[Federal Register: October 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 61217-61244]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[[Page 61217]]


Part II

Department of the Interior


Fish and Wildlife Service


50 CFR Part 17

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

[[Page 61218]]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH61

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly 
(Euphydryas editha bayensis)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), for the bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 
editha bayensis) (bay checkerspot). A total of approximately 10,597 
hectares (26,182 acres) of land falls within the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is 
located in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California. If this 
proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to insure that any activity they fund, authorize, or carry out does not 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data 
and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including 
data on the economic and other impacts of the designation. We may 
revise this proposal to incorporate or address new information received 
during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until December 15, 2000. We will hold a 
public hearing in Newark, California, on October 30, 2000, from 1:00 
p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comment Submission: If you wish to comment, you may submit 
your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of 
several methods.
    (1) You may mail written comments to the Field Supervisor, 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
    (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
fw1baycheckerspot@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section 
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Sacramento Fish and 
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 
Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
    Public Hearing: We will hold the Newark hearing at the Hilton 
Newark/Fremont, 39900 Balentine Drive, Newark, California.
    Document Availability: Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, 
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the address listed under (3) above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Wright or Ken Sanchez at 
telephone 916/414-6600.



    The bay checkerspot is a medium-sized butterfly with a wingspan of 
about 5 centimeters (2 inches). The forewings have black bands along 
all the veins on the upper wing surface, contrasting sharply with 
bright red, yellow, and white spots. The bay checkerspot differs from 
LuEsther's checkerspot (Euphydryas editha luestherae) (a later-flying, 
Pedicularis-feeding subspecies of Inner Coast Range chaparral in 
central California) by being darker, and by lacking a relatively 
uninterrupted red band demarcating the outer wing third. The black 
banding on the forewings of the bay checkerspot gives a more checkered 
appearance than in other subspecies, such as the smaller Quino 
checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino) of southern California, or the 
montane subspecies (for example, the Mono checkerspot, Euphydryas 
editha monoensis) (Service 1998).
    Recent publications have advocated renaming the bay checkerspot, 
Euphydryas editha bayensis, as Euphydryas editha editha for reasons of 
historical precedence (Mattoni et al. 1997; Emmel et al. 1998). Mattoni 
and co-authors (1997) have also suggested that Euphydryas editha editha 
ranges from the San Francisco Bay area south to Santa Barbara County in 
California, and includes both the populations commonly known as the bay 
checkerspot and several populations south of Santa Clara County whose 
subspecific status has been uncertain. If this expanded subspecific 
assignment is accepted by the scientific community, it would represent 
a range extension for the bay checkerspot. Until such time as we make 
any new or revised determination on the taxonomy, and in this proposed 
rule, we treat the threatened bay checkerspot as occurring in San 
Francisco Bay area counties, notably the Counties of San Mateo and 
Santa Clara.
    The bay checkerspot formerly occurred around San Francisco Bay, 
from Twin Peaks and San Bruno Mountain (west of the Bay) and Contra 
Costa County (east of the Bay) south through Santa Clara County. Before 
the introduction of invasive Eurasian grasses and other weeds in the 
1700s, its distribution may have been wider (Service 1998). In the 
decades preceding listing, the decline of the bay checkerspot was 
primarily attributed to loss of habitat and fragmentation of habitat 
due to increasing urbanization. Drought and other extremes of weather 
have also been implicated in bay checkerspot population declines 
(Service 1998). Recent research has tentatively identified excess 
nitrogen deposition from polluted air as a threat to bay checkerspot 
habitats, due to its fertilizing effect enhancing the growth of 
invasive nonnative plants even in serpentine soil areas (Weiss 1999).
    The known range of the bay checkerspot is now reduced to Santa 
Clara and San Mateo Counties, and the butterfly is patchily distributed 
in these locales. Studies of the bay checkerspot have described its 
distribution as an example of a metapopulation (see literature cited in 
Service 1998). A metapopulation is a group of spatially separated 
populations that can occasionally exchange dispersing individuals. The 
populations in a metapopulation are usually thought of as undergoing 
interdependent extinction and colonization, where individual 
populations may go extinct, but later recolonize from another 
population. Bay checkerspot populations may also exhibit ``pseudo-
extinction,'' where the species is not found, but nonetheless continues 
to inhabit a site and reappears in a subsequent year. Larvae that 
diapause (spend a period of dormancy as larvae (caterpillars)), under 
rocks and deep in soil cracks for more than 1 year may be responsible 
for pseudo-extinctions, since dormant larvae are essentially 
undetectable in surveys. Because of pseudo-extinction and 
metapopulation dynamics, even sites that in some years apparently lack 
the bay checkerspot can be important to the survival and recovery of 
the species.
    Bay checkerspot butterfly populations vary greatly from year to 
year. Many or most individuals of the species live only a single year, 
and with high fecundity (fertility), high mortality, and sensitivity to 
weather and perhaps other ecological conditions, large population 
swings are

[[Page 61219]]

common for the bay checkerspot. Fluctuations of more than 100-fold have 
been observed. These fluctuations are not always in synchrony among 
populations at different sites.
    Habitat of the bay checkerspot exists on shallow, serpentine-
derived or similarly droughty or infertile soils, which support the 
butterfly's larval food plants as well as nectar sources for adults. 
Serpentine soils are high in magnesium and low in calcium, and are a 
strong indicator of habitat value for the butterfly. The primary larval 
host plant of the bay checkerspot is Plantago erecta (dwarf plantain), 
an annual, native plantain. The butterfly usually is found associated 
with Plantago erecta in grasslands on serpentine soils, such as soils 
in the Montara series. In Santa Clara County, the Inks and Climara soil 
series are related soils and often have inclusions of Montara (U.S. 
Soil Conservation Service 1974). Henneke and other serpentine soils 
also occur within the range of the butterfly. Populations of the bay 
checkerspot formerly occurred on San Bruno Mountain and other locations 
with soils that are not serpentine. We believe this indicates that, 
with otherwise suitable habitat conditions, the bay checkerspot is 
capable of living in nonserpentine soil areas.
    In many years, bay checkerspot larvae may use a secondary host 
plant species, for instance, when dwarf plantain dries up while 
prediapause larvae are still feeding. Castilleja (Orthocarpus) 
densiflora (purple owl's-clover) and Castilleja exserta (Orthocarpus 
purpurascens) (exserted paintbrush) are known secondary host plants 
that often remain edible later in the season than dwarf plantain. Bay 
checkerspot adults also visit flowers for nectar. Nectar plants 
commonly visited include Lomatium spp. (desert parsley), Lasthenia 
californica (= chrysostoma) (California goldfields), Layia platyglossa 
(tidy-tips), Muilla maritima, and others. Moderate grazing is normally 
compatible with habitat for the bay checkerspot, since grazing can 
reduce the density and height of nonnative plants that compete with the 
native plants supporting the butterfly.
    Adult bay checkerspots are capable of dispersing over long 
distances. Movements of more than 5.6 kilometers (km) (3.5 miles (mi)) 
have been documented (Harrison 1989; Service 1998). In all dispersal 
observations and experiments, long-distance movements are hard to 
detect, and thus their frequency and importance are difficult to 
quantify. Long-distance dispersal, especially by fertilized females 
carrying eggs, is likely to be important to the natural reestablishment 
of bay checkerspot populations that have disappeared. Qualitative 
observations suggest that bay checkerspots move readily over suitable 
grassland habitat, but are more reluctant to cross scrub, woodland, or 
other unsuitable habitat. Roads, especially those traveled more heavily 
and at higher speeds, present a risk of death or injury to dispersing 
bay checkerspots. Where corridors that facilitate dispersal exist, they 
may support the persistence of bay checkerspot populations.
    The bay checkerspot's life cycle is closely tied to host plant 
biology. Host plants germinate anytime from early October to late 
December, and senesce (dry up and die) from early April to mid May. 
Most of the active parts of the bay checkerspot life cycle also occur 
during this period. Adults emerge from pupae (a transitional stage 
between caterpillar and adult butterfly) in early spring, and feed on 
nectar, mate, and lay eggs during a flight season that typically lasts 
for 4 to 6 weeks in the period between late February to early May. The 
eggs hatch and the tiny larvae feed for about 2 to 3 weeks before 
entering diapause (a temporary cessation of development) in mid to late 
spring. The postdiapause larvae emerge after winter rains stimulate 
germination of Plantago, and feed and bask until they are large enough 
to pupate and emerge as adults (Service 1998).

Previous Federal Action

    On October 21, 1980, we were petitioned by Dr. Bruce O. Wilcox, 
Dennis D. Murphy, and Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich to list the bay checkerspot 
as an endangered species. We published a Notice of Status Review on 
February 13, 1981 (46 FR 12214). Following our status review, we found 
that listing the bay checkerspot was warranted but precluded by other 
pending listing actions (49 FR 2485). We proposed the bay checkerspot 
for listing as endangered with critical habitat on September 11, 1984 
(49 FR 35665), and listed the species as threatened on September 18, 
1987 (52 FR 35366). At the time of listing, because of difficulty in 
resolving the value of specific habitats to the species and assessing 
the activities being conducted in those areas, we concluded that 
critical habitat was not determinable. We published a Recovery Plan for 
Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area (Recovery Plan) 
in September 1998 that includes the bay checkerspot (Service 1998), as 
required under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S. C. 1531 et seq.).
    On June 30, 1999, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
complaint against us challenging our critical habitat findings for 
seven species, including the bay checkerspot. On August 30, 2000, the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of California 
(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bruce Babbitt, et al., 
CIV 99-3202 SC) ruled on several of the species involved, including the 
bay checkerspot. The court ordered us to propose critical habitat 
within 60 days of the ruling and to finalize the designation within 120 
days of the proposed designation.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) 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 (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) which may require special management 
consideration or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
that are necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened 
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer 
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical 
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
the species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
    Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the 
physical and biological features essential for the conservation of that 
species. Designation of critical habitat alerts the public as well as 
land-managing agencies to the importance of these areas.
    Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and may provide protection to 
areas where significant threats to the species have been identified. 
Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse

[[Page 61220]]

modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 
agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are 
likely to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed 
critical habitat. Aside from the protection that may be provided under 
section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands 
designated as critical habitat.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with us to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 
endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. In 50 CFR 402.02, ``jeopardize the 
continued existence'' (of a species) is defined as engaging in an 
activity likely to result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood 
of survival and recovery of a listed species. ``Destruction or adverse 
modification'' (of critical habitat) is defined as a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for the survival and recovery of the listed species for which critical 
habitat was designated. Thus, the definitions of ``jeopardy'' to the 
species and ``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are nearly 
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas that have features that 
are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection. The proposed 
critical habitat areas are considered essential to the conservation of 
the bay checkerspot butterfly as described in the Recovery Plan 
(Service 1998). However, designating critical habitat does not, in 
itself, lead to recovery of a listed species. Designation does not 
create a management plan, establish numerical population goals, or 
prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of critical 
habitat). Specific management recommendations for areas designated as 
critical habitat are most appropriately addressed in recovery, 
conservation, and management plans, and through section 7 consultations 
and section 10 permits.


