and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections above). Part of the land in Unit 10 is within Anza Borrego Desert State Park, but the majority of the unit is privately owned (Table 2).

Habitat in this unit is threatened by invasion of nonnative annuals; Border Patrol activity; habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation associated with development (O'Rourke and Mulligan 2007, p. 2); and off-road vehicle use, foot traffic, and other recreational uses (Service 2003a, p. 84; Service GIS satellite imagery). Therefore, the PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above for a detailed discussion).

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 destroy or adversely modify 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.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only, as conservation recommendations in a conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.

The primary utility of the conference procedures is to allow a Federal agency to maximize its opportunity to adequately consider species proposed for listing and proposed critical habitat and, if we list the proposed species or designate proposed critical habitat, to avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action because of the section 7(a)(2) compliance process. We may conduct conferences either informally or formally. We typically use informal conferences as a means of providing advisory conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that the proposed action may cause. We typically use formal conferences when we or the Federal agency believes the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species

proposed for listing or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

We generally provide the results of an informal conference in a conference report, while we provide the results of a formal conference in a conference opinion. We typically prepare conference opinions on proposed species or critical habitat in accordance with procedures contained at 50 CFR 402.14, as if the proposed species were already listed or the proposed critical habitat was already designated. We may adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the species is listed or the critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).

If we list a species or designate critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251,
et seq.
) or a permit from us under section 10 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(a)(2) 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.

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 may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define “Reasonable and prudent alternatives” at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:

• Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,

• Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,

• Are economically and technologically feasible, and

• Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the “Adverse Modification” Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed 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, or other conservation role and function of the affected designated area, to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Generally, the conservation role of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat units is to support viable core area populations.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or 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 would remove host plants and nectar sources, introduce or increase invasion rates of invasive nonnative exotic plants species, or fragment habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to:

• Off-road vehicle use;

• Mechanical soil disturbance;

• Clearing or grading;

• Development; and

• Pesticide use.

These activities could result in reduction or degradation of habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of these butterflies and their host plants (including reduction or preclusion of necessary movement of adults between breeding areas), directly or cumulatively causing adverse affects to Quino checkerspot butterflies and their life cycles.

Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by the species and areas currently designated as critical habitat to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. These actions include, but are not limited to:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States, including vernal pool and other Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat areas in watersheds, by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of grazing, mining, and recreation by the BLM, Forest Service, or the Service;

(3) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, and regulation of agricultural activities on Federal land by BLM, Forest Service, DOD, and the Service;

(4) Regulation of airport improvement activities by the Federal Aviation Administration jurisdiction;

(5) Construction of roads and fences along the International Border with Mexico and immigration enforcement activities by the Immigration and Naturalization Service/Border Patrol that take place in Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat;

(6) Hazard mitigation and post disaster repairs funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(7) Construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal Communications Commission;

(8) Activities funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Departmen

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A08-105. Public record. Not legal advice.