[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 245 (Friday, December 19, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77568-77577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29671]



[[Page 77568]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0006; 92210-1117-0000 B4]
RIN 1018-AV23


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of 
availability of draft economic analysis, and amended required 
determinations.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the comment period on our January 17, 2008, proposed 
revised designation of critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA), 
a revision to proposed critical habitat Unit 2, and an amended required 
determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment 
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment 
simultaneously on the proposed revision of critical habitat (including 
the changes to proposed critical habitat Unit 2), the associated DEA, 
and the amended required determinations section. If you submitted 
comments previously, then you do not need to resubmit them because they 
are included in the public record for this rulemaking and we will fully 
consider them in preparation of our final determination.

DATES: We will accept comments received on or before January 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 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: RIN 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, Suite 101, 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 will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed revision to critical habitat 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly published in the Federal Register 
on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), as revised by this notice, the DEA of 
the proposed revised designation, and the amended required 
determinations provided in this document. We will consider information 
and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly 
interested in 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,
     Locations within the geographical area occupied at the 
time of listing that contain features essential to the conservation of 
the subspecies that we should include in the designation and why, and
     Locations not within the geographical area occupied at the 
time of listing that are essential to 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) Probable economic, national security, or other impacts of 
designating particular areas as critical habitat. We are particularly 
interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (5) The potential exclusion of non-Federal lands covered by the 
City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (under the San Diego County Multiple 
Species Conservation Program) from final revised critical habitat, and 
whether such exclusion is appropriate and why.
    (6) The potential exclusion of non-Federal lands covered by the 
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP) from final revised critical habitat, and whether such exclusion 
is appropriate and why. (Please note that although Tribal lands and 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) lands are 
located within the geographic boundary/area covered by the MSHCP, they 
are not a part of the MSHCP).
    (7) Inclusion of all proposed MWDSC lands in the final critical 
habitat designation, and whether inclusion is appropriate and why. 
Through a mapping error we included MWDSC lands in Figure 2 of the 
proposed revised rule (73 FR 3328, January 17, 2008) that depicted 
areas considered for exclusion from critical habitat. Our intent was 
not to group these non-Federal lands with other lands considered for 
exclusion. We did not specify in the proposed revised rule that MWDSC 
would not be excluded from the final critical habitat designation. As 
noted in question 6 above, MWDSC is not a signatory to the MSHCP even 
though their non-Federal lands occur within the MSHCP plan area.
    (8) Whether we should include or exclude Tribal lands of the 
Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (preferred name ``Cahuilla Band of 
Indians'') and Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California 
(preferred name ``Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians'') in Riverside 
County, and Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (preferred name 
``Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians'') in San Diego County from final 
revised critical habitat and why. Economic impacts to the Cahuilla Band 
of Indians and the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians are analyzed in this 
DEA. During the first public comment period for proposed revisions to 
critical habitat that opened January 17, 2008, and closed March 17, 
2008, we received a letter from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 
informing us that land proposed for critical habitat included tribally-
owned fee lands of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. These tribally 
owned fee lands were classified as privately owned in Table 2 of the 
proposed revisions to critical habitat, therefore economic impacts to 
the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians are not analyzed in the DEA. 
However,

[[Page 77569]]

