Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical Habitat, 58954-58998 [2011-24047]
Download as PDF
58954
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0019; MO
92210–0–0009]
RIN 1018–AV91
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Casey’s June
Beetle and Designation of Critical
Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for Casey’s June
beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We are also designating
approximately 587 acres (237 hectares)
of land as critical habitat for the species
in Riverside County, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final
economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat are available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing this
final rule, will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile
760–431–5901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011
(telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile
760–431–5901). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final
rule only those topics directly relevant
to the listing and designation of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle under the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The genus
Dinacoma and approximately 90 other
genera constitute the New World
members of the subfamily
Melolonthinae (i.e., May beetles, June
beetles, and chafers) of the scarab beetle
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
family (Scarabaeidae) (Smith and Evans
2005). Despite past references to
potentially new species or subspecies of
Dinacoma (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 173–174;
La Rue pers. comm., 2006), Casey’s June
beetle, Dinacoma caseyi Blaisdell, and
D. marginata (Casey) Casey remain the
only described taxonomic entities in the
genus (Evans and Smith 2009, p. 44).
For additional information on the
taxonomy, biology, and ecology of
Casey’s June beetle, and the history of
this rulemaking, refer to the August 8,
2006, 90-day finding (71 FR 44960), the
July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR
36635), the July 9, 2009, proposed
listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR
32857), and the March 31, 2010,
document making available the draft
economic analysis (DEA) (75 FR 16046)
published in the Federal Register.
These documents are available on the
Internet at https://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.
New Species Information
In our proposed listing and critical
habitat rule (74 FR 32857; July 9, 2009),
we requested comments on any new
species information. One peer reviewer
suggested we clarify the fact that female
Casey’s June beetles are known to be
flightless, because our wording in one
sentence was not clear in that regard.
Information submitted by peer
reviewers and an expert in scarab
beetles (Hawks, University of California,
Riverside, pers. comm. 2010) also
disagreed with the appropriateness of
primary constituent element (PCE) 2.
We have made the appropriate changes
to this final listing and critical habitat
rule.
New Species Occupancy and Habitat
Information
Multiple commenters and one peer
reviewer further suggested that the
species may occupy areas outside
proposed critical habitat. To determine
if areas outside of the proposed critical
habitat designation harbor the Casey’s
June beetle, we funded a survey of likely
habitat within the species’ known
historical range and beyond. While the
survey focused on areas north of Palm
Springs (i.e., immediately south of the
Chino Cone) and south to Palm Desert,
we have yet to receive a final report
from the surveyor (i.e., David Hawks).
Nonetheless, preliminary survey
information received to date primarily
supports our determination of the
species’ current range and population
distribution, and modification of PCEs
to include disturbed soils and
predominantly, but not exclusively,
native vegetation (i.e., not the two
specific ‘‘intact’’ vegetation types listed
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the proposed rule) (Hawks pers.
comm., 2010; see below discussion).
Hawks (pers. comm. 2010, 2011a and
b) located two occupied Casey’s June
beetle sites outside of proposed critical
habitat, in natural remnants of the Palm
Canyon Wash channel surrounded by
golf course landscaping just east of the
easternmost section of wash proposed as
critical habitat, in the vicinity of Golf
Club Drive. These wash habitat
remnants total 17 acres (ac) (7 hectares
(ha)), and are downstream from the
confluence of Palm Canyon Wash and
Tahquiz Creek, where additional
streamflow occurs following a storm
event. Although it is possible these
habitat remnants could contribute to
species recovery, their ability to support
occupancy long-term is questionable
because these areas are subject to
scouring flood events, which would
remove available habitat and displace
and most likely extirpate any
individuals occupying the sites. In
addition, the frequency of scouring
flood events likely to extirpate resident
individuals is expected to increase with
climate change (see E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting the
Continued Existence of the Species
section below). Therefore, at this time,
we have determined that these wash
habitat remnants do not meet the
definition of critical habitat. However,
we will continue to gather information
regarding the potential for this wash
habitat area to contribute to species
recovery.
Hawks’ comprehensive survey (pers.
comm. 2010) included potential Casey’s
June beetle habitat remnants identified
throughout the City of Palm Springs,
including many vacant lots within the
developed areas of the cities of Palm
Springs and Cathedral City Hawks (pers.
comm. 2010) documented numerous
female emergence holes and observed
many female beetles during his surveys,
confirming occupancy of Coachella fine
sand series (CpA), and Myoma fine
sands (MaB) soil types. Hawks (pers.
comm. 2010) stated he never found
emergence holes in the Carsitas cobbly
sand series (ChC) soil type. However, he
believes ChC soil may be occupied if it
is an inclusion surrounded by Carsitas
gravelly sand series (CdC) soil, and if it
is not part of the landscape defining the
edge of the floodplain, such as along
South Palm Canyon Drive to the west.
Based on this information from Hawks
(pers. comm. 2010) we determined that
ChC soils not 100 percent surrounded
by CdC and Riverwash (RA) soils do not
meet the definition of critical habitat
(see Summary of Changes From the
2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule,
Physical or Biological Features, and
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat sections below).
Hawks’ (pers. comm. 2010) positive
survey results generally supported our
estimation of Casey’s June beetle
population distribution within proposed
critical habitat, with the exception of
newly discovered occupied wash
habitat remnants described above that
represent a slight northeastern
distribution extension, and the lack of
occupancy in some southern areas that
were determined not to meet the
definition of critical habitat and
therefore were not designated (see
Summary of Changes From the 2009
Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, Physical
or Biological Features, and Criteria Used
To Identify Critical Habitat sections
below). In a subsequent communication,
Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a) described
his survey results from the southern
population distribution area: ‘‘Adults of
both sexes of [Casey’s June beetle] as
well as emergence holes were observed
in the wash and in [adjacent] floodplain
areas west of the wash between Bogert
Trail and Acanto Drive. Adults of both
sexes as well as emergence holes were
observed in the wash and in floodplain
areas west of the wash from Acanto and
south for a few hundred meters. South
of this area, [Casey’s June beetle]
emergence holes were observed in late
June 2010 (after the adult emergence
period) in both the wash and the
floodplain habitat adjacent to the wash
as far south as the fence and almost to
the small dam and this is as far south
as we surveyed. Emergence holes were
less common towards the southern
extent of this area, and, especially in the
wash, they were not apparent in the
close vicinity of the dam (within about
[328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m))]). The
wash [close to the dam] is narrow and
much more disturbed (apparently by
turbulent water flow), gravelly, and
rocky in this area, and is perhaps
unsuitable as [Casey’s June beetle]
habitat.’’ This new information confirms
occupancy of the southernmost wash
and upland designated critical habitat
areas where beetles had not previously
been reported (as described in Barrows
1998, p. 1), and increases the highest
elevation for a Casey’s June beetle
observation (southernmost wash area) to
approximately 580 ft (177 m).
New survey information shed light on
the occupancy and suitability status of
lands proposed for critical habitat
designation at the southern extreme of
the population distribution. Light trap
surveys of southern portions of the
species’ population distribution were
conducted by Jim Cornett (2010, pp. 10–
11) in upland habitat, from South Palm
Canyon Drive south into Indian
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Canyons Preserve. Although Cornet
(2010, p. 14) did not trap any male
Casey’s June beetles or observe any
females, Hawks’ (pers. comm. 2011a)
observations do not support Cornett’s
conclusion that uplands contiguous
with the wash south of Acanto Drive are
not occupied. Traps on the eastern edge
of Cornett’s ‘‘Area 3’’ (Cornett 2010, p.
10), where he sampled in April, were
within approximately 660 ft (200 m) of
locations where Hawks reported Casey’s
June beetle occupancy in May. Cornett
did not survey for females or emergence
holes in 2010. Conversely, the results of
Hawks’ (pers. comm. 2011b) and
Cornett’s (2010, pp. 10 and 14) surveys
in western areas adjacent to South Palm
Canyon Drive were all negative.
Furthermore, Hawks (pers. comm.
2011b) reported unsuitable habitat
conditions for this western area, similar
to those described by Hovore (1997a, p.
3) and evident on current aerial
imagery. Therefore, we believe habitat
in this southwestern portion associated
with South Palm Canyon Drive is not
occupied and not likely occupiable.