    In determining areas that are essential to conserve the bay 
checkerspot, we used the best scientific information available to us. 
This information included habitat suitability and site-specific species 
information. We have emphasized areas of current and historical bay 
checkerspot occurrences, especially larger sites in proximity to known 
occurrences. To maintain genetic and demographic interchange that will 
help maintain the viability of a regional metapopulation, we included 
corridor areas that allow movement between populations. Dispersal is a 
crucial function for a species with metapopulation dynamics like the 
bay checkerspot.
    We used data on known and historic locations and maps of serpentine 
soils to identify potentially important areas. Then, through the use of 
1990s digital orthophotos available through the Bay Area Digital 
GeoResource (BADGER) website (http://badger.parl.com), and limited 
ground checking, we estimated the current extent of suitable breeding 
habitat. We included in critical habitat both suitable habitat and 
areas that link suitable breeding habitat, since these links facilitate 
movement of individuals between habitat areas, and are important for 
dispersal and gene flow and thus to the conservation of the species.
    Our 1984 proposal to list the bay checkerspot butterfly with 
critical habitat (49 FR 35665) proposed five critical habitat zones. 
Four of the five are included in this proposal, with modifications 
based on improved knowledge of the biology and habitat of the species. 
Since the original proposal, the fifth zone (Woodside Zone) has been 
mostly converted to housing, so we are no longer proposing it for 
designation as critical habitat. Since 1984, a great deal of literature 
on the bay checkerspot butterfly, both published and unpublished, has 
added to our understanding of the species (see literature cited in 
Service 1998; Weiss 1999; Weiss and Launer 2000). Based on this 
expanded information, we have been able to identify habitats and 
populations that were poorly documented before the mid-1980s, and 
assess their significance. Besides the four previously identified 
critical habitat zones, this critical habitat proposal identifies 11 
additional habitat units essential to the conservation of the bay 
checkerspot, for a total of 15 critical habitat units.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(I) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features 
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. These include, but are not limited to space for 
individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and habitats 
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the 
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the bay 
checkerspot are those habitat components that are essential for the 
primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, breeding, maturation, 
and dispersal. The areas we propose to designate as critical habitat 
provide some or all of the known primary constituent elements for the 
species, which include: areas of open grassland; stands of Plantago 
erecta, Castilleja exserta, or Castilleja densiflora; spring flowers 
providing nectar; pollinators of the bay checkerspot's food and nectar 
plants; soils derived from serpentinic rock; stable holes or cracks in 
the soil and surface rocks or rock outcrops; wetlands providing 
moisture during times of spring drought; and space for dispersal 
between habitable areas. In addition, topography with varied slopes and 
aspects is a primary constituent element to be conserved when it is 
present in combination with one or more of the primary constituent 
elements above.
    Appropriate grassland vegetation provides cover for larvae, pupae 
and adults, egg-laying stimuli and sites for females, and adequate open 
ground for larvae to be able to crawl efficiently in search of 
foraging, basking, diapause, or pupation sites (Service 1998). Stands 
of food plants, including nectar plants, are important in the 
butterfly's life cycle. The bay checkerspot's primary larval food plant 
is Plantago erecta, an annual, native plantain. The larvae also often 
use a secondary food plant species, usually either Castilleja 
(Orthocarpus) densiflora (purple owl's-clover) or Castilleja exserta 
(Orthocarpus purpurascens) (exserted paintbrush). These secondary food 
plants tend to remain edible later in the season than the plantain. Bay 
checkerspot adults benefit from visiting flowers for nectar. Nectar 
plants commonly visited include Lomatium spp. (desertparsley), 
Lasthenia californica (= chrysostoma) (California goldfields), Layia 
platyglossa (tidy-tips), Muilla maritima, and others.
    Adequate native pollinators to sustain populations of Castilleja 
and nectar species, including but not limited to such groups as 
bumblebees and solitary bees, are important to the value of critical 
habitat because these plants are dependent on pollinators to reproduce 
and perpetuate their populations in the area. Plantago erecta is 
thought to be self-pollinating.

[[Page 61221]]

    The butterfly usually is found associated with grasslands on 
serpentine soils, such as the Montara soil series. In Santa Clara 
County, the Inks and Climara soil series are related soils and often 
have inclusions of Montara (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1974). 
Henneke and other serpentine soils also occur within the range of the 
butterfly. Serpentine soils often support other primary constituent 
elements, but they are not limited to serpentine soils. Soil structure 
with stable holes or cracks and surface rocks or rock outcrops provide 
cover and shelter for bay checkerspot larvae seeking diapause sites and 
basking sites.
    Bay checkerspot adults have been observed to fly considerable 
distances during drought conditions to draw water or solutes from moist 
soils around wetlands (``puddling,'' Launer et al. 1993). Triggering of 
the puddling behavior by drought conditions suggests it is a directed, 
adaptive behavior, and that the butterflies are seeking out moist areas 
during times of water or heat stress to obtain essential nutrients or 
    Adult bay checkerspots are capable of dispersing over long 
distances. Movements of more than 5.6 kilometers (km) (3.5 miles (mi)) 
have been documented (see Service 1998), and longer movements are 
possible. Adult dispersal, especially by fertilized females carrying 
eggs, is vital to the maintenance of natural bay checkerspot 
metapopulation structure, which requires reestablishment or 
replenishment of populations that are at or near local extinction. 
Roads, especially those traveled more heavily and at higher speeds, 
present a risk of death or injury to dispersing bay checkerspots. Where 
open spaces exist that facilitate dispersal, they may support the 
persistence of bay checkerspot populations and metapopulations. Some 
habitats or land uses are thought to be more suitable for dispersal 
than others; for example, grassland may be more readily crossed than 
woodland or landscaped areas. But documented long-distance movements 
demonstrate that the butterfly is sometimes capable of crossing a 
variety of substrates (Service 1998).
    Topographic diversity provides opportunities for early season 
warmth as well as cool north- and east-facing slopes that are a refuge 
for the species during droughts. Bay checkerspot larvae develop more 
rapidly when they can bask in sunlight that penetrates short-statured 
grassland vegetation. Adults also use warm exposures for basking, and 
find early season nectar plants on warm south- and west-facing slopes.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In an effort to map areas that have the features essential to the 
conservation of the species, we used data on known bay checkerspot 
locations and conservation planning areas that were identified in the 
final recovery plan (Service 1998) as essential for the recovery of the 
    We also considered the existing status of lands in designating 
areas as critical habitat. The bay checkerspot is known to occur on 
State, county, and private lands. The range of critical habitat extends 
in the south from the San Martin area, in Santa Clara County, north to 
San Bruno Mountain in San Mateo County. We could not depend on Federal 
lands for critical habitat designation because we are not currently 
aware of any Federal lands within the range of the bay checkerspot that 
can be inhabited by the butterfly. We are not aware of any Tribal lands 
in or near our proposed critical habitat units for the bay checkerspot. 
However, should we learn of any Tribal lands in the vicinity of the 
critical habitat designation subsequent to this proposal, we will 
coordinate with the Tribes before making a final determination as to 
whether any Tribal lands should be included as critical habitat for the 
bay checkerspot.
    Section 10(a) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits to take 
listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental 
take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation 
plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee 
agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the 
impacts of the requested incidental take. One small, short-term HCP 
covers the bay checkerspot in about 10 acres of critical habitat 
through November 2001. This HCP permits temporary project-related 
impacts from electric transmission line work. To date, project 
construction anticipated to affect the bay checkerspot is substantially 
complete (see the Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans section 
below for additional information on the relationship between HCPs and 
critical habitat designation).
    In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to avoid 
developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, that are 
unlikely to contribute to bay checkerspot conservation. However, the 
minimum mapping unit that we used did not allow us to exclude all 
developed areas, such as towns, or housing developments, or other lands 
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements essential for 
conservation of the bay checkerspot. Existing features and structures 
within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, 
aqueducts, railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other 
urban landscaped areas will not contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements. Federal actions limited to those areas, 
therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they 
affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent 
critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The approximate area encompassing proposed critical habitat by land 
ownership is shown in Table 1. Lands proposed are under private and 
State and local ownership. The species is not known to occur or to have 
historically occurred on Federal lands. Lands proposed as critical 
habitat have been divided into 15 Critical Habitat Units. Critical 
habitat proposed for the bay checkerspot includes 10,597 hectares (ha) 
(26,182 acres (ac)), with 806 ha (1,992 ac) in San Mateo County and 
9,791 ha (24,190 ac) in Santa Clara County. Because the bay checkerspot 
is nearly confined to island-like patches of habitat, its critical 
habitat is easily categorized into separate areas or units (see maps). 
We present brief descriptions of each unit, and our reasons for 
proposing it as critical habitat, below.
    Conserving the butterfly includes the need to reestablish historic 
populations of the species to areas within several of the units, in 
order to secure the butterfly in representative sites in its former 
range, and in a range of habitat and climate conditions. Returning the 
butterfly to good representatives of its former diversity of sites and 
habitat and climate conditions is necessary to reduce the long-term 
risk of range-wide extinction of the species (Service 1998).