economic impacts to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians will be 
analyzed in the final EA, and will be taken into consideration for 
possible exclusion from the final revised critical habitat.
    (9) Whether there are areas we previously designated, but did not 
include in our proposed revision to critical habitat, that should be 
designated as critical habitat.
    (10) Information on the extent to which any Federal, State, and 
local environmental protection measures we reference in the DEA were 
adopted largely as a result of the subspecies' listing.
    (11) Information on whether the DEA identifies all Federal, State, 
and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed revision of 
critical habitat, and information on any costs or benefits that we may 
have overlooked.
    (12) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions 
regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that likely may 
occur if we designate revised critical habitat.
    (13) Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect 
on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result 
from the revised designation of critical habitat.
    (14) Information on areas that the revised critical habitat 
designation could potentially impact to a disproportionate degree.
    (15) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could 
result from the proposed revised designation.
    (16) Information on any quantifiable economic benefits of the 
revised designation.
    (17) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area outweigh 
the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (18) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating a 
particular area as revised critical habitat.
    (19) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat to provide for greater public participation and 
understanding, or assist us in accommodating public concerns and 
comments.
    (20) Any foreseeable impacts on energy supplies, distribution, and 
use resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on electricity production, and the benefits of including or 
excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed revised 
rule (73 FR 3328) during the initial comment period from January 17, 
2008, to March 17, 2008, please do not resubmit them. These comments 
are included in the public record for this rulemaking and we will fully 
consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final 
determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into 
consideration all written comments and any additional information we 
receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, 
we may, during the development of our final determination, find that 
areas within those proposed do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are 
appropriate, or that areas are appropriate for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
revised rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES 
section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 
address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed revised 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 (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    You may obtain copies of the original proposed revision of critical 
habitat and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or 
by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly, refer to the proposed revised designation 
of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on January 17, 
2008 (73 FR 3328). In March 2005, the Homebuilders Association of 
Northern California, et al., filed suit against us 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 us to re-evaluate five final critical habitat 
designations, including critical habitat designated for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. The settlement (as modified by subsequent court-
approved amendments) stipulated that any proposed revisions to the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat designation would be 
submitted for publication to the Federal Register on or before January 
8, 2008, and the final critical habitat determination would be 
submitted on or before June 6, 2009.
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
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. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on 
the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as critical 
habitat, unless failure to designate that specific area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making a 
decision to exclude areas, we consider the economic impact, impact on 
national security, or any other relevant impact of the designation.

Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact 
on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic 
analysis of our January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), proposed revised rule to 
designate critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
    The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed

[[Page 77570]]

revised critical habitat designation for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Additionally, the economic analysis looks retrospectively at 
costs incurred since the January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313), listing of the 
Quino checkerspot butterfly as endangered. The DEA quantifies the 
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly; some of these costs will likely be incurred 
regardless of whether we designate revised critical habitat. The 
economic impact of the proposed revised critical habitat designation is 
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and 
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (for example, under the Federal 
listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, 
therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes 
the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the 
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the 
costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The 
analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the 
species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts 
likely to occur if we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat.
    The current DEA estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the 
proposed revised critical habitat designation. The economic analysis 
identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed 
to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs coextensive 
with listing. The DEA describes economic impacts of Quino checkerspot 
butterfly conservation efforts associated with the following categories 
of activity: (1) Residential development; (2) Tribal activities; (3) 
habitat management; and (4) non-residential development.
    Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from 
listing and other conservation efforts for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. Conservation efforts related to development activities 
constitute the majority of total baseline costs (approximately 97 
percent) in areas of proposed revised critical habitat. Impacts to 
Tribal activities and habitat management compose the remaining 3 
percent of impacts. Total future baseline impacts are estimated to be 
$967 to $973 million ($52.08 to $52.48 million annualized) in present 
value terms using a 3 percent discount rate, and $686 to $691 million 
($55.34 to $55.74 million annualized) in present value terms using a 7 
percent discount rate over the next 23 years (2008 to 2030) in areas 
proposed as revised critical habitat.
    Almost all incremental impacts attributed to the proposed revised 
critical habitat designation are expected to be related to development 
(approximately 61 to 86 percent) and Tribal activities (approximately 
38 to 14 percent). The DEA estimates total potential incremental 
economic impacts in areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the 
next 23 years (2008 to 2030) to be $18.4 million to $70.7 million 
($1.09 million to $4.17 million annualized) in present value terms 
using a 3 percent discount rate, and $13.1 million to $50.4 million 
($1.09 to $4.18 million annualized) in present value terms using a 7 
percent discount rate.
    The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional 
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects 
generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the 
commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures 
(e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land 
use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely 
to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular 
group or economic sector.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed revised 
critical habitat rule and our amended required determinations. The 
final revised rule may differ from the proposed revised rule based on 
new information we receive during the public comment periods. In 
particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we 
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits 
of including the area as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the subspecies.