However, as noted in the preceding
paragraph, Hawks’ (pers. comm. 2011a
and b) new information does indicate
occupancy in the southernmost mapped
contiguous CdC and RA soil areas.
New habitat information resulted in
changes to our habitat area estimates.
Hawks’ (pers. comm. 2010) discovery of
17 ac (7 ha) of occupied Casey’s June
beetle habitat outside of proposed
critical habitat in Palm Canyon Wash
increased our estimates of extant and
historic occupied habitat. However,
based on the currently available
information, we have determined that
this newly discovered occupied habitat
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat (see above discussion). Multiple
tribal commenters further suggested the
species may no longer occupy areas
within the southern portion of the
proposed critical habitat unit, and that
these habitat areas were no longer
suitable for Casey’s June beetle
occupancy (see Comments 5 and 8
below in the Summary of Comments
and Recommendations section). Survey
information from 2010 supports this
hypothesis for areas in the southwestern
portion of the proposed critical habitat
unit associated with South Palm Canyon
Drive (see above discussion). The
determination that the southwestern
portion of the proposed critical habitat
unit associated with South Palm Canyon
Drive is no longer occupied or contains
suitable habitat decreased the total area
estimate of remaining suitable habitat
(despite the addition of the two newly
discovered occupied sites in a natural
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58955
remnant of the Palm Canyon Wash
channel discussed above). As a result of
this new information, we have made
appropriate changes to this final rule.
New Information on Casey’s June Beetle
Diet and Movement
We found one new study on the diet
of another endangered June beetle, and
some new information on June beetle
movement distances. Hill and O’Malley
(2009, p. 1) found that the frass pellets
(pelletized fecal matter) of larvae of the
Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla
barbata) contained a variety of plant
species and fungi material
demonstrating that they are not
specialist host plant feeders but are
microhabitat specialists. Hawks’ (pers.
comm. 2010) observations at Smoke
Tree Ranch indicate Casey’s June beetle
may be similar when he stated that, ‘‘We
did not observe females at Smoke Tree
[Ranch], but many hundreds of
emergence holes associated with native
vegetation [and nonnative vegetation
such as] irrigated tamarisk, fan palms,
oleander, and olive. We still are not sure
what plants of any sort mean to [Casey’s
June beetle] grubs. * * * ’’ These results
support our hypothesis that Casey’s
June beetles do not require particular
species of host plants for feeding.
However, native plant species likely are
important habitat components in other
ways not fully understood at this time,
because native plant species are an
integral component of the ecosystem in
which Casey’s June beetle evolved. We
incorporated this information into the
Primary Constituent Elements for
Casey’s June Beetle section below.
The observation of a male Casey’s
June beetle at a street light in a suburban
neighborhood approximately 750 ft (230
m) from the nearest suitable habitat
(Hovore 2003, p. 6; Google Earth
historical imagery 1996 and 2002)
indicates that movement of males
among occupied areas occurs over at
least that distance, and it is likely that
potential movement is much farther.
The maximum male dispersal distance
recorded for male Mount Hermon June
beetles, a related species that also has
flightless females, is 923 ft (281 m)
(Arnold, Entomological Consulting
Services, Ltd., pers. comm. 2011).
Arnold (pers. comm. 2011) noted this
datum was from a mark-releaserecapture study limited to his study site,
and therefore it is ‘‘entirely possible’’
adult male June beetles are capable of
making longer distance movements.
This information supports the
conclusion articulated in our Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section
below that all lands meeting the
definition of critical habitat are likely
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58956
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
occupied at the population level and fall
within the distribution of a single
population. Please see Summary of
Comments and Recommendations
section below for further discussion of
comments and information received.
Previous Federal Actions
In our July 5, 2007, 12-month finding
(72 FR 36635), we determined that
listing Casey’s June beetle as an
endangered species was warranted but
precluded. Because of the lack of
funding for the large number of
candidate species we were unable to
propose and finalize the listing for
Casey’s June beetle at that time. 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).
Although funding to work on a
proposed listing determination was not
available at the time of the 12-month
finding, we subsequently received
funding for development of proposed
and final listing with critical habitat
rules. On July 9, 2009 (74 FR 32857), we
published in the Federal Register a
proposal to list Casey’s June beetle as
endangered and to designate critical
habitat. In this final rule, we determine
endangered status for Casey’s June
beetle and designate critical habitat.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened 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: (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; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above threat factors, singly, or in
combination. Each of these factors is
discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Casey’s June beetle is part of a genus
of beetles that has naturally restricted
ranges (LaRue, University of California,
Riverside, pers. comm. 2006). Casey’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
June 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 population footprint of
Casey’s June beetle due to the generality
and paucity of location descriptions
from early collection records (see
discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR
44962; August 8, 2006)). However,
museum specimen records indicate the
historical range can be described as the
eastern foothills of the San Jacinto
Mountains from the City of Palm
Springs south to the community of
Indian Wells. This historical range,
while far greater than the current known
population distribution, is nonetheless
relatively restricted compared to most
species.
We used soils data correlated with
occupancy data to estimate the
historical suitable habitat distribution of
Casey’s June beetle. Our review of the
soil and occupancy data showed that
over 97 percent of habitat likely to have
been included in Casey’s June beetle
historical population distributions has
been converted to development or
rendered unsuitable by the impacts of
adjacent development. Of the
approximately 605 ac (245 ha) of
remaining extant suitable habitat,
approximately 70 percent remains
relatively unprotected by existing
regulations (see D. The Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section
below). Approximately 50 percent of the
unprotected habitat areas are tribal
reservation lands and 30 percent are in
private ownership. The remaining
approximately 20 percent is owned by
local entities (City of Palm Springs and
County Flood Control) for roads, flood
control, and water facilities. Casey’s
June beetle habitat on tribal reservation
land consists of approximately 11 ac (4
ha) in tribal trust, and 152 ac (62 ha) in
fee-title and allotted lands. The majority
of tribal reservation lands are at risk of
development, as are any undeveloped
portions of the relatively unprotected
lands owned by local governments and
private landowners.
The population of the City of Palm
Springs 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 on properties zoned for
residential and commercial use, uses
which would encroach upon Casey’s
June beetle habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Development
We analyzed suburban development
within southern Palm Springs from
2003 to 2007 to determine the habitat
impacts of completed and pending
projects as cited in the petition to list
Casey’s June beetle (Wright et al. 2004,
pp. 8–9) and referenced in the July 5,
2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635).
We were unable to identify all projects
cited in the petition, 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 5 years between 2003 and 2007.
Habitat disturbance activities such as
development can result in direct
mortality of larvae and adults.
The Monte Sereno project north of
Bogart Trail adjacent to Palm Canyon
Wash (tribal reservation lands) impacted
approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of occupied
habitat in 2005. Expected mitigation
measures described by Dudek and
Associates (2001, p. 24) for impacts to
Casey’s June beetle habitat were an inlieu payment of $600 per ac ($240 per
ha) (total of $21,960) to the City of Palm
Springs or a habitat conservation entity
designated by the City for loss of
approximately 37 ac (15 ha) of ‘‘creosote
bush scrub habitat’’ (no specified use of
these funds), and re-creation of 9 ac (4
ha) of lost ‘‘desert wash scrub habitat’’
(no specified cost). To our knowledge,
no appropriate habitat has yet been
conserved or restored for Casey’s June
beetle to offset the Monte Sereno project
impacts.
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 were developed
(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
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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, City of Palm Springs, pers.
comm. 2007).
The other four identified projects 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 (14ha) Alta project north of Acanto Drive
and west of Palm Canyon Wash on tribal
reservation 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 and 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.’’ Streit (2009, pp. 12–13) noted
that although Hovore was always
conscientious and reported any Casey’s
June beetle observation, not all
biologists do so, and in at least one case
a biologist apparently omitted Casey’s
June beetle observations from their
environmental impact report for a
proposed golf course project in the early
1990s. Streit (2009, pp. 12–13) did not
identify the exact location he
referenced, although his description that
it is found in ‘‘the vicinity of the mouth
of Palm Canyon, adjacent to Palm
Springs, Riverside County, California,’’
and approximate construction dates of
golf course projects based on digital
aerial photography indicate the
referenced project is the current Indian
Canyons Golf Resort, located between
Smoke Tree Ranch and the Monte
Sereno project north of Bogart Trail and
adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal
reservation lands).