[[Page 61222]]

       Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) by County and Land Ownership
     [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries; however, not all the areas within those broad
 boundaries, such as cities, towns, or other developments, contain habitat features considered essential to the
                                   survival of the bay checkerspot butterfly]
                   County                         Federal        Local/State        Private           Total
San Mateo...................................               0           519 ha           287 ha           806 ha
                                                                   (1,283 ac)         (709 ac)       (1,992 ac)
Santa Clara.................................               0         1,704 ha         8,087 ha         9,791 ha
                                                                   (4,210 ac)      (19,980 ac)      (24,190 ac)
Total.......................................               0         2,223 ha         8,374 ha        10,597 ha
                                                                   (5,493 ac)      (20,689 ac)      (26,182 ac)

Unit 1. Edgewood Park/Triangle Unit

    Occurring in San Mateo County, this unit comprises 217 ha (535 ac) 
in T.5 S., R.4 W. (Mount Diablo meridian/base line). Included is most 
of Edgewood Natural Preserve, a county park southeast of the junction 
of Edgewood Road and I-280, and watershed lands of the San Francisco 
Water Department within the triangle formed by I-280, Edgewood Road, 
and Canada Road, as well as a small additional area of serpentine soil 
on the west side of Canada Road. Much of this area also falls within 
the San Francisco State Fish and Game Refuge. The area supports the 
Edgewood population of the butterfly discussed in the species' recovery 
plan, which is the main population of the San Mateo metapopulation of 
the bay checkerspot (Service 1998). Without the Edgewood population the 
San Mateo metapopulation would almost certainly go extinct, resulting 
in the loss of one of only two metapopulations of the bay checkerspot 
and a significant range reduction for the species. This population is 
also the northernmost remaining population of the species. The unit 
contains considerable areas of good habitat, although additional 
management attention may be needed for the butterfly to thrive here.

Unit 2. Jasper Ridge Unit

    Occurring within San Mateo County, the unit covers 287 ha (709 ac) 
in Stanford University's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, in T.6 S., 
R.3 W. (Mount Diablo meridian/base line). There are decades of data and 
dozens of published scientific papers about the Jasper Ridge population 
of the bay checkerspot. The population has declined severely in recent 
years, and may now be extirpated. However, we are confident that a 
stable population of the species can be restored to Jasper Ridge. The 
Jasper Ridge population is essential as a supporting element of the San 
Mateo metapopulation, and a backup to the Edgewood and prospective San 
Bruno Mountain populations.

Unit 3. San Bruno Mountain Unit

    This unit also occurs in San Mateo County, with approximately 303 
ha (749 ac) in T.3 S., R.5 W. (Mount Diablo meridian/base line), above 
the 152 m (500 ft) elevation contour and east of the western Pacific 
Gas and Electric transmission corridor on San Bruno Mountain. This unit 
is mostly within San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, and is 
inside the boundaries of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat 
Conservation Plan area. The bay checkerspot formerly inhabited this 
area, but is believed to have been extirpated around 1986 by a 
combination of factors, including over-collection and a fire that 
burned its habitat. However, this unit has supported a substantial bay 
checkerspot population in the past, and it is reasonable to expect that 
the butterfly can be reestablished here.
    San Bruno Mountain represents the most northerly part of the 
species' former range on the San Francisco peninsula with reasonably 
good conditions to support the butterfly. The San Bruno Mountain unit 
is essential as a supporting element of the San Mateo metapopulation 
and a backup to the Edgewood and Jasper Ridge populations.

Unit 4. Bear Ranch Unit

    The Bear Ranch unit, totaling 250 ha (618 ac), lies west of Coyote 
Lake (Coyote Reservoir) in the eastern hills of the Santa Clara Valley, 
in southern Santa Clara County (T.9 S., R.4 E. and T.10 S., R.4 E., 
Mount Diablo meridian/base line). The unit is named for a ranching 
property that partly occurs in the unit. The ranch and lands, including 
and surrounding the unit, are now owned and managed by the Santa Clara 
County Parks and Recreation Department. This location represents one of 
the most recent population discoveries of the bay checkerspot and has 
been documented for several years as a persistent population. The 
population is also one of the most southerly occurrences of the 
butterfly. It lies about 10 km (6 mi) southeast of the Kirby core 
population area described in the recovery plan, with some intervening 
habitable areas and adequate dispersal corridors. Over 40 ha (100 ac) 
of mapped serpentine soils in several large to small patches occur 
within the unit. In addition to the significance of its position 
establishing the outer perimeter of the range of the species, the 
recovery plan makes the protection of large, good quality habitat areas 
near core populations, such as this, a high priority (Service 1998).

Unit 5. San Martin Unit

    This unit includes 237 ha (586 ac) west of San Martin, in the 
western foothills of the Santa Clara Valley in southern Santa Clara 
County (T.9 S., R.3 E). Included in the designated critical habitat are 
extensive areas of serpentine soils and intervening areas that may 
support habitat or be needed for dispersal. Regular occupation of the 
unit by the bay checkerspot has been documented, although no recent 
quantitative surveys are available of this population. The unit lies 
entirely on private lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County, about 
6.4 km (4 mi) west-southwest of the Bear Ranch unit and 11 km (7 mi) 
south of the Kirby core area. This is the second population at the 
southern periphery of the range. The recovery plan makes the protection 
of large, good quality habitat areas near core populations, such as 
this, a high priority (Service 1998). We are not aware of any public 
lands in the unit.

Unit 6. Communications Hill Unit

    Communications Hill, and adjacent hilltops in south-central San 
Jose, are formed by outcroppings of serpentine rock, with grasslands 
capable of supporting the bay checkerspot. This unit occurs in Santa 
Clara County and covers 179 ha (443 ac) of mostly undeveloped land. It 
also crosses a major road and railroad tracks, and includes a quarry 
that we believe, after appropriate reclamation, could be restored to 
bay checkerspot habitat. The butterfly has been documented on 
Communications Hill in the past, but no

[[Page 61223]]

recent comprehensive surveys for the species have been conducted in the 
area. Whether the unit is currently occupied is not known. The recovery 
plan calls for conservation of larger habitat areas currently or 
historically occupied by the bay checkerspot. This location also 
represents the northwestern-most remnant of the Santa Clara County 
metapopulation. The unit is surrounded by Curtner Avenue, Almaden 
Expressway, Hillsdale Avenue, and Monterey Road (T.7 S., R.1 E., Mount 
Diablo meridian/base line).
    Much of this unit lies on private lands within unincorporated 
lands, with a smaller area in the City of San Jose. Portions of a Santa 
Clara County communications facility and a San Jose water company 
facility may fall within the unit. Only currently undeveloped areas 
supporting the primary constituent elements of habitat for the 
butterfly would be subject to regulatory oversight of any Federal 

Unit 7. Kalana Hills Unit

    The Kalana Hills unit in Santa Clara County comprises 240 ha (592 
ac) on the southwest side of the Santa Clara Valley between Laguna 
Avenue and San Bruno Avenue (T.9 S., R.2 E, Mount Diablo meridian/base 
line). Four serpentine outcrops form hills or hillsides in this area. 
At least one population of the bay checkerspot has been documented on 
one or all of these outcrops in recent surveys. This unit also includes 
intervening areas that connect the outcrops. The Coyote Ridge unit lies 
about 3.2 km (2 mi) to the northeast, the Santa Teresa unit about 2 km 
(1.2 mi) to the northwest, the San Vicente-Calero unit about 3.2 km (2 
mi) to the west, and the Morgan Hill unit about 3.2 km (2 mi) to the 
southeast. Because of its proximity to several other, large population 
centers for the butterfly, we expect the Kalana Hills unit to be 
regularly occupied by the species. If, as is possible given the bay 
checkerspot's large population swings, the butterfly's population in 
the unit were to die out, it is likely to be quickly reestablished by 
bay checkerspots immigrating from adjacent sites. We are not aware of 
any public lands in the unit. A portion of the largest and northernmost 
serpentine outcrop is within the limits of the City of San Jose; the 
remainder of the unit is on private lands in unincorporated Santa Clara 

Unit 8. Kirby Unit

    The Kirby critical habitat unit includes 2,855 ha (7,053 ac) along 
the southern portion of ``Coyote Ridge'' in Santa Clara County (T.8 S., 
R.2 E., T.8 S., R.3 E., and T.9 S., R.3 E., Mount Diablo meridian/base 
line). It contains the Kirby area for the bay checkerspot discussed in 
the species' Recovery Plan (Service 1998). The ridge, informally known 
as Coyote Ridge, runs northwest to southeast, parallel to and east of 
Highway 101 from Yerba Buena Road to Anderson Reservoir in Santa Clara 
County, and forms the eastern slope of the Santa Clara Valley (U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles San Jose East, Lick 
Observatory, Santa Teresa Hills, and Morgan Hill. The ridge is not 
named on these maps). Coyote Ridge also parallels the Silver Creek 
Fault and Silver Creek itself. Extensive serpentine soil areas, and 
four population areas for the bay checkerspot (Kirby, Metcalf, San 
Felipe, and Silver Creek Hills), lie on or adjacent to this ridge and 
fault system (Service 1998). Metcalf Canyon, Silver Creek, and 
nonserpentine soil areas create natural divisions among these four 
population areas. The Kirby unit is the southernmost of four critical 
habitat units corresponding to the four population areas along Coyote 
Ridge, and runs along this ridge east of Highway 101 and Coyote Creek 
from Metcalf Canyon south to Anderson Lake. The northern boundary of 
the Kirby unit abuts the Metcalf unit. The northwest tip of the Kirby 
unit also connects to the Tulare Hill Corridor unit.
    The Kirby critical habitat unit regularly supports one of the 
largest populations of the bay checkerspot, and is considered one of 
the centers of the species' Santa Clara County metapopulation. The 
recovery plan considers protection of the area of the highest priority 
for conservation of the species. The unit contains several hundred 
acres of diverse serpentine grassland habitat as well as nectaring 
areas, seasonal wetlands, and dispersal areas. The unit includes lands 
within the limits of the City of San Jose, private lands in 
unincorporated Santa Clara County, and small areas in the City of 
Morgan Hill. Public lands in this unit include the Santa Clara County 
Field Sports Park and portions of Santa Clara County Motorcycle Park, 
Anderson Lake County Park, Coyote Creek Park, and lands of the Santa 
Clara Valley Water District. A 101 ha (250 ac) reserve, leased by Waste 
Management Inc. on behalf of the Kirby Conservation Trust to further 
conservation of the bay checkerspot, also falls within the unit. The 
Kirby Conservation Trust has funded extensive research on the bay 
checkerspot for more than a decade at the lease site, greatly improving 
our understanding of the ecology, population dynamics, and conservation 
needs of the species (see literature cited in Service 1998).

