Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi, 32857-32875 [E9-16282]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32857-32875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0019; MO9221050083]
RIN 1018-AV91


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Casey's 
June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as Endangered and Designation of Critical 
Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act and propose to designate approximately 777 acres 
(ac) (314 hectares (ha)) of land as critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle in south Palm Springs, Riverside County, California. This 
species inhabits desert chaparral plant communities associated with 
gently sloping, depositional surfaces formed at the base of the Santa 
Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley region. This proposed rule, if 
made final, would implement Federal protection provided by the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
September 8, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT August 
24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS- R8-ES-2009-0019]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone: 760-431-9440; 
facsimile: 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or suggestions on this proposed rule from the public, tribes, other 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested parties. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Any available information on known or suspected threats and 
proposed or ongoing projects with the potential to threaten Casey's 
June beetle, specifically: (a) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (e) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence;
    (2) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there 
are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can 
be expected to increase due to the designation, and

[[Page 32858]]

whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation, 
such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of this species;
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts resulting from the proposed critical habitat designation and, 
in particular, any impacts to small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;
    (6) The proposed designation of tribal lands owned by the Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in light of Secretarial Order 3206, 
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 
13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the 
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2); and
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include 
sufficient information with your comment to allow us to verify any 
scientific or commercial data you submit.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule will be available 
for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed listing of Casey's June beetle as endangered and proposed 
designation of critical habitat. For more detailed information on the 
taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Casey's June beetle, please refer to 
the 90-day finding on the petition to list the species under the Act, 
published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44960), and 
the 12-month finding, published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2007 
(72 FR 36635). These documents are available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.

Species Information

Life History and Habitat

    Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) was first collected in the 
City of Palm Springs, California, in 1916 and later described by 
Blaisdell (1930, pp. 174-176) based on male specimens. This species 
measures 0.55 to 0.71 inch (in) (1.4 to 1.8 centimeters (cm)) long, 
with dusty brown or whitish coloring, and brown and cream longitudinal 
stripes on the elytra (wing covers and back).
    Casey's June beetles emerge from underground burrows sometime 
between late March and early June, with abundance peaks generally 
occurring in April and May (Duff 1990, p. 3; Barrows 1998, p. 1). 
Females are always observed on the ground and are considered flightless 
(Duff 1990, p. 4; Hovore 1995, p. 7; Hovore 2003, p. 3). It is unknown 
how far females can disperse, or if they may disperse by other than 
terrestrial crawling (such as incidental movement by birds). Flightless 
adult June beetles are not likely to be dispersed by the wind or larger 
animals. It is likely adult or larval females are moved by water flow 
in wash areas, although it is unclear what their survival rate is under 
such circumstances. Females display an accentuated sexual dimorphism 
characterized by an enlarged abdomen, reduced legs and antennae, and 
metathoracic wing reduction and venation. During the active flight 
season, males emerge from the ground and begin flying near dusk (Hovore 
2003, p. 3). Males are reported to fly back and forth or crawl on the 
ground where a female beetle has been detected (Duff 1990, p. 3). After 
mating, females return to their burrows or dig a new burrow and deposit 
eggs. Excavations of adult emergence burrows revealed pupal exuviae 
(casings) at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 6 in (10 to 16 cm) 
(Hovore 1995, p. 6).
    The larval cycle for the species is likely 1 year, based on the 
absence of larvae (grubs) in burrows during the adult flight season (La 
Rue 2004, p. 1). The food source for Casey's June beetle larvae while 
underground is unknown, but other species of June beetles are known to 
eat ``plant roots or plant detritus and associated decay organisms'' 
(La Rue 2004, p.1).
    La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that all Dinacoma species populations are 
ecologically associated with alluvial sediments. Casey's June beetle 
habitat is typically associated with broad, gently sloping, 
depositional surfaces that form at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains 
in the dry Coachella Valley region by the overlapping or converging of 
individual alluvial fans (bajada) (Bates and Jackson 1987, p. 52).
    Casey's June beetle is most commonly associated with Carsitas 
gravelly sand series soil (CdC), described by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA on-line Geographic Information System 
(GIS) database 2000; USDA 1980, pp. 11-12) as gravelly sand on 0 to 9 
percent slopes. This soil series is associated with alluvial fans, 
rather than areas of aeolian or windblown sand deposits. Hovore (2003, 
p. 2) described soils where Casey's June beetle occurs or occurred 
historically as, ``* * * almost entirely carsitas series, of a CdC 
type, typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly effervescent, 
moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky, non-plastic, deposited 
on 0 to 9 percent slopes. On alluvial terraces and where they occur 
within washes, these soils show light braiding and some organic 
deposition, but [most years] do not receive scouring surface flows.'' 
Although Casey's June beetles have primarily been found on CdC soils, 
the beetles are also associated with Riverwash (RA), and possibly 
Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC), soils in the Palm Canyon Wash area 
(Anderson and Love 2007, p. 1). Their burrowing habits would suggest 
that Casey's June beetles need soils that are not too rocky or 
compacted and not difficult to burrow into.