We conducted an analysis for the 12month finding (72 FR 36635) that used
available digital aerial photographs
taken at various intervals from 1991 to
2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1–
2) and 2006 field surveys (Anderson
2006, pp. 1–36), which determined that
Casey’s June beetle experienced an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
approximate 25 percent reduction in
contiguous occupied habitat from 770 ac
(312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in
2006. Based on new biological surveys
and information provided to us since
2006, we now know an area larger than
770 ac (312 ha) was occupied by Casey’s
June beetle in 1991. With this new
information and 2008 digital aerial
photographs, we determined that there
was approximately 1,018 ac (412 ha) of
occupied habitat in 1991. Therefore, our
new analysis showed that Casey’s June
beetle has experienced an
approximately 22 percent reduction in
occupied habitat from 1,018 ac (412 ha)
in 1991 to 794 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our
updated calculations accounted for
these additional acres and revealed 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 (dates based
on available photographs). Although
habitat loss since 2005 has slowed
(likely due to the economic downturn),
after our 2008 analysis was completed
(post-12 month finding; 72 FR 36635,
July 5, 2007) we discovered
approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of habitat
where two adjacent development pads
were cleared on the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indian’s reservation south of
Acanto Drive, removing the PCEs from
the majority of the parcel (per available
satellite imagery). The loss of this
graded area is of particular concern
because it comprises approximately
one-fourth of a formerly contiguous
occupied upland habitat area adjacent to
an area of the wash.
Since publication in the Federal
Register 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 reservation lands (Davis, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers.
comm. 2007; Park, Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007).
The project is in the area containing
CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon
Drive near Bogart Trail and Acanto
Drive (tentative tract number 30047)
(City of Palm Springs 2008, p. 14). We
believe this area is not likely to be
occupied by Casey’s June beetle or
occupiable in the future based on
historical and recent disturbances
(Hovore 1997a, p. 3; Google Earth
imagery 2011) (see New Species
Information section above), and because
recent surveys conducted within and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58957
adjacent to the Eagle Canyon project
area (Osborne 2008a, p. 3, Cornett 2010
p. 10 and 14; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b)
where occupancy was previously
documented (Hovore 1995, pp. 4–5)
were negative.
Extant habitat estimations include
wash habitat where Casey’s June beetle
may not be able to maintain occupancy
following severe flood events (Hovore
2003, p.11; Cornett 2004, p. 14). Of the
total 794 ac (321 ha) of estimated
remaining habitat in 2008, only 523 ac
(212 ha) was upland habitat. Upland
habitat refers to any upland terrace area
that is outside of the wash and does not
occur on Riverwash (RA) soils.
According to data from the Coachella
Valley General Plan (Riverside County
2005), all remaining upland habitat on
tribal land north of Acanto Drive is
projected to be developed at a density
of two homes per ac (0.5 per ha) by the
year 2020, even though some parcels
designated as parks and recreation in
the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 =
‘‘1145’’) have already been developed
with three homes per ac (7.5 per ha).
Undeveloped habitat on tribal
reservation 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 Bogart Trail area, except that it
is outside the city limit of Palm Springs
(code GP2020 = ‘‘58’’). Code GP2020 =
‘‘58’’ signifies tribal land or open space
in the General Plan; lands with this
code have been developed at a density
as high as 3 homes per ac (more than 7
homes per ha). Land use projections
(Riverside County 2005) indicate that
more than 48 percent of the
approximately 523 ac (212 ha) of upland
Casey’s June beetle habitat that we
estimated to be extant in 2008 could be
impacted by development.
Further indicating that development
in Casey’s June beetle habitat is likely,
the Director of Planning Services for the
City of Palm Springs stated in a
communication to economists writing
the DEA (Ewing pers. comm. 2009) that
‘‘* * * much of the [proposed critical
habitat] is within the urban boundaries
of the city and along a major
thoroughfare (and former state
highway). These lands are of significant
economic value to the community and
have already been the subject of
entitlement applications, processing,
and approval.’’
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
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58958
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene
Autry Trail have been converted to golf
course landscaping (Anderson and Love
2007, p. 3). LaRue (pers. comm. 2006)
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, both now and in the
foreseeable future.
Soil Disturbance
In addition to the threat of habitat
loss, soil disturbance activities may
degrade habitat quality and can cause
direct Casey’s June beetle mortality (also
see E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species below).
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 (Riverside
County FCWCD). In the vicinity of the
State Route 111 bridge and Araby Drive,
there are road maintenance and flood
control activities, as well as unregulated
off-road vehicle (ORV) disturbance
(based on examination of Google Earth
imagery, both current and historical).
Cornett (2004, p. 12) noted similar ORV
impacts during Casey’s June beetle
surveys on a nearby site adjacent to
Whitewater Wash and the Palm Springs
Airport. ORV use impacts 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 (Adams et al. 1982, pp. 167–
175; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, pp.
144–145; Webb 1983, pp. 51–79).
Indirect evidence suggests that land
disturbance impacts the species’
burrows and larvae that occur in the soil
and the flightless females when they
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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. Waste dumping at
habitat edges, as discovered through
review of digital aerial photography of
proposed critical habitat areas and
described in the Summary of Comments
and Recommendations section (see
Comment 12) below, or frequent use for
horseback riding by local riding clubs
(as described by Hawks pers. comm.
2011b) can also cause direct mortality of
adult females and may have detrimental
effects on habitat. Therefore, land
disturbance activities likely pose a
threat to the species’ survival; however,
the magnitude of impacts is unknown.
Habitat Fragmentation
Casey’s June beetle habitat in Palm
Springs has been increasingly
fragmented by development in recent
years (see above discussion regarding
development). Continued fragmentation
of already limited, remnant habitat
compromises the ability of various
species to disperse and establish new, or
augment declining, populations
(Collinge 2000, pp. 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). Elimination
of dispersal areas and isolation of
population segments increase chances
of extirpation by stochastic events
(Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21–28; Collinge
2000, pp. 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 Casey’s June beetle
populations (Cornett 2004, pp. 11, 14).
Casey’s June beetle is especially
impacted by smaller-scale 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
population scale, fragmented patches
that no longer support any female
Casey’s June beetles may be attractive to
male beetles and act as population
sinks. 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 (Forman and Godron,
1986, pp. 87–91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17–
38; Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21–28; Hokit
and Branch 2003, pp. 1060–1068).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated that
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 ‘‘clusters of individuals
around areas of repeated female
emergence.’’ 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 noncontiguous habitat fragments. Although
fragmentation of habitat occupied by
females within a population still allows
mixing of genes by males visiting
multiple habitat fragments (habitat is
not fragmented with regard to male
movement), it would preclude
recolonization of an area if all flightless
females were eliminated from that
fragment. Fragmentation of suitable
habitat into smaller patches increases
the risk of colony loss and decreases the
probability of the species’ survival.
Current Conservation Measures
Indian Canyons Master Plan
We reviewed the Indian Canyons
Master Plan (Master Plan; ACBCI 2007)
and the zoning designations in it to
determine what type of protective
measures it provides Casey’s June beetle
and its habitat. Upon review of the
Master Plan we noted that the planning
area encompasses all Casey’s June beetle
habitat south of Acanto Drive (including
some trust, fee, and allotted lands). The
majority of this habitat falls within
allotted lands owned by tribal members
(ACBCI 2007, p. 17). According to
acquisition priorities articulated in the
Master Plan, some parcels identified as
Casey’s June beetle habitat (south of the
east-west aligned portion of South Palm
Canyon Drive) represent the highest
priority for acquisition because they
contain valuable cultural, natural, and
scenic resources, and have the highest
potential for future development plans
that are incompatible with resource
protection goals (ACBCI 2007 pp. 27
and 29). Allotted lands identified as
Casey’s June beetle habitat within Palm
Canyon Wash between Acanto Drive
and the east-west aligned portion of
South Palm Canyon Drive fall within
the Master Plan Low Density Residential
(2 single family dwellings per acre (0.4
ha)) land use category (ACBCI 2007 pp.