Unit 9. Morgan Hill Unit

    The Morgan Hill unit in Santa Clara County includes 374 ha (925 ac) 
northwest of the City of Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County (T.9 S., R.2 
E., T.9 S., R.3 E., Mount Diablo meridian/base line) . It lies less 
than 3.2 km (2 mi) southwest of the Coyote Ridge unit and about 3.2 km 
(2 mi) southeast of the Kalana Hills unit. This is the area described 
as ``north of Llagas Avenue'' in our 1998 recovery plan. The unit is 
partly within the limits of the City of Morgan Hill and partly on 
private lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Murphy Springs 
Park, a small city park, is within the unit. The Morgan Hill unit has 
large areas of serpentine soils and grassland with a variety of slope 
exposures, suitable for the bay checkerspot. The unit has been 
documented to be occupied by the butterfly in the past, as well as in 
more recent surveys in the past 2 to 3 years. Because of its large 
habitat area and proximity to core populations of the bay checkerspot, 
the recovery plan considers protection of this area essential to the 
conservation of the species (Service 1998).

Unit 10. Metcalf Unit

    This unit includes 1,616 ha (3,994 ac) in Santa Clara County, east 
of Highway 101, south of Silver Creek Valley Road, north of Metcalf 
Canyon, and west of Silver Creek (T.8 S., R.2 E., Mount Diablo 
meridian/base line). The unit contains the Metcalf population area for 
the bay checkerspot, one of the four largest habitat areas and three 
largest current population centers for the butterfly (Service 1998). 
Hundreds of acres of serpentine soils and thousands of bay checkerspots 
occur within the unit. This area is considered one of the centers of 
the species' Santa Clara County metapopulation. The recovery plan 
considers protection of the area of the highest priority for 
conservation of the butterfly. This unit adjoins the Kirby unit to the 
south, San Felipe unit to the east, Silver Creek Hills unit to the 
north, and Tulare Hill Corridor unit to the west, and provides crucial 
habitat connectivity for butterfly dispersal among these areas. The 
Metcalf unit lies in the City of San Jose and on private lands in 
unincorporated Santa Clara County. Portions of Santa Clara County 
Motorcycle Park, Coyote Creek Park, and lands of Santa Clara Valley 
Water District fall within the unit.

[[Page 61224]]

Unit 11. San Felipe Unit

    This unit includes 404 ha (998 ac) in Santa Clara County, southwest 
of San Felipe Road and north of Metcalf Road (T.8 S., R.2 E., Mount 
Diablo meridian/base line), primarily on private lands in 
unincorporated county lands, but also within San Jose city limits. The 
unit contains the San Felipe population area for the bay checkerspot, 
one of the four largest habitat areas and three largest current 
population centers for the butterfly (Service 1998). This area is 
considered one of the centers of the species' Santa Clara County 
metapopulation. The recovery plan considers protection of the area of 
the highest priority for conservation of the butterfly. Several hundred 
acres of serpentine soils occur within the unit with nectaring and 
dispersal areas. We are not aware of any public lands in the unit.

Unit 12. Silver Creek Unit

    The Silver Creek unit comprises 700 ha (1,730 ac), primarily within 
the limits of the City of San Jose, but with some area on private lands 
in unincorporated Santa Clara County (T.7 S., R.1 E., T.7 S., R.2 E., 
T.8 S., R.2 E., Mount Diablo meridian/base line). This unit is 
surrounded by Highway 101 and Coyote Creek on the west, Yerba Buena 
Road on the north, Silver Creek on the east and northeast, and Silver 
Creek Valley Road on the south. The unit includes the Silver Creek 
Hills population area for the bay checkerspot (Service 1998). It 
includes nearly 400 ha (1,000 ac) of contiguous serpentine soils, as 
well as other scattered serpentine outcrops, as well as habitat less 
suitable for breeding but needed for nectar-feeding or dispersal. Small 
areas of public lands in this unit include portions of Coyote Creek 
Park and Silver Creek Linear Park. A 52 ha (128 ac) private bay 
checkerspot preserve dedicated by Shea Homes, the Silver Creek Valley 
Country Club Butterfly Habitat Reserve, lies within this unit. Also 
included is the proposed Ranch on Silver Creek development, a 28 ha (70 
ac) preserve proposed by William Lyon Homes (former Presley Homes), and 
the proposed Ryland Homes Silver Ridge development and private open 
space. Several electric transmission lines and two major natural gas 
lines cross the unit. Not all of the area within the unit is capable of 
supporting the butterfly or its primary constituent elements, and such 
areas would not be subject to section 7 consultation. However, we have 
included these areas in the critical habitat designation in the 
interests of having a clear boundary that is readily located on the 
ground, or because of mapping uncertainties.
    In the last several years, a small population of the bay 
checkerspot has been documented in the Silver Creek unit, and the area 
has a long history of much larger populations. Portions of the unit 
known to have been inhabited by the butterfly in the past have not been 
surveyed recently, or are currently in degraded condition, or both. We 
believe that the Silver Creek Hills population is likely to increase, 
and that much of the degraded area could be restored to useful breeding 
habitat. The Silver Creek unit has extensive, diverse, and high-quality 
habitat, and represents the northernmost unit of the Santa Clara County 
metapopulation. The Silver Creek unit provides a population reservoir 
critical to the survival of the Santa Clara County metapopulation of 
bay checkerspots--the larger and more viable of the two remaining 
metapopulations (Service 1998).

Unit 13. San Vicente-Calero Unit

    The San Vicente-Calero unit contains 759 ha (1,875 ac) within and 
to the west of Calero County Park, Santa Clara County (T.8 S., R.1 E., 
T.8 S., R.2 E., T.9 S., R.1 E., and T.9 S., R.2 E., Mount Diablo 
meridian/base line). This area supports a known population of the bay 
checkerspot in a large area of good-quality habitat; other areas within 
the unit that are apparently suitable for the butterfly have not been 
surveyed. The unit is also within butterfly dispersal distance of the 
Santa Teresa Hills unit (see below), which we consider to be capable of 
supporting a very large population of the butterfly, and the Kalana 
Hills unit (number 9, above), which are themselves accessible to and 
from other units. Therefore we believe the San Vicente-Calero 
population can contribute significantly to maintaining the Santa Clara 
County metapopulation of the bay checkerspot. For all these reasons the 
recovery plan considers protection of this area essential to the 
conservation of the species. The unit is south of McKean Road and east 
of the town of New Almaden, Almaden Road, and Alamitos Creek. It lies 
about 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the Santa Teresa unit and about 3.2 km (2 
mi) west of the Kalana Hills unit. Portions of the unit outside the 
county park are within the limits of the City of San Jose.

Unit 14. Santa Teresa Hills Unit

    The Santa Teresa Hills unit includes 1,821 ha (4,500 ac) in Santa 
Clara County (T.8 S., R.1 E. and T.8 S., R.2 E., Mount Diablo meridian/
base line) with extensive areas of serpentine soils. Portions of the 
Santa Teresa Hills are known to support the butterfly now, and have 
supported the species in the past, but no current comprehensive survey 
of the butterfly in the area is available. We believe that the Santa 
Teresa Hills could support a significant population of bay 
checkerspots. In addition to adding a fifth substantial population to 
the Santa Clara County metapopulation, conservation and management of 
the Santa Teresa Hills population would support development of a strong 
population of the butterfly in a slightly cooler, moister area of the 
county, at a site that may experience less air pollution than the more 
eastern units. The Santa Teresa Hills critical habitat unit is intended 
to include most undeveloped habitat in the area, as well as intervening 
areas that are unsurveyed or less suitable but needed for dispersal 
among higher-quality areas. The unit lies north of Bailey Avenue, 
McKean Road, and Almaden Road, south of developed areas of the city of 
Santa Clara, and west of Santa Teresa Boulevard. The unit abuts the 
Tulare Hill Corridor unit.

Unit 15. Tulare Hill Corridor Unit

    The Tulare Hill Corridor unit, 355 ha (876 ac) in Santa Clara 
County, connects the Coyote Ridge (Kirby and Metcalf, and through them, 
San Felipe and Silver Creek) and Santa Teresa units. Tulare Hill is a 
prominent serpentine hill that rises from the middle of the Santa Clara 
Valley in southern San Jose, west of the crossing of Metcalf Road and 
Highway 101 (T.8 S., R.2 E., Mount Diablo meridian/base line). 
Extensive habitat on the hill is currently occupied by the bay 
checkerspot, and is essential both as a population center and for 
dispersal across the valley. The Metcalf and Kirby populations of the 
bay checkerspot lie less than 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) to the northeast, 
separated by a major highway and a narrow band of other unfavorable 
habitat. The Santa Teresa Hills population area for the species lies 
about 2 km (1.2 mi) to the southwest, with dispersal habitat in 
between. We believe the long-term viability of the bay checkerspot 
depends on the presence of a corridor for dispersal of adults to and 
from the Santa Teresa Hills and Coyote Ridge (Service 1998). Tulare 
Hill is an ideal location for such a corridor because of the narrow 
extent of the valley and the development in this location, the presence 
of high elevations on the hill that may attract butterflies over busy 
roads and developed areas, and the presence of suitable habitat on 
Tulare Hill itself. Migrant butterflies from either Santa Teresa Hills 
or Coyote Ridge may settle on Tulare Hill, contributing individuals and 