Species Distribution and Status

    Casey's June beetle distribution is confined to an area of less 
than 800 acres (324 hectares (ha)) in southern Palm Springs, 
California. According to information reported in the 12-month finding 
(72 FR 36635: July 5, 2007), known occurrences of Casey's June

[[Page 32859]]

beetles are restricted to locations within the Palm Canyon alluvial 
floodplain. Additional information on the species' distribution was 
brought to our attention following the publication of our 12-month 
finding. Surveys conducted by Bruyea in 2006 discovered a total of 13 
individual Casey's June beetles at a new location east and south of 
Palm Canyon Wash, adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive. This location, 
not known to us at the time of the publication of our 12-month finding, 
represents a slight eastern extension for the known range of the 
species (Bruyea 2006, p. 10).
    We consider all known occurrences of Casey's June beetle to 
constitute a single population based on currently available data. 
However, additional studies are needed to confirm this assumption. 
Casey's June beetle population status is represented by a small 
population that has exhibited a significant decline in its habitat and 
distribution. Unfortunately, no empirical information is available to 
determine the finite rate of population change for Casey's June beetle. 
However, small, declining, and peripheral (disjunct or connected) 
populations are more vulnerable to demographic, genetic, and 
environmental stochastic events and natural catastrophes. Genetic 
stochastic events can further influence population demography via 
inbreeding depression and genetic drift. In a seminal work, Allee 
(1931) suggested small, single populations disappear when opportunities 
for reproduction dissipate because of reduced opportunity to find each 
other (Allee effect or depensation). Stephens et al. (1999, pp. 185-
190) and Dennis (2002, pp. 389-401) suggest comparable definitions 
indicating that the Allee effect is a density-dependent event that is 
inversely related to population size. Courchamp et al. (2008, pp. 160-
170) further notes that habitat loss and fragmentation may exacerbate 
Allee effects by further decreasing the size or density of small 
populations. Although no empirical information is available to 
determine the rate of population change for Casey's June beetle, the 
population has decreased over the past 10 years, even when locations of 
new sightings of scattered individuals are considered.
    For the purposes of determining current range in relation to our 
proposed critical habitat designation, we assume all suitable habitat 
areas are occupied adjacent to and between areas where Casey's June 
beetles have been detected. We determined this assumption is reasonable 
based on the presence of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) in 
these areas and the dispersal capabilities of males during flight 
season, with reasonable potential for male movement throughout all 
suitable habitat areas.
    For more information about the distribution and historic range of 
the species, please refer to the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635; July 5, 
2007).

Previous Federal Action

    This proposed listing with critical habitat is in response to our 
warranted but precluded 12-month finding that was published in the 
Federal Register on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36635). For more information on 
previous Federal actions related to Casey's June beetle, please refer 
to our July 5, 2007, 12-month finding.
    Casey's June beetle was precluded from listing in our July 5, 2007, 
finding (72 FR 36635) because of the lack of funding for the large 
number of candidate species. In Fiscal Year 2007, we had more than 120 
species with a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2, based on our 
September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate 
species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assigned each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a 
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant 
portion of the range)). The lower the LPN, the higher the listing 
priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest 
listing priority). Because of the large number of high-priority 
species, we further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by 
using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union 
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list 
status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat 
rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 
50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the 
highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank 
(G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), 
and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 
populations, comprised a list of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have the highest priority to 
receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. Casey's 
June beetle, composed of one biological population, ranked as 
critically endangered (G1), and with substantial threats, was included 
in the Top 40. Although funding was not available at the time of the 
12-month finding, we subsequently received funding for development of a 
proposed listing rule for this Top 40 species.

Proposed Listing of Casey's June Beetle

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to Federal Lists of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors are: (a) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (e) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range.

    Casey's June beetle is part of a family of beetles that have 
naturally restricted ranges (LaRue 2006, p. 1). This beetle is adapted 
to specialized habitat and soil types found in the Palm Canyon Wash 
area of Palm Springs, California. We do not know the exact historical 
range of Casey's June beetle due to general location descriptions from 
early collection records (see discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR 
44962; August 8, 2006)). Based on this anecdotal information, we used 
soils data as the principle component to estimate that 97 percent of 
the historical range of Casey's June beetle has been converted to 
development. Of the 777 ac (314 ha) of land remaining as extant 
habitat, 343 ac (139 ha) are tribal lands and 323 ac (131 ha) are in 
private ownership. Tribal land consists of approximately 86 ac (35 ha) 
in tribal trust, 67 ac (28 ha) in fee-title, and 193 ac (78 ha) in 
allotment. The remaining 14 percent (111 ac (45 ha)) is owned by local 
entities (City of Palm Springs and County Flood Control) for roads, 
flood control, and water facilities. All tribal lands are at risk of 
development, as are any undeveloped portions of the lands owned by 
local governments and private landowners.