35 and 37). In summary, the Master Plan
provides some protection of some
Casey’s June beetle habitat on tribal
land, but does not assure protection.
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians prepared and submitted a draft
habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Service, which has undergone public
review in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112;
October 12, 2007). The Tribe informed
us in an October 28, 2008, letter that
they removed Casey’s June beetle from
the list of species addressed in the draft
Tribal HCP; however, they indicated
they will ‘‘continue to informally
coordinate with the Service regarding
this species where it occurs on the
Reservation.’’ The Tribe stated they are
deferring to the Service to allow ‘‘the
Service to take the lead in addressing
how to effectively conserve and protect
this species’’ (ACBCI 2008, p. 1).
Although the Tribe has suspended their
pursuit of a section 10(a) permit (ACBCI
2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to
implement the draft HCP and will
continue to protect and manage natural
resources within the Tribe’s jurisdiction
(ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p.
ES–1). We will continue to work
cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts
to conserve Casey’s June beetle.
Our analysis indicates that although
some tribal environmental policies do
exist (ACBCI 2000; ACBCI 2007) that
provide some conservation benefit for
the species and its habitat, they do not
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 all
tribal reservation lands.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella
Valley MSHCP)
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 (Service file: TE–104604–0
(Service 2008)) 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
10(a)(1)(B) permit did not include
Casey’s June beetle as a covered species.
Because it is not a covered species, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Coachella Valley MSHCP does not
provide specific measures for the
protection or conservation of the species
and its habitat, nor does the incidental
take permit authorize take of the
species. We are working with individual
permittees within the species’ range to
address the species’ needs in their
planned projects. We are engaged in
discussions with the City of Palm
Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and
the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to avoid,
minimize, and offset impacts to the
species appropriately. However, actions
taking place after the effective date of
this final rule would require any take
associated with their activities be
exempted from the prohibitions of
section 9 of the Act through section 7
consultation (where appropriate) or
permitted under an amendment to the
Coachella Valley MSHCP or a separate
HCP focused on the Casey’s June beetle.
No such amendment or permit is
currently in place.
Summary of Factor A
Within the historical distribution of
Casey’s June beetle, we estimate that
over 97 percent of habitat likely to have
been occupied by Casey’s June beetle
has been converted to development or
rendered unsuitable due to impacts of
adjacent development. Loss of occupied
habitat has continued since the early
1990s. Twenty-eight percent (287 ac
(116 ha)) of the 1,018 ac (412 ha) of
contiguous suitable habitat for Casey’s
June beetle identified as extant (based
on 1991 aerial photographs) has been
lost to development. From 2003 to 2005,
the loss of occupied Casey’s June beetle
habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8 percent
per year. Although habitat loss since
2005 has slowed (likely due to the
economic downturn), development and
habitat impact 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 estimate the amount of
undeveloped habitat currently occupied
by the species is approximately 605 ac
(245 ha) (including all non-contiguous
habitat containing any soil types used
by the species). Based on current
projected development and habitat
impacts, the loss of historically
occupied locations, the limited
distribution of Casey’s June beetle,
existing and future habitat
fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and
land use changes associated with
urbanization, we find that the threats
associated with the present and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58959
threatened destruction, modification,
and curtailment of Casey’s June beetle
habitat are significant. These threats are
currently ongoing and will continue
into the foreseeable future.
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.
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.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms that
could provide some protection for
Casey’s June beetle include: (1) Federal
laws and regulations; (2) State laws and
regulations; and (3) 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 habitat
for Casey’s June beetle. However, there
are regulatory mechanisms that could
provide incidental benefit to Casey’s
June beetle. The following section
discusses these mechanisms.
Federal Laws
All Federal agencies are required to
adhere to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) of 1970 for projects they fund,
authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1518) state that, in their
environmental impact statements,
agencies shall include a discussion on
the environmental impacts of the
various project alternatives (including
the proposed action), any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be
avoided, and any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources
involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA
itself is a disclosure law that provides
an opportunity for the public to submit
comments on the particular project and
propose other conservation measures
that may directly benefit listed species;
however, it does not require subsequent
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58960
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
minimization or mitigation measures by
the Federal agency involved. Any such
measures are typically voluntary in
nature and are not required by the
statute. Activities are subject to NEPA
regardless of ownership if there is a
Federal nexus, such as under section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) and tribal lands held in
trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the
primary mechanism in the United States
for surface water quality protection. It
establishes the basic structure for
regulating discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States. It employs
a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to reduce direct water
quality impacts, finance water treatment
facilities, and manage polluted run-off.
The CWA made it unlawful to discharge
any pollutant from a point source into
navigable water unless a permit was
obtained. The EPA’s National Pollutant
Discharges Eliminations System permit
program controls discharges. The EPA
determines water quality standards for
each State, and the CWA requires States
to either adopt this level or determine
another with documentation (EPA 2000,
p. 31682). Under section 404, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
regulates the discharge of fill material
into waters of the United States, which
include navigable and isolated waters,
headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33
U.S.C. 1344). In general, the term
‘‘wetland’’ refers to areas meeting the
Corps’ criteria of hydric soils, hydrology
(either sufficient annual flooding or
water on the soil surface), and
hydrophytic vegetation (plants
specifically adapted for growing in
wetlands). Any action with the potential
to impact waters of the United States
must be reviewed under the CWA.
These reviews require consideration of
impacts to water quality and
recommendations for mitigation of
significant impacts. Most wash habitat
suitable for Casey’s June beetle could
meet the definition of waters of the
United States; thus some impacts to this
sensitive taxon and its habitat within
the wash could potentially fall under
Corps’ jurisdiction and be averted.
However, the CWA has not proven
sufficient to alleviate threats to Casey’s
June beetle and its habitat to date.
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 nonFederal agencies in California. The
CEQA guidelines require a finding of
significance if a project has the potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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). Although such overrides are
rare, the possibility remains that
projects that cause significant
environmental damage, such as taking
of endangered species or destruction of
their habitat, will be approved.
Therefore, protection of listed species
through CEQA is dependent upon the
discretion of the agency involved.
Furthermore, because the availability of
occupied and suitable Casey’s June
beetle habitat is extremely limited,
regulatory protections such as CEQA
that do not prohibit mortality or habitat
loss, nor require acquisition of available
habitat to mitigate such losses, would
not be sufficient to reduce threats or
prevent the species’ extinction.
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 existing
regulatory mechanism does not provide
for the protection of Casey’s June beetle
or its habitat.
Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms
Based on occurrence of soil types and
species collection records, historically
(pre-European settlement), Casey’s June
beetle potentially occupied 5,834 ac
(2,361 ha) (18 percent) of tribal land.
Lands within the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians’’ reservation
encompass 274 ac (111 ha), or
approximately 45 percent of the
estimated extant Casey’s June beetle
habitat. All post-1996 development of
occupied habitat, with the exception of
the Smoke Tree Commons and Cottages
projects, has occurred on Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians’’ reservation
land. The remaining undeveloped
suitable upland habitat on the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’’
reservation 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 (see the discussion of the
Eagle Canyon project under A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Species’ Habitat or Range section
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)
(ACBCI 2000) states that the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
(Tribe) is the lead for preparing
environmental review documents, and
that tribal policy is to protect the natural
environment, including ‘‘all living
things.’’ According to the Tribal Act
(ACBCI 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will
consult with any Federal, State, and
local agencies that have special
expertise with respect to environmental
impacts. In a second letter dated April
29, 2010, the Tribe further stated they
have chosen not to delegate land use
authority to a local agent (such as the
City of Palm Springs) in the area of the
reservation south of Acanto Drive.
Instead, the Tribe stated they directly
regulate land use in this area through
the Indian Canyons Master Plan and
tribal zoning designation.
Several projects implemented on
tribal reservation 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; Hovore 1997b, p. 4;
Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Hovore
2003, p. 4; Cornett 2004, p. 3) has been
greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by
development since our receipt of the
petition to list the Casey’s June beetle in
2004 (see A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range above). The Alta and Monte
Sereno development projects eliminated
most of the species’ upland habitat
estimated to have been occupied in
2003 outside of Smoke Tree Ranch.
Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that
grading for the Alta project near South
Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in
May 2003 reduced the known 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 conclusion is that the
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Tribal Act does not effectively protect
the species’’ habitat. The Chief Planning
and Development Officer for the Tribe
(Davis, pers. comm. 2007) affirmed that
the Tribal Act does not apply to all
tribal reservation lands; for example, the
currently planned Alturas development
project (see A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range 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 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, pers. comm.
2007). Summary of Factor D
Existing regulatory mechanisms are
not adequate to protect Casey’s June
beetle or its habitat. 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 adequate
protection for this species or its habitat
throughout its range, we believe this
presents a significant threat to the
survival of Casey’s June beetle, both
now and in the foreseeable future.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
The Casey’s June beetle population
may be impacted by other natural or
anthropogenically influenced factors,
such as changing environmental
conditions resulting from climate
change, increased intensity and
frequency of scouring events in wash
habitat, and indirect effects associated
with adjacent development. However,
there are no species-specific, scientific,
published models describing or
predicting the magnitude of these
threats, and this should be the subject
of future research.
Stream Channelization
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 (Poff et al. 1997,
p. 772). Therefore, scouring events that
cause species mortality are likely to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
occur more frequently today than they
did prior to development. Scouring
events may temporarily eliminate
Casey’s June beetles within Palm
Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p. 9;
Cornett 2004, p. 14). After scouring or
long-term inundation events,
depopulated wash habitats would be
slowly repopulated by females from
neighboring occupied, higher elevation
habitat. However, if scouring events
increase in frequency, there may be
insufficient time for females to emigrate
from higher elevation refugia between
scouring flow events. 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. Should these recolonization events
fail, Casey’s June beetles may become
extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash,
which comprises a significant portion of
the known occupied habitat area. We
believe the increased frequency of
scouring events due to indirect effects of
development adjacent to the Wash poses
at least a moderate threat to Casey’s June
beetle, both now and in the foreseeable
future.
Climate Change
Casey’s June beetle is sensitive to
changes in climate factors, such as
increased windspeed and temperatures
(that dry alluvial soils and disperse
female pheromones), and increased
catastrophic flood events (Noss et al.
2001, p. 42; LaRue pers. comm. 2006).
As discussed above, increased intensity
and frequency of flooding and scouring
events from habitat modification in
Palm Canyon Wash is of particular
concern for Casey’s June beetle.
However, this increased flooding and
scouring may also result from changes
in climatic conditions. 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) indicated temperature,
precipitation, peak stream flow (NWIS
2008), and other weather patterns since
1950, are consistent with global patterns
described and predicted by the IPCC
(2007 p. 2, pp. 8–9, and 15). General
Circulation Models predict a 1 to 3
°Fahrenheit (°F) (0.5 to 1.7 °Celsius (°C))
rise in temperature and at least a 25
percent increase in precipitation by
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58961
2050, to as much as a 50 percent
increase in precipitation as early as
2030 for California (Giorgi et al. 1994,
pp. 375–399; Field et al. 1999, pp. 5–
10), and increasing intensity of flood
and drought events (Giorgi et al. 1994,
pp. 375–399; Dessens 1995, pp. 1241–
1244). Downscaled average climate
model predictions for Casey’s June
beetle habitat calculated using Climate
Wizard (Maurer et al. 2007; medium A1
scenario for 2050) predict an increase in
temperature of 5 °F (2.8 °C) and a 5
percent increase in annual precipitation.
Increased temperatures, combined with
concentration of total annual
precipitation into more extreme storm
events with associated high wind
speeds should cause soil drying, as a
result of increased evaporation and
runoff, regardless of an increase in total
annual precipitation (Field et al. 1999;
pp. 9 and 20). Therefore, per Field et al.
(1999, pp. 9 and 20) and the above
Climate Wizard predictions, drought
frequency, soil dryness, and the
frequency of flash flood scouring events
over saturated winter soils are expected
to increase in the future. Alternating
drought and flash flood events may
exacerbate threats already facing the
species as a result of its small
population size and threats to its
habitat.
The Application of the NatureServe
Climate Change Vulnerability Index
(NatureServe 2010) ranked Casey’s June
beetle as extremely vulnerable
(abundance and range extent within
geographical area assessed extremely
likely to substantially decrease or
disappear by 2050) based primarily on
climate model predictions, dependence
on a moisture regime, vulnerability to
disturbance regime change, restricted
mobility, historical reduction of
occupied habitat, and its narrow
endemic status (Anderson 2010, p. 1).
Therefore, the best available science
indicates ongoing changing
environmental conditions resulting from
climate change effects pose a significant
threat to Casey’s June beetle, both now
and in the foreseeable future.
Artificial Light
Insect surveys using light traps have
recorded male Casey’s June beetles
traveling up to 328 ft (100 m) to
artificial light sources (Osborne,
Osborne Biological Consulting, pers.
comm. 2008a). Such artificial light
sources as black lights or mercury vapor
lights may draw males in 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
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58962
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
them to sites that are out of suitable
habitat for this species where they are
preyed upon, or to local swimming
pools, that are also an unnatural source
of light even if it is only reflected, 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 as a
result of 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 diminish the overall
genetic diversity of the population. We
believe that loss of male beetles due to
unnatural light sources attracting beetles
into development adjacent to upland
habitat poses at least a moderate threat
to Casey’s June beetle, both now and in
the foreseeable future.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Soil Disturbing Activities
Foot, vehicle, and horse traffic and
other soil disturbing activities from
adjacent developed areas are likely to
cause direct mortality of adults because
adult female Casey’s June beetles are
flightless. It is also likely that vehicle
traffic could compress or compact soils
to a depth deep enough to kill Casey’s
June beetle larvae. Discing, grading, soil
removal, and soil filling all have the
potential to harm individuals below the
soil surface. These activities are a
common occurrence, as evidenced by
eyewitness accounts (Anderson 2006,
pp. 17, 20, 22; Hawks pers. comm.
2011b) and aerial imagery from multiple
years.
Small Population Size and Restricted
Range
As stated above, Casey’s June beetle is
part of a genus of beetles that have
naturally restricted ranges, and it is
adapted to specialized habitat and soil
types within the eastern foothills of the
San Jacinto Mountains from the City of
Palm Springs south to the community of
Indian Wells. Casey’s June beetle
occupies only a portion of this area, and
the majority of the occupied area is
threatened by development, habitat
fragmentation, or other anthropogenic or
natural factors. In addition to having a
restricted range and small population
size, the species also has limited
dispersal capabilities (Hovore 2003, p.
3). These conditions most likely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
increase the degree of threat due to
chance events, such as floods or
drought, that are beyond the natural
variability of the ecosystem (Lande
1993, p. 912). 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 (Forman and
Godron, 1986, pp. 87–91; Hanski 1991,
pp. 17–38; Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21–
28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060–
1068).
Summary of Factor E
Casey’s June beetle is negatively
affected by increased intensity and
frequency of catastrophic flood events;
environmental effects resulting from
changing climatic patterns; loss of
individuals due to foot, vehicle, horse
traffic and other soil disturbing
activities; and loss of individuals due to
attraction to light sources. We conclude
from available information that climate
change is likely to reduce Casey’s June
beetle population densities by
increasing scouring events and
decreasing water retention in the soil.
Additional development within or
adjacent to Casey’s June beetle habitat
will likely increase traffic into habitat
areas and include external lighting and
swimming pools, all of which may
result in additional losses and will
continue to adversely affect the existing
population. Therefore, we find that
other natural or manmade factors in
total pose a significant threat to the
continued existence of Casey’s June
beetle, both now and in the foreseeable
future.
Determination
Section 3 of the Act, defines the term
‘‘endangered species’’ to mean any
species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The term ‘‘threatened species’’
is defined as any species which is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
We carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and future threats to Casey’s June beetle.
We also consulted with recognized
Casey’s June beetle experts on the
species’ status and trends. Although
quantification of population numbers
has not been possible, given the cryptic
nature of this species and limited
historical survey data, this species’
highly restricted geographic range
relative to its historical distribution (as
evidenced by documented loss of
occupied habitat; see above discussion),
ongoing habitat impacts and losses, and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
slow female dispersal rate make it
particularly susceptible to extinction
from random events such as flood
scouring or isolation through habitat
fragmentation.