[[Page 61225]]

diversity to the population there, and adults from Tulare Hill may 
migrate to the adjacent habitat areas.
    Public lands within the designated unit include parts of Coyote 
Creek Park, Metcalf Park, and Santa Teresa County Park. Roughly half of 
Tulare Hill itself is within the limits of the City of San Jose, the 
remainder on private lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. 
Several major electrical transmission lines cross the unit. Some areas 
within the unit are not inhabited by bay checkerspot individuals but 
can function as dispersal corridor.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, including 
the Service, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry 
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent 
that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, 
organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal 
entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if 
their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit, 
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Under section 7(a) of the Act, Federal agencies, including the 
Service, evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) and regulations at 50 CFR 
402.10 requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that 
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species 
or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to 
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the 
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference 
report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if 
critical habitat were designated. If such designation occurs, we may 
adopt the formal conference report as a biological opinion, if no 
significant new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    When a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would advise the 
agencies whether the permitted actions would likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued 
existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a 
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
    Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a 
Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal action, 
including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)) will also be subject to 
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat, and actions on non-Federal lands 
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require 
section 7 consultation. Not all of the areas within some of the units 
are capable of supporting the butterfly or its primary constituent 
elements, and such areas would not be subject to section 7 
consultation. However, in the interests of having a clear boundary that 
is readily located on the ground, or because of mapping uncertainties, 
we have included some areas that may not be critical habitat within 
some units described below.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in 
areas occupied by the bay checkerspot is not likely to result in a 
significant regulatory burden above that already in place due to the 
presence of the listed species. For some previously reviewed actions in 
instances where critical habitat is subsequently designated. In those 
cases where activities occur on designated critical habitat where bay 
checkerspot are not found at the time of the action, an additional 
section 7 consultation with the Service not previously required may be 
necessary for actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal 
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and 
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that

[[Page 61226]]

designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action 
that may adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such 
designation. When determining whether any of these activities may 
adversely modify critical habitat, we base our analysis on the effects 
of the action on the entire critical habitat area and not just on the 
portion where the activity will occur. Adverse effects on constituent 
elements or segments of critical habitat generally do not result in an 
adverse modification determination unless that loss, when added to the 
environmental baseline, is likely to appreciably diminish the 
capability of the critical habitat to satisfy essential requirements of 
the species. In other words, activities that may destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include those that alter the primary 
constituent elements (defined above) to an extent that the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the bay 
checkerspot is appreciably diminished.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and require that a section 
7 consultation be conducted include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading, 
discing, ripping and tilling;
    (2) Removing, destroying, or altering vegetation (e.g., including 
altering grazing practices and seeding);
    (3) Water contracts, transfers, diversion, impoundment, 
application, or conveyance, groundwater pumping, irrigation, or other 
activity that wets or inundates habitat, creates barriers or deterrents 
to dispersal, or results in habitat being converted to lower values for 
the butterfly (e.g., conversion to urban development, vineyards, 
landscaping, etc.);
    (4) Sale, exchange, or lease of critical habitat that is likely to 
result in the habitat being destroyed or degraded;
    (5) Recreational activities that significantly deter the use of 
critical habitat by bay checkerspots or alter habitat through 
associated maintenance activities (e.g., off-road vehicle parks, golf 
courses, trail construction or maintenance);
    (6) Construction activities that destroy or degrade critical 
habitat (e.g., urban and suburban development, building of recreational 
facilities such as off-road vehicle parks and golf courses, road 
building, drilling, mining, quarrying and associated reclamation 
activities); and
    (7) Application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other 
chemicals or biological agents.
    Any of the above activities that appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat to the degree that they affect the survival and 
recovery of the bay checkerpot may be considered an adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We note that such activities may also 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
resulting from a Federal action, contact the Field Supervisor, 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife, and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave, Portland, OR 
97232 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us broad discretion to exclude 
from critical habitat designation areas where the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not 
result in the extinction of the species. We believe that in most 
instances the benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat 
designations will outweigh the benefits of including them.
    The benefits of including HCP lands in critical habitat are 
normally small. Activities in designated critical habitat that may 
affect critical habitat require consultation under section 7 of the 
Act. This is the major benefit of designating lands as critical 
habitat. Consultation would ensure that adequate protection is provided 
to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. However, our 
experience indicates that where HCPs are in place, this benefit is 
small or non-existent. Currently approved and permitted HCPs are 
designed to ensure the long-term survival of covered species within the 
plan area. The lands that we would find essential for the conservation 
of the species, and thus fall under the first prong of the definition 
of critical habitat would, where we have approved HCPs and the species 
is a covered species under the HCP, normally be protected in reserves 
and other conservation lands. HCPs and their implementation agreements 
outline management measures and protections for conservation lands that 
are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat for 
covered species.
    In addition, an HCP application must itself be consulted upon. 
While this consultation will not look specifically at the issue of 
adverse modification of critical habitat, it will look at the very 
similar concept of jeopardy to the listed species in the plan area. 
Since HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs, address land use within 
the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the plan boundaries have 
been thoroughly addressed in the HCP and the consultation on the HCP. 
Our experience is that under most circumstances consultations under the 
jeopardy standard will reach the same result as consultations under the 
adverse modification standard. Additional measures to protect the 
habitat from adverse modificationare not likely to be required.
    Further, HCPs typically provide for greater conservation benefits 
to a covered species than section 7 consultations because HCPs assure 
the long term protection and management of a covered species and its 
habitat, and funding for such management through the standards found in 
the 5-Point Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242) and the HCP No Surprises 
regulation (63 FR 8859). Such assurances are typically not provided by 
section 7 consultations which, in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit 
the project proponent to long term special management or protections. 
Thus the lands covered by a consultation typically will not provide the 
extensive benefits of an HCP.
    The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important 
conservation benefits, including the development of biological 
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species 
recovery and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species 
while allowing for development. The educational benefits of critical 
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for 
the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially 
the same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment 
procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public 
participation that occurs in the development of many regional HCPs. For 
these reasons, then, we believe that designation of critical habitat 
has little benefit in areas covered by HCPs.
    In contrast, the benefits of excluding HCPs from being designated 
as critical habitat are more significant. In response to other critical 
habitat proposals, we have received comments about the additional 
regulatory and economic burden of designating critical habitat. These 
include the need for additional consultation with the Service and the

[[Page 61227]]

need for additional surveys and information gathering to complete these 
consultations. HCP applicants have also stated that they are concerned 
that third parties may challenge HCPs on the basis that they result in 
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
    The benefits of excluding HCPs include relieving landowners, 
communities and counties of any additional minor regulatory review that 
might be imposed by critical habitat. This benefit is important given 
our past representations that once an HCP is negotiated and approved by 
us after public comment, activities consistent with the plan will 
satisfy the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Many HCPs, 
particularly large regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon 
completion, become regional conservation plans that are consistent with 
the recovery of covered species. Many of these regional plans benefit 
many species, both listed and unlisted. Imposing an additional 
regulatory review after HCP completion not only results in minor, if 
any, additional benefit to the species, it may jeopardize conservation 
efforts and partnerships in many areas and could be viewed as a 
disincentive to those developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs provides us with 
an opportunity to streamline regulatory compliance and confirms 
regulatory assurances for HCP participants.
    Another benefit of excluding HCPs is that it would encourage the 
continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including 
states, local governments, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, that together can implement conservation actions we would 
be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs from 
critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships, and, we 
believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in the 
    In general, then we believe the benefits of critical habitat 
designation to be small in areas covered by approved HCPs. We also 
believe that the benefits of excluding HCPs from designation are small, 
but significant. Because we believe that, the small benefits of 
inclusion weighed against the benefits of exclusion, including the 
benefits of relieving property owners of an additional layer of 
approvals and regulation, together with the encouragement of 
conservation partnerships would generally result in HCPs being excluded 
from critical habitat designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Given this general analysis, we expect to analyze the specific 
benefits in each particular critical habitat designation because not 
all HCPs are alike with regard to species coverage and design. Within 
this designation we need to evaluate completed and legally operative 
HCPs in the range of the California gnatcatcher to determine whether 
the benefits of excluding these particular areas outweigh the benefits 
of including them.
    The San Bruno Mountain Area HCP overlaps with the proposed critical 
habitat designation on San Bruno Mountain. The butterfly is believed to 
have been extirpated from the mountain since about 1986. The San Bruno 
Mountain Area HCP does not discuss the bay checkerspot in detail, and 
the Incidental Take Permit for this HCP currently does not include the 
bay checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we have not excluded the area 
covered by this HCP from the proposed critical habitat designation. Any 
future Service involvement in activities on San Bruno Mountain, such as 
habitat restoration, may require section 7 consultation if there are 
likely to be effects on bay checkerspot critical habitat.
    The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) Metcalf-Edenvale/Metcalf-Mont 
Vista HCP covers only about 4 ha (10 ac) in the Santa Teresa Hill, San 
Vicente-Calero, and Tulare Hill Corridor proposed critical habitat 
units. Because the HCP expires in November 2001, and the permitted 
project is expected to be complete before any final critical habitat 
designation, we are not excluding lands covered under this short-term 
HCP from our critical habitat proposal. We reviewed the project with PG 
& E and determined that the remaining work under the HCP will not cause 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; 
therefore, no formal conference on the remaining work will be 
    In the event that future HCPs covering the bay checkerspot are 
developed within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, we will 
work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide for protection and 
management of habitat areas essential for the conservation of the bay 
checkerspot by either directing development and habitat modification to 
nonessential areas or appropriately modifying activities within 
essential habitat areas so that such activities will not adversely 
modify the primary constituent elements. The HCP development process 
provides an opportunity for more intensive data collection and analysis 
regarding the use of particular habitat areas by the bay checkerspot. 
The process also enables us to conduct detailed evaluations of the 
importance of such lands to the long term survival of the species in 
the context of constructing a biologically configured system of 
interlinked habitat blocks.
    We will provide technical assistance and work closely with 
applicants throughout the development of future HCPs to identify lands 
essential for the long-term conservation of the bay checkerspot and 
appropriate management for those lands. Preliminary HCPs are being 
discussed for listed and non-listed species within the range of the bay 
checkerspot in areas proposed herein as critical habitat. These HCPs, 
coupled with appropriate adaptive management, should provide for the 
conservation of the species.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of the 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying the areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude the areas from critical habitat when the 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct 
an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as 
critical habitat prior to making a final determination. When completed, 
we will announce the availability of this economic analysis with a 
notice in the Federal Register; if necessary, we will reopen the 
comment period at that time.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments 
or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any benefits of 
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of bay 
checkerspot butterflies and their habitat, and what habitat is 
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas

[[Page 61228]]

and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on 
small entities or families; and
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for the bay checkerspot such as those derived from 
nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birdwatching, enhanced 
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, 
``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
    Our practice is to make comments available for public review during 
regular business hours, including names and home addresses of 
respondents. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their 
home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the 
extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from 
the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If 
you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state 
this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not 
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of this review is to ensure listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Given the high likelihood of a request for a hearing and 
the need to publish a final determination within 120 days of this 
proposed rule, we scheduled a public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES 
    Written comments submitted during the comment period receive equal 
consideration with those comments presented at a public hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 
description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? 
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? 
Send any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section of this rule).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). We are preparing a draft analysis of this proposed 
action, which will be available for public comment, to determine the 
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical 
habitat. The availability of the draft economic analysis will be 
announced in the Federal Register and in local newspapers so that it is 
available for public review and comments.
    (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The bay 
checkerspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species in 1987. In 
fiscal years 1987 through 1999, we conducted 4 formal section 7 
consultations with Federal agencies to ensure that their actions would 
not jeopardize the continued existence of the butterfly.
    Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a 
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any 
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting 
activities funded or otherwise sponsored, authorized, or permitted by a 
Federal agency (see Table 2 below). Section 7 requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Based upon our experience with the species and its needs, we 
conclude that any Federal action or authorized action that could 
potentially cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical 
habitat would currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act in 
areas occupied by the bay checkerspot. Accordingly, the designation of 
currently occupied areas as critical habitat does not have any 
incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by 
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal 
authorization or funding. Designation of unoccupied areas as critical 
habitat may have impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by 
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons who receive Federal 
authorization or funding. We will evaluate any impact through our 
economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act; see Economic Analysis 
section of this rule). Non-Federal persons that do not have a Federal 
``sponsorship'' of their actions are not restricted by the designation 
of critical habitat (however, they continue to be bound by the 
provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' of the species).

[[Page 61229]]

   Table 2.--Impacts of Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Listing and Critical
                           Habitat Designation
                                Activities potentially     potentially
   Categories of  activities      affected by species      affected by
                                     listing only       critical habitat
Federal Activities Potentially  Activities conducted    Activities by
 Affected\2\.                    by the Army Corps of    these Federal
                                 Engineers, Bureau of    Agencies in any
                                 Reclamation,            unoccupied
                                 Environmental           critical
                                 Protection Agency,      habitat areas.
                                 Federal Highway
Private or other non-Federal    Activities that         Funding,
 Activities Potentially          require a Federal       authorization,
 Affected\3\.                    action (permit,         or permitting
                                 authorization, or       actions by
                                 funding) and may        Federal
                                 remove or destroy bay   Agencies in any
                                 checkerspot butterfly   unoccupied
                                 habitat by              critical
                                 mechanical, chemical,   habitat areas.
                                 or other means (e.g.,
                                 grading, discing,
                                 ripping, and tilling,
                                 water diversion,
                                 groundwater pumping,
                                 construction, road
                                 building, herbicide
                                 recreational use,
                                 etc.) or appreciably
                                 decrease habitat
                                 value or quality
                                 through indirect
                                 effects (e.g., edge
                                 effects, invasion of
                                 exotic plants or
                                 fragmentation of
\1\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the
  critical habitat designation in addition to those activities
  potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that
  may need Federal authorization or funding.

    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to 
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the bay checkerspot since the listing in 1987. The prohibition against 
adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to impose any 
additional restrictions to those that currently exist in areas of 
occupied habitat. We will evaluate any impact of designating unoccupied 
habitat areas through our economic analysis. Because of the potential 
for impacts on other Federal agency activities, we will continue to 
review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal 
agency actions.
    (c) This proposed rule, if made final, will not materially affect 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are currently 
required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species, and, as discussed above, we do not 
anticipate that the adverse modification prohibition (resulting from 
critical habitat designation) will have any incremental effects in 
areas of occupied habitat.
    (d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The 
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat 
contained in the Act.

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

    In the economic analysis (required under section 4 of the Act), we 
will determine whether designation of critical habitat will have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As 
discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule is not 
expected to result in any restrictions in addition to those currently 
in existence for areas of occupied critical habitat. We will also 
evaluate whether critical habitat designation of unoccupied areas will 
significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. As 
indicated on Table 1 (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 
section), we designated property owned by State and local governments, 
and private property.
    Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized 
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
    (1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States 
by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
    (2) Regulation of water flows, execution of water contracts, water 
delivery, transfer of Federal project water, damming, diversion, and 
channelization by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps;
    (3) Pesticide and air quality regulation by the Environmental 
Protection Agency; and
    (4) Funding and regulation of road construction by the FHWA.
    Many of these activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the 
proposed critical habitat areas are carried out by small entities (as 
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) through contract, grant, 
permit, or other Federal authorization. As discussed above, these 
actions are currently required to comply with the listing protections 
of the Act, and the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated 
to have any additional effects on these activities.
    For actions on non-Federal property that do not have a Federal 
connection (such as funding or authorization), the current restrictions 
concerning take of the species remain in effect, and this rule will 
have no additional restrictions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; or (c) any significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the designation of 
critical habitat will not have any additional effects on these 
activities in areas of critical habitat occupied by the species. 
Designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat may have impacts on 
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding. We will 
evaluate any impact through our economic analysis.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
August 25, 2000 et seq.):
    (a) We believe this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' 
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that 
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized 
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the 
critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are 
currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the

[[Page 61230]]

listing protections of the species, and no further restrictions are 
anticipated to result from critical habitat designation of occupied 
areas. In our economic analysis, we will evaluate whether designation 
of unoccupied areas has any significant effect on small governments.
    (b) This rule will 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 designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.


    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or 
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take 
of the bay checkerspot. Due to current public knowledge of the species' 
protection under the Act, the prohibition against take of the species 
both within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact that 
critical habitat provides no incremental restrictions in areas of 
occupied critical habitat, we do not anticipate that property values 
will be affected by the critical habitat designation. Additionally, 
critical habitat designation does not preclude development of habitat 
conservation plans and issuance of incidental take permits. Landowners 
in areas that are included in the designated critical habitat will 
continue to have opportunity to utilize their property in ways 
consistent with the survival of the bay checkerspot butterfly.


    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from and coordinated 
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State 
resource agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in 
areas currently occupied by the bay checkerspot imposes no additional 
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little 
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the 
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly 
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary 
to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While 
making this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We propose to designate critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act and plan a public hearing on the 
proposed designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard 
property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements 
within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the 
habitat needs of the bay checkerspot butterfly.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
that requires Office of Management and Budget approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we understand that Federally 
recognized Tribes must be related to on a Government-to-Government 
    We are not aware of any Tribal lands essential for the conservation 
of the bay checkerspot. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate 
critical habitat for the bay checkerspot butterfly on Tribal lands.

References Cited

Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998. The types of 
California butterflies named by Jean Alphonse Boisduval: designation 
of lectotypes and a neotype, and fixation of type localities. Pages 
3-76 in: Emmel, T.C. (ed.), Systematics of Western North American 
Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Harrison, S. P. 1989. Long-distance dispersal and colonization in 
the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis. Ecology 
Launer, A. E., D. D. Murphy, C. L. Boggs, J. F. Baughman, S. B. 
Weiss, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1993. Puddling behavior by Bay checkerspot 
butterflies (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Journal of Research on the 
Lepidoptera 32:45-52.
Mattoni, R., G. F. Pratt, T. R. Longcore, J. F. Emmel, and J. N. 
George. Published 1997 for the year 1995. The endangered quino 
checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino (Lepidoptera: 
Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34:99-118.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Eastern Santa 
Clara Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for serpentine 
soil species of the San Francisco Bay area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Portland, Oregon. 330+ pp.
Weiss, S. B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen 
deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a 
threatened species. Conservation Biology 13:1476-1486.
Weiss, S. B., and A. E. Launer. 2000. Annual report to the trustees 
of the Kirby Canyon Conservation Agreement--Summary of activities 
conducted in 1999 and early spring 2000. Unpublished report, on file 
at Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.


    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Sacramento 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble above, we propose to amend 50 
CFR part 17 as set forth below:


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

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

    2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Butterfly, bay 
checkerspot,'' under ``INSECTS,'' to read as follows:

[[Page 61231]]

Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

                        Species                                                 Vertebrate popu-
--------------------------------------------------------                          lation where                                    Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Butterfly, bay checkerspot.......  Euphydryas editha     U.S.A. (CA)........  NA.................  T                       288     17.95(i)           NA

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *

    3. Amend Sec. 17.95(i) by adding critical habitat for the bay 
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) in the same 
alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as 

Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects
Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)
    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for San Mateo and Santa 
Clara counties, California, on the maps below.
    2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are those 
habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs 
of foraging, sheltering, breeding, maturation and dispersal. The 
primary constituent elements are areas of open grassland; stands of 
Plantago erecta, Castilleja exserta, or Castilleja densiflora; spring 
flowers providing nectar; pollinators of the bay checkerspot's food and 
nectar plants; soils derived from serpentinic rock; stable holes or 
cracks in the soil and surface rocks or rock outcrops; wetlands 
providing moisture during times of spring drought; and space for 
dispersal between habitable areas. In addition, topography with varied 
slopes and aspects is a primary constituent element to be conserved 
when it is present in combination with one or more of the primary 
constituent elements above.
    3. Within these areas, existing features and structures, such as 
buildings, roads, railroads, urban development, and other features not 
containing primary constituent elements, are not considered critical 

[[Page 61232]]

    Unit 1 (Edgewood Park/Triangle Unit): San Mateo County, California. 
Bounded as follows: beginning at the intersection of Edgewood Road and 
Canada Road; southwesterly, south, and southeasterly along the light-
duty extension of Edgewood Road southwest of Canada Road to its 
intersection with an unnamed intermittent drainage tributary to Upper 
Crystal Springs Reservoir as shown on the USGS Woodside 7.5 minute 
quadrangle (1961, photorevised 1968 and 1973); then southwesterly along 
this drainage to its intersection with I-280; then southeasterly along 
the eastern edge of pavement of I-280 to a point due southwest of the 
southernmost corner of Edgewood Natural Preserve (this just south of a 
substation shown on the Woodside quadrangle, where the State Fish and 
Game Refuge boundary meets Canada Road and an elevation of 161 m (528 
ft) is marked); then due northeast to the southernmost corner of 
Edgewood Natural Preserve; then northeast along the southeast boundary 
of Edgewood Natural Preserve to the 159 m (520 ft) elevation contour as 
shown on the Woodside quadrangle; then northwesterly along this contour 
to its intersection with Edgewood Road; then southwesterly along the 
south edge of pavement of Edgewood Road to the starting point.