[[Page 32860]]

    The population of the City of Palm Springs has increased from 
42,805 to 47,251 between 2000 and 2008, an increase of 10 percent (CDF 
2008, Table 1, Table E-1). The city is predicted to grow by 25 percent 
between 2000 and 2020 (SCAG 2004, table 2004GF). The current growth 
rate has increased development pressure for residential and commercial 
property that encroaches upon Casey's June beetle habitat.
    We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from 
2003 to 2007 to determine habitat impacts of completed and pending 
projects as cited in the petition and referenced in the July 5, 2007, 
12-month finding (72 FR 36635). We were unable to identify all projects 
cited in the petition (and the 90-day finding; 71 FR 44962, August 8, 
2006), as the petitioners did not provide specific geographic 
descriptions, and the extent of area of proposed development projects 
cited did not exactly match calculations in our most recent analysis. 
However, based on site visits and digital aerial photographs, we 
identified at least seven projects that removed or impacted occupied 
and likely occupied habitat, within the distribution described above, 
in the past 5 years. The Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail 
adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal lands) impacted approximately 39 
acres (16 ha) of occupied habitat. Impacts to Casey's June beetle were 
expected to be mitigated by payment of $600 per acre ($240 per ha) 
(total of $24,780) to the City of Palm Springs or a habitat 
conservation entity designated by the City for 41 ac (17 ha) of 
``potential'' Casey's June beetle habitat (Dudek and Associates 2001, 
p. 24). However, to our knowledge, no appropriate habitat has yet been 
conserved for Casey's June beetle to offset the Monte Sereno project 
impacts (Dudek and Associates 2001, p. 24).
    In 2006, the City of Palm Springs issued a mitigated negative 
declaration for Smoke Tree Ranch Cottages (City of Palm Springs 2006, 
p. 2) (``Casitas'' development cited in the 90-day finding (71 FR 
44960; August 8, 2006)), finding ``no significant impact'' to Casey's 
June beetle. However, at least 7 ac (3 ha) of occupied habitat was 
proposed for development (Cornett 2004, pp. 18-27). The Smoke Tree 
Commons shopping center impacted approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of habitat 
for Casey's June beetle. The project's Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR) stated that the City of Palm Springs was responsible for 
enforcing and monitoring Casey's June beetle mitigation measures prior 
to issuing a grading permit to the developer, including recording a 
conservation easement and developing a management plan for Casey's June 
beetle on conserved habitat (Pacific Municipal Consultants 2005, p. 9). 
A conservation easement was established; however, a management plan was 
not drafted prior to issuance of the grading permit, and monitoring and 
management activities for Casey's June beetle are not assured (Ewing 
2007, p. 1).
    The other four projects identified that removed or impacted 
occupied and likely occupied habitat are: (1) The 2-ac (1-ha) Desert 
Water Agency wells and pipeline project in the Smoke Tree Ranch 
development; (2) the 34-ac (14-ha) Alta project north of Acanto Drive 
and west of Palm Canyon Wash on tribal lands; (3) the 24-ac (10-ha) 
Estancias subdivision north of Acanto Drive; and (4) the 3-ac (1-ha) 
Palm Canyon project at South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon Drive. 
These seven projects resulted in the loss of, or impacts to, 
approximately 126-ac (51-ha) of occupied and likely occupied Casey's 
June beetle habitat from 2003 to 2008. An additional 5 ac (2 ha) of 
Casey's June beetle habitat has been impacted by small projects (for 
example, single home lots, pipeline development). Hovore (2003, p. 4) 
hypothesized that the destruction and isolation of occupied habitat 
caused by the Monte Sereno and Alta projects in 2003 ``* * * overall 