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 794 ac (321 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, 0.6 percent per year from
1996 to 2003, 3.8 percent per year from
2003 to 2005, and 0.7 percent per year
from 2005 to 2008. These habitat loss
estimates do not include the area west
of South Palm Canyon Drive that we
determined is not likely suitable habitat
(see New Species Information section
above and Summary of Changes From
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule
section below).
In summary, the most significant
threat to Casey’s June beetle, as
described in the Factor A discussion, is
loss of its habitat. This species faces
immediate and continuing threats from
development of habitat and habitat
fragmentation and degradation.
Additionally, a variety of other threat
factors (which fall under Factor E)
continue to negatively affect the species
(including changes in environmental
conditions resulting from climate
change impacts, attraction to artificial
light sources, swimming pools, and
other sources of direct mortality).
Furthermore, as described in the Factor
D discussion, existing regulatory
mechanisms provide insufficient
protection of Casey’s June beetle habitat,
the loss of which is the most significant
threat to the species. The threats
described above for Casey’s June beetle
occur uniformly across its entire range,
resulting in a negative impact on the
species’ distribution, abundance, and
survivability. As discussed in the July 9,
2009, proposed rule (74 FR 32859), what
we believe is a single remaining Casey’s
June beetle population (fragmented into
several areas) may already have reached
the point where it is not naturally
sustainable.
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Therefore, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information
that has identified the species as having
an extremely restricted range and
uniformly facing ongoing and projected
threats, we find that Casey’s June beetle
is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. The threats that Casey’s
June beetle face are currently occurring,
and we see evidence that the threats
have already negatively impacted the
species, and that the species is
endangered now. The threats to its
continued existence are not
commencing in the foreseeable future,
which would result in a status
determination of threatened.
Consequently, we are listing 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 measures
required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities
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 designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
described in the preceding paragraph
include, but are not limited to,
management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands
administered by agencies such as the
Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, 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-ofway by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by
the Federal Highway Administration.
We are engaged in discussions with
Caltrans (designated non-Federal
representative for the Federal Highway
Administration) to avoid, minimize, and
offset impacts to Casey’s June beetle as
part of projects funded by that agency.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
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 endangered or threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities. We are
engaged in discussions with the City of
Palm Springs, Riverside County
FCWCD, and Caltrans to avoid,
minimize, and offset impacts to the
species resulting from activities
undertaken by those entities under an
amendment to the Coachella Valley
MSHCP or a separate HCP focused on
the Casey’s June beetle, but no such
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58963
amendment or permit is currently in
place.
Critical Habitat Designation for Casey’s
June Beetle
Critical Habitat Background
It is our intent to discuss below only
those topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle in this section of the final
rule.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
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, and 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
requirement that Federal agencies
insure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
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 nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action
that may affect a listed species or
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58964
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 obligation of the Federal
action agency and the landowner 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 or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of a species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat), focusing in on the
principal biological or physical
constituent elements (primary
constituent elements) within the
defined area that are essential to the
conservation of the species (such as
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type).
Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the Act, we can designate
critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. According to regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, we designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical
area presently occupied by a species
only when a designation limited to its
present range would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species.
When the best available scientific data
do not demonstrate that the
conservation needs of the species
require such additional areas, we will
not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species. An area currently
occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may,
however, be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat
designation.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 any potential recovery
planning for the species, articles in
peer-reviewed journals, conservation
plans developed by States and counties
for this or similar species, scientific
status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity because the
interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and
current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and
habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for
biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4).
Current climate change predictions for
terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air
temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying (Field et al.
1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p.
12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate
change may lead to increased frequency
and duration of severe storms and
droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p.
6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015;
Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504). See
discussion regarding climate change and
impacts on Casey’s June beetle and its
habitat under E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting the
Continued Existence of the Species
above.
We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that we may later 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. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may
affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
and rearing (or development) of
offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features required for Casey’s
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
June beetle from studies of the species’
habitat, ecology, and life history as
described in the Critical Habitat section
of the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on July 9, 2009 (74 FR
32857).
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Casey’s June beetle is associated with
native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert
vegetation located on desert alluvial
fans and bajadas (compound alluvial
fans) at the base of the Santa Rosa
Mountains in the Coachella Valley,
Riverside County, California. Sonoran
desert habitat is characterized as
scattered assemblages of broad-leaved
microphyll shrubs with an open canopy
(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, p. 114).
The open canopy provides space for
male beetles to fly in search of females
and fulfill normal life-history activities.
Disturbed and altered habitats harboring
nonnative species that are dominated by
native vegetation also support the
species (see Summary of Changes From
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule
section below). This habitat also
provides the micro-habitat space
inhabited by Casey’s June beetle.
Individual shrubs provide refugia for
the underground stage of the beetle’s life
history, protecting emergence holes
from anthropogenic disturbance and
enhancing survival of individuals.
Habitats utilized by Casey’s June
beetles experience varying levels and
types of anthropogenic disturbance. In
general, the species uses soil surfaces to
burrow and deposit eggs. After beetles
emerge, emergence holes are easily
detectable beneath shrub canopies
where they are protected from human
activity. Many emergence holes do
occur in the open, but are apparently
destroyed or disturbed by ‘‘equestrians,
vehicles, and other human activities’’
(Hovore 2003, p. 3). Therefore, the
habitat where subterranean larvae, and
females waiting on the surface for
mates, are protected from human
impacts is clustered around trees and
shrubs where there is intact crustal soil
(Hovore 2003, p. 3). These individual
shrubs are refugia for the underground
and reproductive stages of the beetle’s
life history, which protect them from
anthropogenic disturbance. The
emergence holes in undisturbed soil do
not reflect the entire distribution of the
emergence holes (the primary indicator
of occupancy) because disturbance
easily destroys evidence of the hole, but
instead represent the remaining intact
holes observable following a
disturbance (Hovore 2003, p. 3; Hawks
pers. comm. 2011b). Driscoll and Weir
(2005, pp. 182–194) reported that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
flightless or subterranean beetle species
that lived in disturbed, fragmented
habitats were at greater risk of
extirpation compared to those in intact,
less-disturbed habitats. See the Food,
Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements section for more specific
information on soil characteristics and
nutritional requirements.
In addition to anthropogenic
disturbance, Casey’s June beetle habitat
undergoes natural disturbance. Palm
Canyon Wash experiences intense
flooding and scouring about once every
10 years (Cornett 2004, p.14), with
turbulence that can excavate and
unearth sand where the species may
occur (Wright, independent biological
consultant, pers. comm. 2003; NWIS
2008). These events are likely to
extirpate Casey’s June beetles from
locations within the wash; however,
these areas may subsequently be
recolonized by beetles from surrounding
upland areas or local refugia. It is
hypothesized that the wash serves as a
sink area (an area where the rate of
immigration exceeds emigration and the
population segment is dependent on
immigration to maintain a nonnegative
growth rate) for Casey’s June beetle
(Cornett 2004, p.14), but wash habitat
may also serve as a source area when
population densities are high between
flooding events. If correct, these
concepts indicate the need to conserve
both upland and wash habitat to achieve
conservation of the species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Vegetation, soil, and climate
contribute to the nutritional and
physiological requirements of Casey’s
June beetle. It is hypothesized that
beetle larvae feed on organic matter and
detritus below ground (Hovore 2003, p.
2; LaRue pers. comm. 2004).
Observations of adult Casey’s June
beetles feeding underground have not
yet occurred (Hovore 1995, p. 2);
however, accumulation of leaves around
shrubs contribute to surface litter and
subsurface detritus. Additionally,
annual plants and grasses growing in
association with these desert scrubs also
contribute to surface litter and likely
provide an additional food source such
as radiculum (plant rootlets) (Simpson
1968, p. 500; LaRue, pers. comm. 2004).