Additional Areas Currently Considered for Exclusion Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act

Tribal Lands
    In the proposed revised critical habitat designation published on 
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), we identified Tribal lands in Units 6 
and 9 as meeting the definition of critical habitat for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly. At that time, we indicated the inclusion of 
Tribal lands in these units would serve to ensure the persistence of 
Core Occurrence Complexes in those units and would contribute to the 
conservation and recovery of the subspecies overall. However, we also 
indicated that we recognized the importance of government-to-government 
relationships with Tribes, and we solicited public comment on the 
appropriateness of the inclusion or the exclusion of those lands in the 
final designation of critical habitat. With the availability of the 
DEA, we are now considering exclusion of approximately 1,203 acres (ac) 
(487 hectares (ha)) of Tribal lands of the Cahuilla Band of Indians 
within proposed Unit 6, and 3,156 ac (1277 ha) of Tribal lands of the 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians within proposed Unit 9. As discussed in 
section 6 of the DEA, socioeconomic data demonstrate a high impact to 
Tribal economies and economic vulnerability of the Tribes. Using a 3 
percent discount rate, approximately $7.07 to $9.81 million in 
incremental impacts are anticipated to be incurred by the Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians over the next 23 years (2008 to 2030); using a 7 
percent discount rate, those impacts are approximately $5.04 to $6.99 
million. The cost of conservation efforts for the butterfly and its 
habitat on the Cahuilla Band of Indians' Tribal lands are not estimated 
because their development plans do not yet specify implementation 
programs and dates for specific projects, thus no project modifications 
can be forecast. There will likely be costs, but these cannot be 
forecast at this time. Although projections provided by the Southern 
California Association of Governments Western Riverside Council of 
Governments for purposes of the DEA estimated no residential 
development impacts to the Cahuilla Band of Indians, Tribal members 
indicated to the Service at meetings and during telephone conversations 
that they have economic

[[Page 77571]]

plans similar to those of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, and the 
DEA indicated similar economic vulnerability for the Cahuilla Band of 
Indians as well.
Department of Defense Lands
    Based on comments submitted during the initial public comment 
period from January 17, 2008, to March 17, 2008, we are also 
considering exclusion of the San Diego Air Force Space Surveillance 
Station (Surveillance Station; 109 ac (44 ha) within the 36,726-ac 
(14,862-ha) Unit 8) and the Navy-owned La Posta Mountain Warfare 
Training Facility (La Posta Facility; 1,083 ac (438 ha) within the 
8,393-ac (3,397-ha) Unit 9) from critical habitat. Under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, the Secretary is prohibited from designating 
as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or 
controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, 
that are subject to an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
(INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation. However, the Surveillance Station and the La Posta 
Facility do not currently have IMRMPs that meet these requirements. 
Therefore, we are considering excluding these areas under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act for reasons of national security, as explained 
below.
    The Surveillance Station is a U.S. Air Force (Air Force) 
installation used for space surveillance. The Air Force's mission of 
the Surveillance Station is to detect, track, and identify man-made 
objects in near-earth and deep space orbits as part of a series of 
receiving stations equipped with linear antenna arrays. Activities on 
the grounds of the Surveillance Station consist of occasional equipment 
inspection, maintenance, and mowing of nonnative plants to reduce the 
risk of fire damage. The need for additional consultations and possible 
conservation restrictions would limit the amount of natural 
infrastructure available for ongoing and future mission execution and 
training needed for national security. Short-notice, mission-critical 
activities not previously analyzed may be delayed in order to conduct 
section 7 consultation.
    The Service already consulted with the Air Force regarding all 
current and foreseen activities and issued a biological opinion 
concluding that the Air Force is not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify the existing critical habitat, assuming identified conservation 
measures are implemented. An Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan (INRMP) is currently being prepared in coordination with the 
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game that will ensure 
conservation of the subspecies. The Air Force must implement the INRMP 
in accordance with the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C 670a), and must comply with 
the Sikes Act to provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of 
natural resources on military installations. Because the INRMP is not 
yet final and approved by the Secretary, the statutory prohibition on 
designation of these lands as critical habitat is inapplicable. 
However, the lands may be excluded from designation as critical habitat 
if the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion, including 
the benefits with respect to national security, outweigh the benefits 
of such designation.
    The Navy-owned La Posta Facility provides training for Navy Special 
Operations Forces (SOF) to deploy to the U.S. Pacific and Central 
Commands in support of missions in the global war on terrorism. The La 
Posta Facility contains areas for critical, mission-essential training 
for these SOF troops prior to deployment into hostile areas of the 
world. With the closure of several contract sites previously conducting 
U.S. Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces (SEAL) Unit Level Training, the La 
Posta Facility is now the sole training site for Naval Special Warfare 
(NSW) commands and military support functions in the San Diego region 
for developing small, well-trained, highly mobile, and independent 
operational units. The La Posta Facility is also the only semi-remote, 
NSW-controlled complex supporting Assault and Tactical Weapons 
Training, and the only cold weather/mountain warfare site that provides 
training in unconventional warfare and special tactical intelligence in 
the San Diego region.
    Delays in construction schedules due to additional environmental 
regulations would disrupt mission-critical training and the ability to 
acquire and perform special warfare skills. The SEAL training schedule 
is extremely concentrated and does not allow for any shifting of 
training blocks. By Department of Defense training policy, SEALs 
require a remote range built specifically for the skill set required, 
close to home, and without distractions. Attempts to duplicate this 
training at sites outside the San Diego area, either by contract forces 
or other military owned and operated sites, would not provide the 
qualified personnel needed for the NSW commitment to the global war on 
terrorism.
    Aside from these additional areas now being considered for 
exclusion from the final revised critical habitat designation, the 
remainder of the exclusion discussion presented in the proposed rule 
remains unchanged.

Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat

    In this document we are proposing revisions to the area of proposed 
revised critical habitat in Unit 2 as described in the January 17, 
2008, proposed rule (73 FR 3328). This revision involves removal of 
approximately 27 acres of proposed revised critical habitat from two 
areas along the shoreline of Lake Skinner in Riverside County. Based on 
new GIS database information, we determined these two areas do not 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly because they are primarily wetlands. Removal of 
these areas from proposed revised critical habitat does not alter the 
textual description of Unit 2 as described in the January 17, 2008, 
proposed rule (73 FR 3328). A revised legal description and revised map 
for proposed critical habitat Unit 2 are included with this notice.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our proposed rule dated January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3328), we 
indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with 
several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now 
made use of the DEA to make these determinations. In this document, we 
affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 
1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we revised 
our required determinations concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and E.O. 12630 (Takings).

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed 
rule under

[[Page 77572]]

Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon 
the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 
U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of 
the proposed revised designation, we provide our analysis for 
determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on 
comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of a 
final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the proposed revised designation of critical 
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly would affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities 
affected within particular types of economic activities, such as 
residential and commercial development. In order to determine whether 
it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In 
estimate the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. 
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not 
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects 
activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal 
agencies.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of 
activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not 
be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species 
is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us 
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or 
implement that may affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Federal 
agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect 
critical habitat.
    In the DEA of the proposed revision to critical habitat, we 
evaluate the potential economic effects on small business entities 
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the 
proposed revision to critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly. The DEA identifies the estimated incremental impacts 
associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in sections 2 
through 7 of the DEA, and evaluates the potential for economic impacts 
related to activity categories including residential development, 
Tribal activities, habitat management, and non-residential development. 
The DEA concludes that the incremental impacts resulting from this 
rulemaking that may be borne by small businesses will be associated 
only with residential development. Incremental impacts are either not 
expected for the other types of activities considered or, if expected, 
will not be borne by small entities.
    As discussed in Appendix A of the DEA, the largest impacts of the 
proposed rule on small businesses would result from section 7 
consultations with the Service on development projects not subject to 
an existing or proposed habitat conservation plan. In the 23-year time 
frame for the analysis, 14 developers may experience significant 
impacts. Furthermore, approximately 6 developers per year will 
experience impacts that likely represent less than 1 percent of the 
value of a new home. In the high estimate scenario, 5 projects in Unit 
9 and 9 projects in Unit 10 are likely to require consultation with the 
Service as a result of the proposed rule. Conservatively assuming that 
each project is undertaken by a separate entity, as many as 14 
developers are likely to be affected over the 23-year time frame of the 
analysis. At the high-end, the one-time costs resulting from the 
consultation process, including administrative time spent by the 
businesses, compensation costs, and the value of time delays, total 
approximately $16.1 million for the projects in Unit 9 and $26.8 
million for the projects in Unit 10. Additionally, over the 23-year 
time frame, a high-end estimate of 131 projects (approximately 6 
projects per year) will experience additional administrative costs as a 
result of the consultation. These costs result from the need to address 
adverse modification in a consultation that would occur even in the 
absence of critical habitat. These additional administrative costs are 
estimated to be $1,000 per project. No information regarding the 
probability that these businesses are small entities is available. 
However, assuming they are small businesses, the number of small 
entities significantly affected is not likely to be substantial.
    In summary, we considered whether the proposed rule would result in 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available 
information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revision to 
critical habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

[[Page 77573]]

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

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. This proposed revision to critical habitat 
for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is not considered a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866. OMB's guidance for implementing 
this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action. As 
discussed in Appendix A, the DEA finds that none of these criteria are 
relevant to this analysis. The DEA identified Calpine Corporation, San 
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison as entities 
involved in the production of energy; however, designation of critical 
habitat is not expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a 
reduction in electricity production or an increase in the cost of 
energy production or distribution), and a Statement of Energy Effects 
is not required.