may reduce the known range and extant population of [Casey's June 
beetle] by about one third.''
    We conducted an analysis for the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635) 
that used available digital aerial photographs at intervals from 1991 
to 2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-2) and 2006 field surveys 
(Anderson 2006b, pp. 1-36), which determined that Casey's June beetle 
experienced an approximate 25 percent reduction in contiguous habitat 
from 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in 2006. Since 2006, 
new biological surveys and information have been provided to us that 
results in a larger area that we now consider as occupied habitat. With 
this new information and 2008 digital aerial photographs, we determined 
that there was approximately 1,001 ac (405 ha) of habitat in 1991. 
Therefore, our new analysis shows that Casey's June beetle has 
experienced approximately 22 percent reduction in habitat from 1,001 ac 
(405 ha) in 1991 to 777 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our updated calculations 
account for these additional acres and reveal that habitat was lost at 
a rate of 1.6 percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 
percent per year from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year 
from 2003 to 2005, and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 
2008. The rate of habitat loss could be accelerated as remaining 
parcels of habitat are developed or impacted in blocks; thus, any or 
all remaining habitat could be developed/lost or impacted within a 
given year.
    Since publication of the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 
36635), the City of Palm Springs completed the California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process for the 80- to 100-ac 
(32- to 40-ha) Eagle Canyon residential development project planned on 
tribal lands (Davis 2007, p. 1; Park 2007, p. 1) in the area containing 
CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon Drive near Bogert Trail and Acanto 
Drive (tentative tract number 30047) (City of Palm Springs 2008, p. 
14). Our analysis (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3) indicates that this 
project may alter the drainage system maintaining soil moisture levels 
in approximately 54 ac (22 ha) by disrupting the water source 
maintaining suitable soil moisture levels and directly impacting CdC 
soils likely to be occupied. This in turn could potentially decrease 
the 777 ac (314 ha) of remaining extant, suitable habitat by 7 percent. 
Limited surveys conducted on the Eagle Canyon project, where occupancy 
was previously documented, were inconclusive in determining the 
likelihood of current habitat occupancy (Osborne 2008b, p. 3).
    Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey's June 
beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy following severe flood 
events (Cornett 2004, p. 14; Hovore 2003, p.11). Of the total 777 ac 
(314 ha) estimated remaining habitat, only 523 ac (212 ha) is upland 
habitat (approximately 6 ac (2.4 ha) of this upland habitat is proposed 
to be impacted by the Eagle Canyon project). Upland habitat refers to 
any upland terrace area that is outside of the wash and does not occur 
on Riverwash (RA) soils. According to the Coachella Valley General Plan 
data (Riverside County 2005), all remaining upland habitat within Smoke 
Tree Ranch and on tribal land north of Acanto Drive is projected to be 
developed at a density of two homes per acre (0.8 per ha) by the year 
2020, even though some parcels are designated as parks and recreation 
in the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 = ``1145'') and are presently 
developed with three homes per acre (1.2 per ha). Undeveloped habitat 
on tribal land south of Acanto Drive has the same initial land use 
designation as adjacent land north of Acanto Drive (LU93 = ``3100'') 
(Riverside County 2005, pp. 94-120) in the East Bogert Trail area, 
except that it