Hill and O’Maly (2009, p. 1) found that
the frass pellets of larvae of another
endangered June beetle (Mount Hermon
June Beetle) contained a variety of plant
species and fungi material
demonstrating that they are not
specialist host plant feeders but are
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58965
microhabitat specialists. Hawk’s (2010,
p. 2) observations at Smoke Tree Ranch
indicate Casey’s June beetle may be
similar, ‘‘We did not observe females at
Smoke Tree [Ranch], but many
hundreds of emergence holes associated
with native vegetation, irrigated
tamarisk, fan palms, oleander, and olive.
We still are not sure what plants of any
sort mean to [Casey’s June beetle] grubs
* * *.’’ Therefore, the hypothesis that
Casey’s June beetles feed on organic
matter and detritus below ground is
supported by the best available
scientific information.
The Palm Springs area has slightly
higher precipitation than surrounding
areas in the eastern Coachella Valley,
due to its proximity to the base of the
San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains
(LaRue pers. comm. 2006). This
precipitation keeps the underlying soil
damp, which is an important
component for Casey’s June beetle life
history because they, like many other
subterranean scarab beetles, prefer the
interface between surface soil and damp
subsoil (Hovore 1995, p. 6; LaRue pers.
comm. 2008). The depth of the damp
soil is generally between 4 inches (in)
(10 centimeters (cm)) to 8 in (20 cm)
(Hovore 1995, p. 5) and averages 72 to
78 °F (22 to 26 °C) (USDA 1980, p. 11).
This depth coincides with the depth at
which larvae are usually found (2 in (5
cm) to 8 in (20 cm)) (LaRue pers. comm.
2004). Individual scrub plant
architecture has developed for
maximum capture of precipitation,
channeling water along stems to the
central root system. Moisture in the soil
layer prevents desiccation of larvae and
eggs and maintains a constant
temperature (LaRue pers. comm. 2008).
Additionally, areas with higher soil
moisture are associated with a higher
density of vegetation and
microorganisms, such as fungi and
bacteria believed to provide a more
diverse food source for beetle larvae
(LaRue pers. comm. 2008).
The Sonoran desert plant community
endemic to the Palm Canyon Wash and
adjacent terraces also serves to maintain
habitat consistency. The Carsitas series
soils have a water table located from 2
to 6 ft (0.6 to 1.9 m) deep. Shrubs are
important in water and nutrient cycling
in desert ecosystems (Sala et al. 1989,
pp. 501–505; McAuliffe 1994, pp. 111–
148). Desert shrubs have deeper root
systems that bring water from lower
levels up to higher levels, cycle
nutrients through the soil, and mediate
diurnal temperature variations. Midday
temperatures are lower near the center
of desert scrub patches than in areas
outside the canopy (Weins 1985, pp.
174–176). The combination of moisture
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58966
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
cycling, diurnal temperature variation,
and seasonal climate variation
(Rosenburg 1974, pp. 66–74) may
provide beetle larvae with a gradient of
micro-environments to inhabit in the
subsoil through the year, thereby
allowing them to maintain optimal body
temperature and humidity levels.
Therefore, the precipitation within the
Palm Canyon area, and its influence on
the local plant community, may be a
unique factor required for Casey’s June
beetle.
Soils associated with known
occurrences of Casey’s June beetles are
described by Hovore (2003, p. 2) as
almost entirely of the Carsitas Series
(CdC), typically gravelly sand, single
grain, slightly effervescent, moderately
alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky and
non-plastic, and deposited on 0 to 9
percent slopes. These soils show light
braiding and some organic deposition
on alluvial terraces and where they
occur within washes, although they
generally do not receive scouring
surface flows (Hovore 2003, p. 2).
Additionally, Casey’s June beetle is
associated with RA and ChC soils
(Anderson 2007, p.1), usually occurring
in these soils when they are contiguous
with CdC soil. The CdC type soils may
also contain small inclusions of fine or
coarse soils, such as MaB and CpA
(USDA 1980, pp. 11–12, 16, and 23).
Riverwash (RA) soil is also an
important component of Casey’s June
beetle habitat because organic matter
and vegetation is uprooted,
redistributed, and buried in the wash
during flood events. Debris deposited by
these hydrological processes and
periodic flooding are essential to
maintain alluvial soils in Palm Canyon
Wash and may serve as new or reconditioned habitat.
Cover or Shelter
The upland terraces and Palm Canyon
Wash are the majority of remaining
areas known to be inhabited by Casey’s
June beetle. The upland terraces offer
the only known shelter from flooding
and scouring events and ORV impacts,
as vehicles tend to remain within the
wash. Because the Palm Canyon Wash
experiences periodic flooding and
scouring that is likely to impact the
species, upland terraces are essential to
the conservation of Casey’s June beetle
for long-term maintenance of the
population. Systematic surveys in wash
areas contiguous with upland habitat
indicate this area is also important to
the long-term survival of the species
(per above discussion, when population
segment numbers have increased to the
point where the emigration rate exceeds
immigration and the habitat is a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
‘‘source’’). Both the upland terraces and
Palm Canyon Wash contain soil types
and vegetation conducive to burrowing
and support the nutritional and
physiological processes essential for the
species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
That Are Protected From Disturbance
Casey’s June beetle breeding and
dispersal mechanisms require specific
habitat important to species’’
reproduction. During breeding, adults of
the species are most active at dusk.
Females emit pheromones to attract
males to burrows for the purposes of
mating. Breeding success depends on
males’’ ability to detect pheromones and
ability to maneuver to remain in contact
with the pheromone plume (Domek et
al. 1990, pp. 271–276). The southern
Palm Springs area is surrounded by
mountains and ridges that protect the
area from the high winds that are
frequent in the Coachella Valley (Wright
pers. comm. 2004), thus providing
conditions that are conducive to
successful male flight, and pheromone
detection and tracking. Therefore,
successful reproduction depends on
shelter provided by the surrounding
mountains and ridges.
Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a and b)
noted that RA soil in the Palm Canyon
Wash above approximately 580 ft (177
m) in elevation (just below the dam)
becomes too disturbed, likely by natural
scouring, to support Casey’s June beetle.
These data indicate suitable habitat
associated with the wash is likely
limited to soils contiguous with the
wash up to 580 ft (177 m) in elevation
(this includes some CdC soils
contiguous with the wash at 580 ft (177
m) that extend up to approximately 620
ft (189 m) in elevation). These data also
indicate relatively small patches of CdC
soil that are only contiguous with more
disturbed portions of the wash above
580 ft (177 m) in elevation in Palm
Canyon are not likely to support Casey’s
June beetle occupancy because they
appear isolated with regard to female
immigration and are especially
vulnerable to flood scouring. Hawks
(pers. comm. 2011a) also noted that he
had never observed emergence holes in
ChC soil and expressed doubt that ChC
soil not distributed as an inclusion in
CdC soil provided habitat for Casey’s
June beetle.
Dispersal of Casey’s June beetle is also
limited by the flightlessness of females.
This adaptation significantly hinders
this species’ ability to disperse or
recolonize an area. Because female
Casey’s June beetles are flightless, the
species’ breeding system and the ability
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of females to disperse over land (which
is uncertain but much reduced
compared to flight-capable males) is
restricted geographically to a relatively
small area. Females appear to emerge
from burrows and remain on the surface
nearby and then either re-enter these
burrows or dig new burrows to lay eggs.
If an isolated portion of the population
were extirpated it would be difficult if
not impossible for females to recolonize
that area depending on the nature and
extent of isolating factors (de Vries et al.
1996, pp. 332–342; Driscoll and Weir
2005, pp. 192–193) because flightless
females disperse only by crawling and
likely by water flow in wash areas
(although it is unclear what the survival
rate would be under water-flow
dispersal). Because male Casey’s June
beetles cannot repopulate an area by
themselves, and females are flightless,
habitat fragmentation and isolation are
significant threats to gene flow in this
species. Therefore, connectivity of
suitable habitats that provides for
dispersal over multiple generations is
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Minimally disturbed suitable habitat
is also essential to Casey’s June beetle.