[[Page 61233]]

    Unit 2 (Jasper Ridge Unit): San Mateo County, California. Bounded 
as follows: to the east, north, and west by the 110 m (360 ft) 
elevation contour around Jasper Ridge (USGS Palo Alto 7.5 minute 
quadrangle, 1991); and to the south by the current boundary of the 
Jasper Ridge Biological Reserve, which is largely coincident with the 
northern boundary of the town of Portola Valley.

[[Page 61234]]

    Unit 3 (San Bruno Mountain Unit): San Mateo County, California. All 
area on San Bruno Mountain above the 152 m (500 ft) elevation contour 
and east of the western Pacific Gas and Electric transmission corridor 
(this transmission corridor runs south to southwesterly from the west 
end of Guadalupe Valley to the South San Francisco/Colma City border) 
as shown on the USGS San Francisco South 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1956).

[[Page 61235]]

    Unit 4 (Bear Ranch Unit): Santa Clara County, California. Those 
portions of section 32, T.9 S., R.4 E. and section 5, T.10 S., R.4 E., 
westerly of Coyote Reservoir Road--a light-duty road shown but not 
named on the USGS Gilroy 7.5 minute quadrangle (1955, photorevised 1968 
and 1973).
    Unit 5 (San Martin Unit): Santa Clara County, California. Bounded 
on the north by a line running due east-west through a point 305 m 
(1000 ft) due north of a hilltop marked 239 m (785 ft) in elevation on 
the USGS Mt. Madonna 7.5 minute quadrangle (1955, photorevised 1968). 
This hilltop is near latitude 37 degrees 4 minutes 42 seconds north, 
longitude 121 degrees 38 minutes 19 seconds west (Hayes Lane, not shown 
on the Mt. Madonna quadrangle, also runs in the vicinity of this 
hilltop). The north boundary runs as far east as its intersection with 
the 97 m (320 ft) elevation contour west of Coolidge Avenue as shown on 
the Mt. Madonna quadrangle. From this point the boundary runs 
southeasterly, southerly, and westerly following this contour, 
continuing onto the USGS Gilroy 7.5 minute quadrangle (1955, 
photorevised 1968 and 1973) and back to its intersection with longitude 
121 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds west (the junction between the two 
quadrangles). The unit is bounded on the south-southwest by a straight 
line running from this latter point for a distance of about 2,228 m 
(7,310 ft) slightly south of west-northwest (bearing 291.5 degrees) to 
a hilltop labeled 152 m (495 ft) in elevation on the Mt. Madonna 
quadrangle. The west boundary of the unit runs from this hilltop due 
north-northeast (bearing 22.5 degrees) to the north boundary.

[[Page 61236]]


[[Page 61237]]

    Unit 6 (Communications Hill Unit): Santa Clara County, California. 
Starting at a point on the 73 m (240 ft) elevation contour due south of 
the 133 m (435 ft) summit of Communications Hill, the Communications 
Hill unit is bounded to the south by the 73 m (240 ft) elevation 
contour as shown on the USGS San Jose East 7.5 minute quadrangle map 
(1961, photorevised 1980; the hill is not named on this map but the 
county communications center is shown), as far west as its intersection 
with Highway 87 (this highway is not shown on the San Jose East 
quadrangle); then south along Highway 87 (west edge of pavement) to the 
55 m (180 ft) elevation contour (all contours in this description are 
as shown on the San Jose East quadrangle); then south, west, and north 
along this contour to a point due west of the southernmost point of the 
southern of the two water tanks on the top of the hill west of Highway 
87; then due east for a distance of about 238 m (780 ft) to a point due 
south of the easternmost point of the eastern of the two water tanks; 
then due north for about 439 m (1,440 ft) to the intersection with the 
85 m (280 ft) elevation contour; then slightly north of east on a 
straight line to the southern corner of the property of the county 
communications facility; then on a line to the northern corner of this 
property; then due southwest to Carol Drive (not named on the San Jose 
East quadrangle); then slightly north of northwest (bearing 322 
degrees) to the 55 m (180 ft) elevation contour; then along this 
contour easterly and northeasterly until it reaches the second dirt 
road as shown on the San Jose East quadrangle; then due northeast 
across the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to the 55 m (180 ft) 
elevation contour; then northwesterly and northeasterly along this 
contour to the boundary of Oak Hill Memorial Park cemetery; then 
following the cemetery boundary southeasterly, skirting a hill summit 
marked 98 m (323 ft) on the San Jose East quadrangle, to the first 67 m 
(220 ft) elevation contour southeast of this summit; then due southwest 
to the 49 m (160 ft) elevation contour immediately west of the railroad 
tracks; then southeasterly along this contour as shown on the 1961 San 
Jose East quadrangle to its intersection with Hillsdale Avenue; then 
southwesterly along Hillsdale Avenue (north edge of pavement) to its 
intersection with Vista Park Drive (not shown on the San Jose East 
quadrangle); then due north to the 73 m (240 ft) elevation contour; 
then westerly along this contour to the starting point.

[[Page 61238]]


[[Page 61239]]

    Unit 7 (Kalana Hills Unit): Santa Clara County, California. Bounded 
as follows: beginning at the intersection of San Bruno Avenue and the 
94 m (310 ft) elevation contour as shown on USGS Morgan Hill 7.5 minute 
topographic quadrangle (1955, photorevised 1968); by a line running due 
northwest to the 79 m (260 ft) elevation contour; then due west for 419 
m (1,375 ft) (approximately to the second intersection with a canal); 
then due south for about 1 km (0.6 mi) to an unnamed intermittent 
stream shown on the Morgan Hill quadrangle; then by a straight line 
slightly east of southeast to the westernmost point on the intermittent 
stream draining San Bruno Canyon (this point is nearly on a line 
between hilltop elevations marked 227 m (744 ft) and 230 m (756 ft), to 
the east and the west, respectively, on the Morgan Hill quadrangle); 
then by a line running north of northeast back to the starting point on 
San Bruno Avenue.
    Unit 8 (Kirby Unit): Santa Clara County, California. Beginning at 
the intersection of the intermittent creek draining Metcalf Canyon 
(Metcalfe Canyon on the USGS Morgan Hill 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1955, 
photorevised 1980) with Highway 101 (current alignment, not shown on 
Morgan Hill quadrangle), the unit is bounded on the east, southeast, 
and south by Highway 101 (east edge of pavement, current alignment, not 
shown on the Morgan Hill quadrangle), south to where it crosses Coyote 
Creek. From there the boundary runs southeasterly up along Coyote Creek 
to the Anderson Lake dam; then east-northeasterly up the face of the 
dam to Anderson Lake (Anderson Reservoir). The unit is bounded on the 
southeast by Anderson Lake. From the northernmost tip of Anderson Lake 
(at latitude 37 degrees 12 minutes 15 seconds north) the boundary runs 
slightly north of west for a distance of about 1,097 m (3,600 ft) to a 
hilltop marked 379 m (1,243 ft) in elevation on the Morgan Hill 
quadrangle; then slightly west of northwest for a distance of about 
1,707 m (5,600 ft) to a hilltop marked 411 m (1,347 ft) in elevation on 
the Morgan Hill quadrangle; then slightly north of northwest for a 
distance of about 2,886 m (9,470 ft) to a hilltop marked 444 m (1,457 
ft) in elevation on the Morgan Hill quadrangle; then on a line running 
from this hilltop south of west-southwest (bearing 237 degrees) to the 
intersection of the Metcalf Canyon drainage with the 354 m (1,160 ft) 
elevation contour as shown on the Morgan Hill quadrangle. The north 
boundary of the unit then continues westerly down the Metcalf Canyon 
drainage to the starting point.
    Unit 9 (Morgan Hill Unit): Santa Clara County, California. Bounded 
as follows: beginning at the intersection of the 107 m (350 ft) 
elevation contour (USGS Morgan Hill 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1955, 
photorevised 1968) with Hale Road east of the intersection of Cochrane 
Road and Monterey Highway; running north-northwesterly along this 
contour to where it again meets Hale Avenue near the intersection of 
Hale Avenue with Tilton Avenue (these roads are not named on the Morgan 
Hill quadrangle); then on a line due southwest to the 122 m (400 ft) 
elevation contour; then west-southwesterly along this contour to its 
intersection with Willow Springs Road; then along Willow Springs Road 
southwesterly to the land survey line running approximately east-
southeast from Laurel Hill (elevation marked 349 m (1,145 ft) on the 
Morgan Hill quadrangle); then east-southeasterly along this land survey 
line to its end at the R.2 E./R.3 E. dividing line (Mount Diablo 
meridian/base line); then continuing from this point along the same 
bearing as the land survey line to Llagas Road (called Llagas Avenue on 
the Morgan Hill quadrangle); then northeasterly along Llagas Road to 
its intersection with Castle Lake Drive (not shown on the Morgan Hill 
quadrangle); then east-northeasterly along a straight line connecting 
this intersection and the intersection of Christeph Drive and Llagas 
Vista Drive (not shown on the Morgan Hill quadrangle); then 
northeasterly parallel to Llagas Road to Hale Avenue; then north-
northwesterly along Hale Avenue to the starting point.