[[Page 32861]]

is outside the city limit of Palm Springs (code GP2020 = ``58''). Some 
of these lands are developed at a density of one home or more per acre 
(0.4 per ha). Code GP2020 = ``58'' is designated as tribal land or open 
space in the General Plan. However, lands in this area with this 
designation have been developed at a density as high as three homes per 
acre, indicating that planning designations on tribal land do not 
ensure the final land use. Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) 
indicate most of the 523 ac (212 ha) of remaining upland Casey's June 
beetle habitat (where the species would not be exposed to scouring 
floods) could be eliminated by development.
    Development is the greatest threat to habitat in upland CdC soils 
that are believed to support Casey's June beetle; however, development 
threats are not limited to upland terrace habitat. For example, entire 
sections of Palm Canyon Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry 
Trail have been converted to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 
2007, p. 3). La Rue (2006, p. 2) emphasized the magnitude of 
development threats to Dinacoma spp. population survival: ``Most 
Dinacoma [spp.] have experienced range reduction because of 
unprecedented habitat destruction and modification for recreational, 
residential and urban development resulting in serious distributional 
fragmentation throughout [their] former already naturally limited 
ranges. Consequently, several populations [of the genus Dinacoma] have 
been extirpated, especially those that once existed in Los Angeles 
County (for example, Glendale, Eaton Canyon).'' Therefore, habitat 
modification for recreational, residential, and urban development 
reduces an already limited range for Casey's June beetle and poses a 
substantial threat to this species' survival.
    However, we note that although undeveloped and undisturbed lands 
are essential to the survival of Casey's June beetle, Smoke Tree Ranch 
represents the largest remaining habitat patch and largest occurrence 
of the species, and may represent a community where the spatial scale 
of human disturbance or fragmentation can coexist with this species' 
occupancy, as Hanski (Hanski et al. 2005, pp. 21-28) models for 
butterflies, and others identify with neutral models (Doak et al. 1992, 
pp. 315-336; With and Crist 1995, pp. 2446-2459). Although Smoke Tree 
Ranch represents the largest known remaining habitat patch, Allee 
effects as a function of fragmentation may be expressed on this segment 
of the population (Courchamp et al. 2008, pp. 160-170).
    In addition to the threat of direct conversion of remaining 
habitat, analysis of 2008 aerial photography in Palm Canyon Wash 
indicates numerous land-disturbance activities affecting occupied wash 
habitat managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District. In the vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge 
and Araby Drive, there appears to be road maintenance and flood control 
activities, as well as unregulated off-road vehicle disturbance. 
Cornett (2003, p. 12) noted similar off-road vehicle (ORV) impacts 
during Casey's June beetle surveys on a nearby site adjacent to 
Whitewater Wash and the Palm Springs Airport. Off-road vehicles impact 
desert soils and associated biota by increasing erosion (Snyder et al. 
1976, pp. 29-30; Rowlands 1980, p. 169), reducing both plant and 
vertebrate diversity (Bury et al. 1977, Table 4, Figure 6; Rowlands 
1980, pp. 63-74; Lathrop 1983, pp. 153-166; Cornett 2004, p. 15), and 
changing soil density through compaction, which may also influence soil 
water retention capacity (Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, pp. 144-145; Webb 
1983, pp. 51-79, Adams et al. 1982, pp. 167-175). Indirect evidence 
suggests that land disturbance impacts the species' burrows and larvae 
that occur in the soil and the flightless females when they rest at the 
top of the burrows (Cornett 2004, p. 15). Any activities that cause 
direct adult mortality, compact or disturb soils when adult beetles are 
active, or affect soils to a depth where immature stages or resting 
adults are found, may affect the species' persistence in those areas or 
dispersal to adjacent areas. Land practices that disc the soil as a 
means of fire prevention or control may also impact habitat, as well as 
frequent use for horseback riding by local riding clubs. Therefore, 
land disturbance activities pose a significant threat to species' 
survival.
    Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly 
fragmented by development in recent years (see above development 
discussion). Continued fragmentation of already limited, remnant 
habitat compromises the ability of various species to disperse and 
establish new, or augment declining, populations (Collinge 2000, p. 
2211-2226; Freemark 2002, pp. 58-83; Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 182-
194) and can isolate segments of a population (Picket and White 1986, 
pp. 189-192). Isolated population segments lead to increased chances of 
extirpation by stochastic events, and elimination of dispersal areas 
that would have provided for population expansion (Hanski et al. 1995, 
pp. 21-28; Collinge pp. 2000, 2211-2226). This process, as it applies 
to Casey's June beetle, is evident in the development history of the 
City of Palm Springs and the distribution of populations (Cornett 2004, 
pp. 11, 14). Casey's June beetle is especially impacted by habitat 
fragmentation because females are flightless and unable to move between 
fragmented patches (Hovore 1995, p. 7). Although male beetles can move 
between habitat patches, thereby maintaining genetic mixing on a local 
scale, fragmented patches that no longer support any female Casey's 
June beetles may be attractive sinks to male beetles. The risk of local 
extinction is widely noted to increase as the fraction of occupied 
habitat patches, occupied patch area, and density of occupied patches 
decrease (Foreman and Godron, 1989, 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; 
Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).
    Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated population movement would be ``slow 
and indirect,'' and suggested the population structure for Casey's June 
beetle in any given area could be described as multiple mini-colonies 
or ``clusters of individuals around areas of repeated female 
emergence.'' Females located in habitat edge patches may be most at-
risk due to their placement in the landscape. This would, in Hovore's 
(2003, p. 4) assessment, make the species ``susceptible to extirpation 
resulting from land use changes that would remove or alter surface 
features'' that isolate colonies into non-contiguous patches. Although 
fragmentation of habitat within a population still allows mixing of 
genes by male flight, it would preclude recolonization of a site should 
all flightless female individuals be eliminated. Fragmentation of 
suitable habitat into smaller patches increases the amount of habitat 
edge and, therefore, increases the risk of colony loss and decreases 
the probability of species' survival.
Summary of Factor A
    Twenty-two percent (193 ac (78 ha)) of the 1,001 ac (405 ha) of 
contiguous suitable habitat for Casey's June beetle identified in 1991 
has been lost to development. The rate of habitat loss has continued to 
increase since the early 1990's. From 2003 to 2005 the greatest loss of 
Casey's June beetle habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8 percent per year. 
Although the rate of habitat loss since 2005 is less than 3.8 percent 
per year, development and habitat impact

[[Page 32862]]

