Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), 3328-3373 [08-105]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3328-3373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-105]



[[Page 3327]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

Federal Register / Vol. 73 , No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 3328]]


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

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: https://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 
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from

[[Page 3329]]

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 https://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

[[Page 3330]]

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),

[[Page 3331]]

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

[[Page 3332]]

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 Monta[ntilde]as (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

[[Page 3333]]

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

[[Page 3334]]

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

[[Page 3335]]

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

[[Page 3336]]

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 p