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

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

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing revised critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly 
in a takings implications assessment. Our takings implications 
assessment concludes that the proposed revision to critical habitat for 
the Quino checkerspot butterfly does not pose significant takings 
implications.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and 
in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended at 73 FR 3328, January 17, 2008, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 
editha quino) in Sec.  17.95(i), which was proposed to be revised on 
January 17, 2008, 73 FR 3328, is proposed to be amended by revising 
paragraph 7(i), and map of Units 1 and 2 (Warm Springs Unit and 
Skinner/Johnson Unit).


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *
    Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino)
* * * * *
    (7) Unit 2, for Quino checkerspot butterfly, Skinner/Johnson Unit, 
Riverside County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Murrieta, 
Bachelor Mountain, Winchester, Sage, and Hemet.
    (i) Unit 2, for Quino checkerspot butterfly, Skinner/Johnson Unit, 
Riverside County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Murrieta,

[[Page 77574]]

Bachelor Mountain, Winchester, Sage, and Hemet. Land bounded by the 
following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 
1927 (NAD27) coordinates (E, N): 499998, 3720683; 500090, 3720605; 
500299, 3720612; 500398, 3720607; 500579, 3720598; 500586, 3720598; 
500634, 3720490; 500669, 3720410; 500666, 3720385; 500621, 3720047; 
500624, 3719960; 500626, 3719917; 500628, 3719893; 500709, 3719672; 
500767, 3719516; 500399, 3719573; 500318, 3719585; 500313, 3719586; 
500316, 3719555; 500351, 3719141; 500362, 3719006; 500367, 3718993; 
500460, 3718706; 500676, 3718678; 500697, 3718685; 500717, 3718691; 
500841, 3718731; 500841, 3718731; 500851, 3718734; 500863, 3718678; 
500886, 3718565; 500977, 3718127; 500979, 3718098; 500993, 3717945; 
500998, 3717897; 500976, 3717895; 500945, 3717893; 500755, 3717880; 
500647, 3717873; 500501, 3717863; 500501, 3717863; 500483, 3717862; 
500483, 3717862; 500452, 3717860; 500350, 3717853; 500302, 3717849; 
500279, 3717848; 500304, 3717761; 500401, 3717425; 500428, 3717332; 
500428, 3717332; 500435, 3717307; 500466, 3717201; 500469, 3717189; 
500475, 3717168; 500500, 3717082; 500500, 3717066; 500500, 3717063; 
500500, 3716956; 500525, 3716907; 500525, 3716907; 500542, 3716872; 
500558, 3716840; 500559, 3716838; 500607, 3716709; 500646, 3716602; 
500652, 3716586; 500679, 3716428; 500683, 3716405; 500690, 3716362; 
500694, 3716342; 500709, 3716188; 500711, 3716174; 500708, 3716117; 
500650, 3716148; 500641, 3716153; 500586, 3716182; 500568, 3716192; 
500564, 3716194; 500559, 3716192; 500515, 3716170; 500488, 3716156; 
500471, 3716093; 500442, 3715981; 500440, 3715976; 500328, 3715948; 
500289, 3715938; 500281, 3715937; 500261, 3715935; 500261, 3715935; 
500090, 3715919; 500000, 3715874; 499900, 3715824; 499889, 3715817; 
499889, 3715817; 499883, 3715814; 499883, 3715814; 499755, 3715733; 
499755, 3715733; 499748, 3715730; 499640, 3715681; 499640, 3715681; 
499559, 3715644; 499496, 3715636; 499495, 3715636; 499331, 3715616; 
499275, 3715521; 499246, 3715474; 499238, 3715404; 499238, 3715404; 
499227, 3715312; 499113, 3715161; 499104, 3715134; 499104, 3715134; 
499018, 3714876; 498924, 3714838; 498848, 3714829; 498717, 3714770; 
498717, 3714770; 498701, 3714763; 498669, 3714608; 498644, 3714484; 
498629, 3714216; 498645, 3714094; 498629, 3714022; 498629, 3713877; 
498629, 3713877; 498629, 3713724; 498542, 3713679; 498368, 3713588; 
498286, 3713546; 498221, 3713590; 498186, 3713614; 498164, 3713629; 
498086, 3713682; 497989, 3713748; 497959, 3713769; 497897, 3713786; 
497842, 3713802; 497842, 3713802; 497691, 3713843; 497616, 3713926; 
497408, 3714156; 497247, 3714175; 497195, 3714181; 497195, 3714183; 
497195, 3714189; 497195, 3714287; 497198, 3714578; 497198, 3714601; 
497198, 3714603; 497193, 3714603; 497189, 3714603; 495537, 3714597; 