trends are continuing (see above discussion of Eagle Canyon project 
approved by the City of Palm Springs), and we anticipate additional 
upland habitat for the beetle may be impacted or lost in the 
foreseeable future. Based on recent information and calculations, we 
believe that the estimated amount of undeveloped habitat currently 
available for the species is approximately 777 ac (314 ha) (including 
all non-contiguous habitat containing all soil types used by the 
species) with some of these areas possibly serving as biological sinks 
for the species. Projecting development at current rates within the 
extant range of the beetle suggests that in 20 years almost all 
remaining habitat may be lost on private or tribally owned land. Based 
on current projected development and habitat impact trends, the loss of 
historically occupied locations, the limited distribution of Casey's 
June beetle, habitat fragmentation, and land use changes associated 
with urbanization, we find that Casey's June beetle is in danger of 
extinction by the present and threatened destruction, modification, and 
curtailment of its habitat.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We are not aware of any information regarding overutilization of 
Casey's June beetles for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes and do not consider collection for these 
activities to be a threat to the species at this time.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    We are not aware of any information regarding threats of disease or 
predation to Casey's June beetle and do not consider disease or 
predation to be a threat to the species at this time.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection 
for Casey's June beetle include: (1) State laws and regulations; and 
(2) local land use processes and ordinances (for example, tribal 
environmental policies). However, these regulatory mechanisms are not 
preventing continued habitat modification and fragmentation. There are 
no regulatory mechanisms that specifically or indirectly address the 
management or conservation of essential habitat for Casey's June 
beetle. Additionally, there are no regulatory protections for other 
species that may provide incidental benefit to Casey's June beetle. The 
following section discusses the above-mentioned regulatory protections.
State Laws
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure 
of potential environmental impacts resulting from public or private 
projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies in 
California. The CEQA guidelines require a finding of significance if a 
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range 
of an endangered, rare or threatened species'' (CEQA Guideline 15065). 
As a candidate species for Federal listing, Casey's June beetle is 
considered rare under CEQA Guideline 15380. The lead agency can either 
require mitigation for unavoidable significant effects or decide that 
overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline 
21002); such overrides are rare. In the case of overrides, projects may 
be approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as 
destruction of listed endangered species or their habitat. Therefore, 
protection of listed species through CEQA is dependent upon the 
discretion of the agency involved.
    The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protections 
for many species of plants, animals, and some invertebrate species. 
However, insect species, such as Casey's June beetle, are not afforded 
protection under CESA. Therefore, this is an existing regulatory 
mechanism that does not provide for the protection of Casey's June 
beetle or its habitat.
Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms
    Lands of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, included in 
the draft Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), encompass 343 ac (139 
ha) or approximately 45 percent of the estimated extant Casey's June 
beetle habitat (RA and CdC soils) according to our 2009 habitat 
analysis. Based on soil and species collection records, we estimate 
that historically (pre-European settlement), Casey's June beetle 
potentially occupied 5,834 ac (2,361 ha) (18 percent) of land currently 
owned by the Tribe. All post-1996 development of occupied habitat, with 
the exception of the 17-ac (7-ha) Smoke Tree Commons project, has 
occurred on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians land. The remaining 
273 ac (111 ha) of upland habitat on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians land is relatively flat and adjacent to, or surrounded by, 
recent development (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3), and some of these 
lands are approved for development by the City of Palm Springs and will 
likely be developed (please refer to the discussion of the Eagle Canyon 
project under ``Factor A'' above).
    In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's Field 
Supervisor dated October 10, 2006, the Tribe stated they had `` * * * 
enacted a Tribal Environmental Policy Act to, among other things, 
ensure protection of natural resources and the environment. See Tribal 
Ordinance No. 28 at I.B., (2000).'' The referenced Tribal Environmental 
Policy Act (Tribal Act) (Tribe 2000) states that the Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians is the lead agency for preparing environmental 
review documents, and that tribal policy is to protect the natural 
environment, including ``all living things.'' According to the Tribal 
Act (Tribe 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will consult with any Federal, State, 
and local agencies that have special expertise with respect to 
environmental impacts.
    Several projects implemented on tribal lands since the enactment of 
the Tribal Act have impacted Casey's June beetle habitat. Casey's June 
beetle occupancy of the Bogert Trail site in the vicinity of South Palm 
Canyon Drive on tribal land (Duff 1990, pp. 2-3, 4; Barrows and Fisher 
2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 3; Hovore 1997, p. 4; Hovore 2003, p. 4) 
has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by development since our 
receipt of the petition in 2004 (see Factor A above). The Alta and 
Monte Sereno development projects eliminated most of the species' 
upland habitat outside of Smoke Tree Ranch estimated to be occupied in 
2003. Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that grading for the Alta project 
near South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in May 2003 reduced the 
extant Casey's June beetle population size by ``about one-third.''
    No Federal, State, or local agencies that have special expertise 
with respect to environmental impacts to Casey's June beetle were 
consulted and no review documents were prepared by the Tribe prior to 
the recent development of the Alta and Monte Sereno projects in 
occupied Casey's June beetle habitat; therefore, our understanding is 
that the Tribal Act does not effectively protect the species' habitat. 
The Chief Planning and Development Officer for the Tribe (Davis 2007, 
p. 1) affirmed that the Tribal Act does not apply to all tribal 
reservation lands; for example, the currently planned Alturas 
development project (see Factor A above) is not covered, because it is 
``fee land.'' Although State environmental review documents (CEQA 
Environmental Impact Reports) were prepared by private consultants and 
reviewed by the

[[Page 32863]]