[[Page 61240]]


[[Page 61241]]

    Unit 10 (Metcalf Unit): Santa Clara County, California. This unit 
shares its southern border with the northern border of the Kirby unit, 
running from Highway 101 (current alignment, not shown on USGS Morgan 
Hill 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1955, photorevised 1980) up the Metcalf 
Canyon drainage and to the 444 m (1,457 ft) peak of the ridge as 
described for the Kirby unit. The Metcalf unit boundary then runs 
north-northeasterly from this hilltop for a distance of about 1,740 m 
(5,710 ft) to a hilltop marked 440 m (1,445 ft) in elevation on the 
Morgan Hill quadrangle (this segment crosses Metcalf Road (appears as 
Metcalfe Road on the Morgan Hill quadrangle) about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) 
easterly of the high point of this road over Coyote Ridge). The Metcalf 
unit boundary then continues, abutting the San Felipe unit, from this 
hilltop due west to Silver Creek; then northwesterly down Silver Creek 
to the first intersection with Silver Creek Road (sic) (T.8 S., R.2 E; 
USGS San Jose East 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1961, photorevised 1980) (see 
San Felipe unit description). From this crossing of Silver Creek Road 
over Silver Creek, the Metcalf unit boundary follows Silver Creek Road 
west-northwesterly to the 152 m (500 ft) elevation contour as shown on 
the San Jose East quadrangle (just north of a benchmark labeled 153 m 
(502 ft) on the quadrangle); then continues due southwest for about 445 
m (1,460 ft) to a fence line marked on the San Jose East quadrangle; 
then slightly north of west following that fence line as shown for a 
distance of about 1,027 m (3,370 ft) to its second (westerly) 
intersection with the 226 m (740 ft) elevation contour as shown on the 
San Jose East quadrangle; then northwest in a straight line to the 
intersection of Silver Creek Valley Road (sic) (not shown on the San 
Jose East quadrangle) with the 195 m (640 ft) elevation contour as 
shown on the San Jose East quadrangle; then southwesterly along Silver 
Creek Valley Road to Coyote Creek; then southeasterly along Coyote 
Creek to its first undercrossing of Highway 101 (current alignment, not 
shown but would fall on USGS Santa Teresa Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle, 
1953, photorevised 1980); then southerly along Highway 101 (current 
alignment, east edge of pavement, not shown on USGS 7.5 minute 
quadrangles) to the Metcalf Canyon drainage.
    Unit 11 (San Felipe Unit): Santa Clara County, California. The east 
boundary of the San Felipe critical habitat unit begins at the 440 m 
(1,445 ft) hilltop identified in the northeast boundary of the Metcalf 
unit (this peak is labeled on the USGS Morgan Hill 7.5 minute 
quadrangle (1955, photorevised 1980), near latitude 37 degrees 15 
minutes north, longitude 121 degrees 43 minutes west); and proceeds 
from that hilltop due north to San Felipe Road at an elevation of about 
296 m (970 ft) (USGS Lick Observatory 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1955, 
photorevised 1968); then west-northwesterly along San Felipe Road 
(southwest edge of pavement) for a distance of about 2.7 km (1.7 mi) to 
Silver Creek Road (sic). The north boundary is formed by Silver Creek 
Road (south edge of pavement) from San Felipe Road to Silver Creek (the 
creek crossing is on the USGS San Jose East 7.5 minute quadrangle, 
1961, photorevised 1980). The west boundary, which abuts the Metcalf 
unit, runs from Silver Creek Road southeasterly along Silver Creek 
(mostly on Lick Observatory quadrangle). The south boundary also abuts 
the Metcalf unit, and runs from Silver Creek (Morgan Hill quadrangle) 
due east to the starting point.
    Unit 12 (Silver Creek Unit): Santa Clara County, California. 
Bounded as follows: on the west by Highway 101 (east edge of pavement, 
current alignment) from Yerba Buena Road in San Jose south to the 
crossing of Coyote Creek (Yerba Buena Road and the full current 
alignment of Highway 101 are not shown on the USGS San Jose East 7.5 
minute quadrangle, 1961, photorevised 1980); then by Coyote Creek 
southeasterly from this crossing south to Silver Creek Valley Road (not 
shown on the San Jose East quadrangle); then by Silver Creek Valley 
Road from Coyote Creek northeasterly to its intersection with the 195 m 
(640 ft) elevation contour shown on the San Jose East quadrangle (this 
segment abuts the northwestern boundary of the Metcalf unit); then due 
northwest to the boundary of the Silver Creek Valley Country Club 
Butterfly Habitat Reserve at an elevation of about 226 m (740 ft); then 
generally northeast, north, and northwest along the boundary of the 
reserve to a fence line shown on the San Jose East quadrangle at an 
elevation of about 168 m (550 ft); then northeasterly following that 
fence line as shown to Silver Creek at an elevation of about 93 m (305 
ft); then northwesterly and westerly following Silver Creek to Yerba 
Buena Road where Silver Creek passes under it approximately 216 m (710 
ft) northeast of Highway 101; then along Yerba Buena Road (south edge 
of pavement) to Highway 101.

[[Page 61242]]


[[Page 61243]]

    Unit 13 (San Vicente-Calero Unit): Santa Clara County, California. 
Bounded on the north and northwest by Calero Reservoir, by the canal 
and siphon running westerly of the main reservoir dam (dam on the 
Arroyo Calero), and by the city boundary of the City of San Jose, which 
follows the canal at an elevation of roughly 152 m (500 ft), as far as 
its intersection with Chilanian Gulch. The boundary then runs generally 
southeast following Chilanian Gulch to its intersection with the R.1 
E./R.2 E. (Mount Diablo meridian/base line) dividing line, then due 
south to the Calero County Park border. The park boundary forms the 
rest of the western, southern, and southeastern border of the unit. The 
eastern border of the unit is formed by a line running due north from 
the southern Calero County Park boundary through a hilltop elevation 
labeled 307 m (1,009 ft) on the USGS Santa Teresa Hills 7.5 minute 
quadrangle (1953, photorevised 1980) to Calero Reservoir. This hilltop 
is near latitude 37 degrees 10 minutes 15 seconds north, longitude 121 
degrees 46 minutes 15 seconds west.
    Unit 14 (Santa Teresa Hills Unit): Santa Clara County, California. 
The east and southeast boundary runs as follows, beginning at the 
westernmost corner of the Tulare Hill Corridor unit: due southeast and 
then northeast along the Tulare Hill Corridor unit boundary, to the 85 
m (280 ft) elevation contour (USGS Santa Teresa Hills 7.5 minute 
quadrangle, 1953, photorevised 1980); then southeasterly, south, and 
southwesterly along this elevation contour (continues onto USGS Morgan 
Hill 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1955, photorevised 1980, and back) to its 
intersection with Bailey Avenue. The south, southwest, and western 
border of the unit then continues from this point, along a line running 
west-southwesterly (bearing 248 degrees) for a distance of about 325 m 
(1,065 ft) to a bench mark north of Bailey Avenue labeled 108 m (354 
ft) in elevation on the Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle; then north of 
east (bearing 284 degrees) for a distance of about 3,030 m (9,940 ft) 
to the intersection of a land grant boundary with a transmission line 
shown on the 1980 photorevised Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle at an 
elevation of about 152 m (500 ft); then north-northwesterly along this 
land grant line to the intersection with Fortini Road; then generally 
west-southwest and west along Fortini Road to the intersection with San 
Vicente Avenue (these road names do not appear on the Santa Teresa 
quadrangle); then westerly along San Vicente Avenue to where it turns 
south south-west; then continuing westerly and northwesterly from this 
point along a land grant boundary shown on the Santa Teresa Hills 
quadrangle to its intersection with both Henwood Drive (road name does 
not appear on the Santa Teresa quadrangle) and an unnamed intermittent 
drainage (tributary to Arroyo Calero); then northeasterly and northerly 
up this drainage as marked on the Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle to the 
183 m (600 ft) elevation contour; then due north-northeast for a 
distance of about 424 m (1,390 ft) to the first intersection with the 
280 m (920 ft) elevation contour; then west-northwest for a distance of 
about 265 m (870 ft) to a hilltop over 280 m (920 ft) in elevation, 
then slightly north of west (bearing 276 degrees) for a distance of 
about 543 m (1,780 ft) to the end of a dirt road as marked on the 1980 
photorevised Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle; then slightly south of 
west-northwest (bearing 290 degrees) for a distance of about 2,551 
(8,370 ft) to a hilltop marked 173 m (568 ft) in elevation on the Santa 
Teresa Hills quadrangle; then due northeast to the 73 m (240 ft) 
elevation contour as shown on the Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle. The 
northern boundary of the unit is formed by the 73 m (240 ft) elevation 
contour as shown on the Santa Teresa Hills quadrangle.
    Unit 15 (Tulare Hill Corridor Unit): Santa Clara County, 
California. Bounded on the northeast by the most northeasterly edge of 
pavement of Highway 101 (i.e., the highway itself is included, and the 
unit abuts the Kirby and Metcalf units). Bounded on the northwest, 
west, and southwest by a line extending due southwest from the 
northeast boundary to the corner of Cheltenham Way and Coburn Court, 
then southwesterly along Cheltenham Way from Coburn Court to the 
intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard, then southeasterly along 
Santa Teresa Boulevard to the 73 m (240 ft) elevation contour as shown 
on the USGS Santa Teresa Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle (1953, 
photorevised 1980), then southwesterly along this contour to the border 
of Santa Teresa County Park, then along a line due southeast to the 
southeast border of the unit. Bounded on the southeast by a line 
running due northeast-southwest through the southeastern-most point of 
the 85 m (280 ft) contour of Tulare Hill, as shown on the Morgan Hill 

[[Page 61244]]


* * * * *

    Dated: October 10, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-26448 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]