494946, 3714595; 494959, 3714662; 494938, 3714662; 494895, 3714590; 
494092, 3714587; 494088, 3714587; 493983, 3714586; 493924, 3714539; 
493920, 3714314; 493920, 3714302; 493948, 3714287; 494111, 3714199; 
494149, 3714179; 496634, 3714183; 496643, 3714174; 496645, 3714172; 
496648, 3714170; 496645, 3714160; 496588, 3713933; 496320, 3713724; 
496022, 3713620; 495581, 3713496; 495568, 3713492; 495546, 3713486; 
495530, 3713369; 495526, 3713338; 495516, 3713263; 495486, 3712667; 
495174, 3712577; 495170, 3712573; 495156, 3712556; 495045, 3712418; 
495044, 3712418; 495020, 3712388; 494920, 3712265; 494915, 3712262; 
494834, 3712219; 494612, 3712103; 494525, 3712093; 494403, 3712080; 
494332, 3712032; 494315, 3712021; 494284, 3712000; 494276, 3711995; 
494221, 3712092; 494200, 3712131; 494129, 3712167; 494104, 3712181; 
494102, 3712181; 494098, 3712178; 494059, 3712150; 493949, 3712070; 
493932, 3712058; 493856, 3712110; 493801, 3712148; 493682, 3712190; 
493496, 3712237; 493398, 3712152; 493241, 3712008; 493186, 3711929; 
493100, 3711944; 492969, 3711967; 492891, 3711967; 492731, 3711967; 
492588, 3712051; 492478, 3712116; 492418, 3712414; 492307, 3712475; 
492165, 3712553; 492120, 3712577; 491808, 3712607; 491480, 3712577; 
490973, 3712577; 490921, 3712582; 490848, 3712509; 490823, 3712484; 
490760, 3712477; 490713, 3712505; 490704, 3712509; 490695, 3712514; 
490673, 3712527; 490644, 3712527; 490622, 3712527; 490605, 3712527; 
490293, 3712533; 490265, 3712557; 490225, 3712589; 490188, 3712695; 
490157, 3712745; 490119, 3712782; 490069, 3712770; 490032, 3712801; 
489957, 3712869; 489908, 3712901; 489864, 3712950; 489865, 3712964; 
489870, 3713057; 489870, 3713069; 489881, 3713117; 489889, 3713150; 
489888, 3713150; 489859, 3713162; 489796, 3713187; 489702, 3713181; 
489628, 3713118; 489528, 3712963; 489441, 3712795; 489347, 3712801; 
489329, 3712764; 489298, 3712733; 489204, 3712733; 489198, 3712851; 
489123, 3712907; 489101, 3712923; 489101, 3712923; 489049, 3712963; 
488968, 3713013; 488874, 3713006; 488850, 3713044; 488856, 3713224; 
488856, 3713274; 488829, 3713276; 488713, 3713286; 488575, 3713286; 
488526, 3713286; 488333, 3713311; 488306, 3713325; 488294, 3713331; 
488271, 3713343; 488270, 3713342; 488202, 3713318; 488169, 3713356; 
488159, 3713367; 488124, 3713446; 488115, 3713467; 488078, 3713598; 
488072, 3713668; 488072, 3713672; 488073, 3713673; 488109, 3713697; 
488152, 3713716; 488221, 3713822; 488277, 3713952; 488277, 3714015; 
488299, 3714073; 488308, 3714096; 488308, 3714163; 488308, 3714163; 
488308, 3714164; 488258, 3714189; 488171, 3714189; 488157, 3714206; 
488115, 3714257; 488215, 3714587; 488321, 3714942; 488329, 3714956; 
488339, 3714972; 488377, 3715035; 488426, 3715154; 488532, 3715235; 
488675, 3715272; 488812, 3715291; 488930, 3715284; 488968, 3715216; 
488968, 3715079; 488980, 3714979; 489005, 3714970; 489049, 3714955; 
489094, 3714955; 489104, 3714955; 489105, 3714955; 489273, 3714961; 
489313, 3714960; 489634, 3714955; 489764, 3714886; 489808, 3714699; 
489845, 3714481; 489845, 3714345; 489796, 3714170; 489798, 3714137; 
489802, 3714077; 489820, 3713909; 489823, 3713867; 489827, 3713803; 
489820, 3713753; 489764, 3713741; 489702, 3713679; 489689, 3713664; 
489659, 3713629; 489648, 3713638; 489584, 3713691; 489580, 3713744; 
489579, 3713769; 489578, 3713784; 489553, 3713884; 489478, 3713915; 
489435, 3713896; 489426, 3713839; 489422, 3713809; 489410, 3713802; 
489394, 3713793; 489347, 3713766; 489198, 3713747; 489101, 3713741; 
489101, 3713741; 489098, 3713741; 489049, 3713685; 489049, 3713585; 
489055, 3713511; 489101, 3713495; 489101, 3713495; 489111, 3713492; 
489204, 3713523; 489310, 3713535; 489405, 3713512; 489435, 3713504; 
489497, 3713455; 489565, 3713436; 489634, 3713386; 489677, 3713353; 
489740, 3713305; 489839, 3713274; 489866, 3713279; 489868, 3713279; 
489869, 3713279; 489897, 3713284; 489932, 3713290; 489935, 3713291; 
489945, 3713293; 489995, 3713367; 490007, 3713372; 490029, 3713381; 
490033, 3713383; 490045, 3713387; 490057, 3713392; 490115, 3713376; 
490144, 3713367; 490167, 3713348; 490177, 3713339; 490201, 3713319; 
490210, 3713312; 490221, 3713302; 490225, 3713299; 490287, 3713224;