City of Palm Springs for the Eagle Creek development project, the Tribe 
did not participate in the review or comment with regard to Casey's 
June beetle (Davis 2007, p. 1).
    Our analysis indicates that although some tribal environmental 
policy does exist (Tribe 2000), it is a non-specific guidance document 
that does not contain mandates or adequately protect Casey's June 
beetle and its habitat. Therefore, we do not believe that existing 
tribal regulatory documents ensure conservation of Casey's June beetle. 
The Service will continue to work with the Tribe to obtain any other 
information that illustrates how tribal actions or policies would help 
conserve Casey's June beetle habitat and protect the species. 
Currently, we do not have information documenting how occupied or 
potentially occupied habitat for Casey's June beetle is protected from 
development and other impacts on tribal lands. The Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a draft HCP to the Service, 
which has undergone public review in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112). Although the Casey's June 
beetle was proposed as a ``Covered Species'' in the draft HCP, the 
Tribe informed the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office that they have 
``decided to remove Casey's June beetle from the list of species for 
which it is seeking take authority under its Tribal Habitat 
Conservation'' plan (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). In discussions regarding 
preparation of our final permit decision documents for the HCP, we 
asked the Tribe to reconsider their decision, and we continue to work 
with them to address Casey's June beetle and other species that may be 
impacted by land development activities on their tribal lands.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
    Some non-Federal lands within the purported historical range of 
Casey's June beetle are proposed for management under the Coachella 
Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley 
MSHCP). The Service issued a single incidental take permit (TE-104604-
0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees under the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP for a period of 75 years on October 1, 2008. 
Although Casey's June beetle was initially considered for coverage 
under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the September 2007 release of the 
final MSHCP, final EIR, and final implementing agreement, permitted on 
October 1, 2008, did not include Casey's June beetle as a covered 
species. Because it is not a covered species, the MSHCP does not 
provide specific measures for the protection or conservation of the 
species and its habitat.
Summary of Factor D
    Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect 
remaining Casey's June beetle habitat or the species itself. Occupied 
habitat continues to be lost to development projects, such as those in 
the Bogert Trail area, which were constructed without any Casey's June 
beetle mitigation. Because existing regulatory mechanisms do not 
provide protection for this species or its habitat, we believe this 
presents a significant threat to the survival of Casey's June beetle.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species.

    The Casey's June beetle population may be threatened by other 
natural or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as climate 
change, increased intensity and frequency of scouring events in wash 
habitat, and indirect effects associated with adjacent development. 
However, there is little species-specific scientific information 
describing or predicting the potential for these threats to be 
realized, and these issues should be the subject of future research.
    Past and ongoing development adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash, 
channelization of the wash to protect development, and development of 
associated flood-control levees are all likely to increase Casey's June 
beetle mortality during flood events. Urban development adjacent to 
natural creek beds or washes concentrates stream flow by constraining 
channel width, thereby increasing the speed of water flowing past a 
given location (hydrograph; cubic feet per second) (Poff et al.1997, p. 
772). Therefore, scouring events occur more frequently than would have 
occurred prior to development that has already occurred around Palm 
Canyon Wash. Scouring events may temporarily eliminate Casey's June 
beetles within Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p.9; Cornett 2004, p. 
14). After scouring events, the wash would be slowly repopulated by 
females from neighboring occupied habitat outside the wash (for 
example, Smoke Tree Ranch) or from refugia within the wash. However, if 
scouring events continue to increase in frequency, there may be a point 
when the ability of and time needed for females to emigrate from 
surrounding occupied habitat or higher-elevation refugia into the wash 
will be longer than the scouring frequency. We do not know how far or 
how fast females can emigrate from upland refugia; however, we expect 
that travel across land would be relatively slow and occur over short 
distances compared to males that can fly. If this point is reached, 
Casey's June beetles may become extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash. We 
determined that the increased frequency of scouring events due to 
indirect effects of development adjacent to the wash may be a 
significant threat to Casey's June beetle.
    Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors, 
such as wind, temperature (for example, drying of alluvial soils), 
precipitation, and catastrophic flood events (Noss et al. 2001, p. 42; 
La Rue 2006, p. 2). As discussed above, increased intensity and 
frequency of flooding and scouring events in Palm Canyon Wash is of 
particular concern for Casey's June beetle. The global frequency of 
heavy precipitation events has increased since 1960, consistent with 
warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapor, and it is 
``very likely'' (90 percent confidence) that heavy precipitation will 
generally become even more frequent over most land areas (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 2 and 8-9). A review of literature and historic climate data 
specific to the area of Casey's June beetle (Anderson 2007, pp. 1-6) 
indicates Coachella Valley precipitation, peak stream flow (NWIS 2008), 
and other weather patterns since 1950 in Palm Canyon, are locally 
consistent with these global patterns predicted by the IPCC (2007 p. 2, 
pp. 8-9, and 15). General Circulation Models predict a 1 to 3 degree 
Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1.7 degree C) rise in temperature and at least a 25 
percent increase in precipitation by 2050, to as much as a 50 percent 
increase in precipitation as early as 2030 for California (Field et al. 
1999, pp. 5-10; Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399), and increasing 
intensity of flood and drought events (Dessens 1995, pp. 1241-1244; 
Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399). Other models predict as much as a 100 
percent increase in summer monsoonal precipitation for portions of the 
southwestern United States (Arritt et al. 2000, pp. 565-568). 
Therefore, it is likely the severity and frequency of heavy 
precipitation events will increase in the area.
    Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey's June 
beetles traveling up to 328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m)) to artificial 
light sources (Osborne 2008a. p. 2) during surveys. Such artificial 
light sources as black lights or mercury vapor lights may draw males in

[[Page 32864]]

a line-of-sight radius from existing habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 3). As 
males fly in search of female pheromone plumes (Domek et al. 1990, pp. 
271-276), they may become distracted by light sources that attract them 
to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where they 
are preyed upon, or to local swimming pools where they end up in pool 
skimmers and often drown. Swimming pools are one common source for male 
Casey's June beetle specimens (Barrows 1998, p. 1; Barrows and Fisher 
2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 5) and may serve as a genetic sink for 
this species. If large numbers of male Casey's June beetles are lost to 
these indirect effects of development, there could be reduced genetic 
diversity in males available for mating. Male beetles located at 
habitat patch edges closer to light sources would be more susceptible 
to distraction than those located at the center of patches. The loss of 
large numbers of these male Casey's June beetles would reduce or 
eliminate genetic segments of the population and diminish the overall 
genetic diversity of the population. We believe that loss of male 
beetles due to the indirect effects of development adjacent to upland 
habitat may be a significant threat to Casey's June beetle.
Summary of Factor E
    Casey's June beetle is negatively affected by increased intensity 
and frequency of catastrophic flood events, changing climatic patterns, 
and loss of individuals due to their attraction to adjacent light 
sources. Although the Palm Springs area is too small from a climate 
modeling perspective to have specific climate change models, climate 
change is likely to reduce Casey's June beetle population densities by 
increasing scouring events and water retention in the soil. Additional 
development within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat will 
likely include external lighting and swimming pools, both of which may 
result in additional losses and will continue to affect existing 
populations. Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade factors 
are likely to be a significant threat the continued existence of 
Casey's June beetle.

Determination

    We carefully assessed the best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Casey's 
June beetle. Section 3(5)(C)(6) of the Act defines an endangered 
species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' This species' extremely 
low numbers, slow dispersal rate, and highly restricted geographic 
range make it particularly susceptible to extinction at any time from 
random events, such as 100-year floods, scouring events, or isolation 
of known occurrences.
    As described in detail above, projections for human population 
growth extend out to 2030 in Palm Springs (SCAG 2004). Such projections 
frame our analysis as they help us understand what factors can 
reasonably be anticipated to meaningfully affect the species' future 
conservation status. We updated our original analysis by Anderson and 
Love (2007, pp. 1-2) to determine rates of habitat loss in southern 
Palm Springs from 1991 to 2008. During that time, Casey's June beetle 
experienced an approximate 22 percent reduction in contiguous, 
undeveloped habitat from 1,001 ac (405 ha) in 1991 to 777 ac (314 ha) 
in 2008. Habitat loss was greatest in the 2003 to 2005 time period, and 
impacts have continued to occur. Habitat has been lost at a rate of 1.6 
percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 percent per year 
from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year from 2003 to 2005, 
and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 2008.
    In summary, the most significant threat to Casey's June beetle, as 
listed in Factor A, is loss of its habitat. This species faces 
immediate and continuing threats from development of habitat and 
habitat fragmentation and degradation. At the rate of habitat loss 
since 1996, we estimate that nearly all remaining upland habitat on 
private or tribally owned land will be lost by 2020. Additionally, a 
variety of localized threats factors (which fall under Factors A, D, 
and E) continue to negatively affect the species (including attraction 
to artificial light sources, swimming pools, and changes in soil 
hydrology). Furthermore, as described in Factor D, existing regulatory 
mechanisms provide little direct protection of Casey's June beetle 
habitat, the loss of which is the most significant threat to the 
species. This single remaining known population may already have 
reached the point where it is not naturally sustainable and may require 
management of remaining occupied habitat and population augmentation to 
prevent extinction.
    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that Casey's June beetle is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Consequently, we are proposing 
to list Casey's June beetle as an endangered species under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed species are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 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 being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on 
any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently 
listed under the Act, 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 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 the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of 
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; leases on Tribal Trust lands that require Bureau of Indian 
Affairs approval; construction and management of gas pipeline and power 
line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and 
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal 
Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The

[[Page 32865]]

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), 
import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species. You may obtain permits for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and 
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

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
    (a) essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a 
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, 
but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, 
the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, 
but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed must 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of a species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life-cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found 
those PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement 
essential to the conservation of the species). We can designate areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing only when we determine that the best available scientific data 
demonstrate that the designation of such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed 
journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other 
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For 
these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be 
required for recovery of the species.
    Any areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designations, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions Federal agencies implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. 
They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by section 
9 and the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis 
of the best available scientific information at the time of the Federal 
agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if information available at the 
time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be 
endangered or threatened. Regulations under 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 
that the designation of

[[Page 32866]]

critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity and the identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is no documentation that disclosing Casey's June beetle 
locations would cause harm to this species. Casey's June beetle 
locations are already available in public literature, and designation 
of critical habitat would not increase risk to this species. Further, 
we find that there are benefits t