[[Page 77575]]

490333, 3713224; 490343, 3713224; 490381, 3713286; 490482, 3713282; 
490491, 3713282; 490505, 3713281; 490520, 3713281; 490534, 3713280; 
490536, 3713280; 490549, 3713279; 490564, 3713278; 490579, 3713276; 
490593, 3713275; 490608, 3713273; 490623, 3713272; 490640, 3713270; 
490667, 3713268; 490670, 3713271; 490682, 3713286; 490691, 3713296; 
490704, 3713311; 490710, 3713778; 490698, 3713996; 490698, 3714114; 
490698, 3714114; 490712, 3714114; 490850, 3714114; 490850, 3714120; 
490851, 3714136; 490856, 3714290; 490862, 3714445; 490864, 3714517; 
490869, 3714634; 490869, 3714648; 490881, 3714648; 490895, 3714647; 
491085, 3714643; 491179, 3714641; 491198, 3714641; 491224, 3714640; 
491236, 3714640; 491376, 3714637; 491404, 3714636; 491423, 3714636; 
491453, 3714635; 491581, 3714632; 491581, 3714632; 491622, 3714631; 
491622, 3714631; 491789, 3714628; 491890, 3714625; 491985, 3714623; 
492080, 3714621; 492180, 3714619; 492225, 3714618; 492278, 3714655; 
492380, 3714725; 492380, 3714725; 492408, 3714744; 492436, 3714763; 
492766, 3714990; 492984, 3715139; 493497, 3715502; 493508, 3715510; 
493515, 3715503; 493555, 3715460; 493604, 3715458; 493712, 3715456; 
493716, 3715461; 493826, 3715617; 493894, 3715626; 493904, 3715627; 
494051, 3715646; 494128, 3715642; 494228, 3715636; 494276, 3715634; 
494359, 3715611; 494480, 3715579; 494519, 3715578; 494569, 3715576; 
494653, 3715574; 494728, 3715555; 494785, 3715540; 494877, 3715476; 
494929, 3715439; 494968, 3715394; 495005, 3715350; 495137, 3715413; 
495340, 3715413; 495404, 3715366; 495430, 3715392; 495476, 3715439; 
495525, 3715496; 495545, 3715519; 495552, 3715528; 495593, 3715535; 
495697, 3715553; 495799, 3715564; 495820, 3715566; 495981, 3715562; 
496021, 3715558; 496078, 3715553; 496163, 3715532; 496324, 3715523; 
496375, 3715557; 496375, 3715557; 496469, 3715515; 496481, 3715514; 
496553, 3715512; 496562, 3715512; 496596, 3715511; 496651, 3715535; 
496710, 3715562; 496802, 3715669; 496908, 3715735; 496931, 3715750; 
496981, 3715800; 497079, 3715898; 497098, 3715917; 497154, 3715973; 
497167, 3716021; 497217, 3716207; 497259, 3716361; 497244, 3716539; 
497159, 3716584; 497020, 3716658; 496782, 3716897; 496920, 3717018; 
496991, 3717025; 497002, 3717016; 497053, 3716963; 497069, 3716935; 
497129, 3716879; 497155, 3716838; 497157, 3716754; 497157, 3716734; 
497177, 3716719; 497264, 3716688; 497396, 3716681; 497457, 3716655; 
497493, 3716665; 497505, 3716709; 497465, 3716770; 497439, 3716798; 
497310, 3716871; 497277, 3716915; 497261, 3716983; 497262, 3717085; 
497231, 3717118; 497208, 3717156; 497211, 3717184; 497219, 3717198; 
497220, 3717198; 497276, 3717222; 497338, 3717246; 497348, 3717247; 
497363, 3717260; 497401, 3717331; 497429, 3717356; 497460, 3717410; 
497460, 3717415; 497460, 3717415; 497460, 3717448; 497310, 3717532; 
497292, 3717524; 497287, 3717518; 497257, 3717524; 497204, 3717515; 
497154, 3717486; 497146, 3717497; 497139, 3717507; 496559, 3717478; 
496201, 3717493; 496143, 3717410; 496022, 3717239; 495965, 3717214; 
495888, 3717265; 495802, 3717246; 495773, 3717169; 495706, 3717135; 
495571, 3717135; 495532, 3717118; 495532, 3717118; 495529, 3717116; 
495432, 3717073; 495197, 3717020; 495126, 3717022; 495038, 3717025; 
494885, 3717025; 494774, 3716991; 494601, 3716958; 494438, 3716943; 
494323, 3716948; 494203, 3716987; 494150, 3716982; 494073, 3716953; 
493958, 3717001; 493949, 3717006; 493920, 3717022; 493814, 3717083; 
493713, 3717150; 493732, 3717183; 493684, 3717212; 493651, 3717179; 
493526, 3717251; 493444, 3717361; 493326, 3717414; 493152, 3717492; 
493124, 3717496; 492789, 3717548; 492663, 3717680; 492649, 3717813; 
492817, 3718043; 492774, 3718225; 492761, 3718281; 492705, 3718371; 
492677, 3718490; 492698, 3718489; 492698, 3718489; 493126, 3718460; 
493342, 3718446; 493505, 3718997; 493560, 3719017; 493565, 3719019; 
493662, 3719054; 493756, 3719088; 493852, 3719123; 493857, 3719125; 
493926, 3719048; 493935, 3719048; 493953, 3719047; 494331, 3719034; 
494331, 3719216; 494331, 3719244; 494346, 3719248; 494576, 3719307; 
494489, 3719422; 494366, 3719586; 494370, 3719835; 494370, 3719844; 
494373, 3720041; 494373, 3720068; 494548, 3720054; 494549, 3720068; 
494565, 3720240; 494566, 3720249; 494566, 3720249; 494576, 3720354; 
494751, 3720362; 494876, 3720368; 495315, 3720326; 495494, 3720257; 
495555, 3720234; 495555, 3720234; 495790, 3720144; 495955, 3720036; 
496195, 3719879; 496354, 3719893; 496691, 3719921; 496754, 3719909; 
497154, 3719837; 497157, 3719836; 497228, 3719823; 497238, 3719820; 
497512, 3719723; 497584, 3719698; 497776, 3720039; 497776, 3720039; 
497807, 3720095; 497911, 3720201; 498162, 3720455; 498162, 3720455; 
498268, 3720563; 498432, 3720659; 498432, 3720659; 498673, 3720800; 
498721, 3720813; 499162, 3720926; 499558, 3720945; 499608, 3720947; 
499811, 3720907; 499818, 3720905; 499909, 3720759; thence returning to 
499998, 3720683.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 77576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19DE08.001


[[Page 77577]]


* * * * *

    Dated: December 8, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-29671 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C