As stated above, the adults of this
species burrow in alluvial soils to lay
eggs and the larval stages are known to
live out this life stage in alluvial soil as
well. Surfaces such as highly
manipulated nonnative ornamental
landscaping do not serve the same
function as native or minimally
disturbed habitat. Although Casey’s
June beetles are documented to occur in
abundance within the residential
community of Smoke Tree Ranch
(Cornett 2004, Table 1; Hawks pers.
comm. 2010), it is likely that breeding
and female movement is largely
restricted to the relatively undisturbed
natural areas within the Smoke Tree
Ranch property, and species abundance
is primarily the result of: (1) Minimal
past disturbance within a regulated and
gated community; (2) a relatively large,
contiguous, occupied, minimally
disturbed, upland habitat area
dominated by native plants; and (3)
supplemental soil moisture from
landscape watering.
Primary Constituent Elements for
Casey’s June Beetle
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Casey’s
June beetle within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing, focusing
on the features’ primary constituent
elements. We consider primary
constituent elements to be the specific
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
elements of physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements (PCEs)
specific to Casey’s June beetle are:
(1) Soils of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly
sand and Riverwash (RA) series, or
inclusions of Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC)
series soils, or inclusions of Myoma fine
sands (MaB) or Coachella fine sands
(CpA) within CdC soils, at or below 620
ft (189 m) in elevation, associated with
washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0
to 9 percent slopes to provide space for
population growth and reproduction,
moisture, and food sources; and
(2) Predominantly native desert
vegetation, to provide shelter from
traffic-related mortality and food for the
species.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain the
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Special
management of the physical or
biological features is required in these
areas to reduce threats to habitat. Major
threats to Casey’s June beetle habitat
include: (1) Habitat disturbance; (2)
habitat loss and fragmentation
associated with development (such as
grading, building roads and other
infrastructure, and constructing
commercial and residential structures);
and (3) recreational activities (for
example, ORV use and equestrian
activities) as described in the Factor A
and Factor E discussions in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section above.
Anderson and Love (2007) examined
the rate of habitat loss since 1996, and
additional analyses identified
continuing habitat loss over the last 2
years. Because Casey’s June beetle is
now restricted to a relatively small area
compared to its known historical range,
and habitat loss and fragmentation are
threats to the long-term viability of
Casey’s June beetle, special management
considerations or protection of the PCEs
are needed to address development or
urban expansion impacts. Urban
expansion should be avoided within or
adjacent to Casey’s June beetle habitat
and linkage corridors between habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
patches should be provided to address
the protection necessary for this species
at this time. Preserving habitat and
corridors linking habitat patches have
been shown, in general, to be vital for
the conservation of many species, and it
stands to reason this is true for a species
such as Casey’s June beetle that has
flightless females.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we use the best scientific and
commercial data available to designate
critical habitat. We reviewed available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of this species. In
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas—outside
those currently occupied as well as
those occupied at the time of listing—
is necessary to ensure the conservation
of the species.
We designated critical habitat in areas
we determined are within the species’’
present range and contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. When
determining the possible distribution of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle, we
considered all possibly suitable habitat
patches remaining within the species’’
historical range, from the northeastern
San Jacinto Mountain foothills, south to
the City of Palm Desert. For Casey’s June
beetle, we limited critical habitat to the
known present population distribution
of the species (occupied habitat),
because the only potentially suitable
habitat patches outside that area occur
primarily in small, fragmented, disjunct
parcels, and many are highly disturbed.
In this designation we have included
both upland and wash habitats as well
as connecting habitats which we
determined are essential to the
conservation of the species. Additional
potential habitat outside the species’’
known present range (unoccupied areas)
is relatively remote in relation to the
likely flight movement distances of male
beetles or terrain through which female
beetles are likely to travel from
occupied areas. Based on the best
scientific information currently
available, including recent negative
surveys (see New Species Information
section above), it is unlikely that these
disjunct habitat patches would be
capable of supporting reintroduced
populations or remain viable due to
their isolated, fragmented, and
sometimes disturbed nature.
We consider all known occurrences of
Casey’s June beetle to constitute a single
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58967
population based on currently available
data. Because of the limitations of
surveys to detect insect occupancy, the
population level is the appropriate scale
at which to determine occupancy of
areas designated as critical habitat. We
assume all known occupied areas are
within the same population distribution
based on the potential for male
movement among sites that contain the
physical or biological features (see New
Species Information section above). We
determined all existing CdC and RA
soils, and inclusions (all relatively
small) of ChC, MaB, or CpA soils within
CdC soils, that are contiguous with soils
containing Casey’s June beetle
observation locations are occupied. We
made this determination because larval
and adult male and female occupancy of
CdC and RA soils, and the likelihood of
adult female and male movement within
all these PCE soils defines occupancy
appropriately for this species with
regard to the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, we have determined
all areas we are designating as critical
habitat are currently occupied.
We used the following factors to
delineate critical habitat: All areas (1)
comprised of contiguous CdC or RA
soils containing recent occurrence
locations (1995 to present), or within
the flight range of adult male Casey’s
June beetles from these recent locations;
or (2) comprised of ChC, MaB, and CpA
soils contiguous with these CdC or RA
soils; and (3) that were not denuded,
graded or landscaped; and (4) that are
below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation; and
(5) that were not otherwise determined
to be unsuitable due to developmentassociated degradation (e.g., isolation,
soil compaction). The designated
critical habitat is designed to encompass
the estimated Casey’s June beetle
population distribution and the soils
and native vegetation needed for its
long-term conservation. Changes to the
PCEs from those described in the
proposed rule (see Summary of Changes
from the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat
Rule, below) did not affect our criteria,
because areas containing the revised
PCEs were already included in proposed
critical habitat.
We delineated the critical habitat
boundaries using the following steps:
(1) We mapped observations of
Casey’s June beetles from Bruyea (2006),
Cornett (2004), Hovore (1997), Hovore
(1995), Powell (2003), and SimonsenMarchant (2000, 2001). These records
were initially mapped over digital aerial
photographs of the Palm Canyon area in
the City of Palm Springs, California,
acquired in June 2005 with a ground
resolution of 3.28 ft (1 m). We believe
these surveys are the best available data
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58968
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
on Casey’s June beetle current
distribution and provide a logical
starting point for the delineation of
critical habitat.
(2) We incorporated digital soil data
produced by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service for all
soils in the Palm Canyon area (USDA
2000). These data delineated CdC, RA,
ChC, MaB, and CpA soils. We included
areas where CdC soils were within the
likely flight range of adult male Casey’s
June beetles from recent occurrence
locations (1995–present). This mapping
delineated the soils that are suitable for,
and occupied by, the beetle.
(3) After mapping the soils, we
examined the elevations of all Casey’s
June beetle observations. We
determined the highest elevation of an
occurrence was 580 ft (177 m), and we
extended the boundary elevation 40 ft
(12 m) to account for gradients between
soil types and to include CdC soils
contiguous with portions of the wash
that are known to be occupied. As a
result, we are limiting designation of
critical habitat to areas below the 620ft (189-m) contour.
(4) We utilized digital aerial
photographs acquired in April 2008
with a ground resolution of 6 in (15 cm)
to closely examine remaining areas to
ensure they captured the physical or
biological features necessary to support
Casey’s June beetle life-history
functions. Specifically, we removed
areas that did not have appropriate soils
(such as golf course greens) or that
contained large denuded or graded areas
to eliminate areas that likely do not and
could not support Casey’s June beetles.
(5) We reviewed new scientific
information regarding the species’
southern population distribution limits
and determined some areas were not
likely to support occupancy now or in
the foreseeable future and therefore did
not meet the definition of critical
habitat. Based on Hawk’s (pers. comm.
2011a) observation that wash habitat
soil suitability and occupancy ended at
approximately 580 ft (177 m) in
elevation, and did not extend south of
the small dam in Palm Canyon, we
determined that non-contiguous patches
of CdC soils at the southern extreme of
the area proposed as critical habitat are
not likely within the current population
distribution of the species, and are not
likely to support occupancy in the
future (see New Species Information and
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
that are Protected from Disturbance
sections above). We further determined
that the western isolated fragments of
formerly occupied habitat associated
with South Palm Canyon Drive and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Bogert Trail in the southern portion of
the species’ distribution were no longer
occupied, and were too isolated by
development and disturbed to support
occupancy in the future (see New
Species Information section above).
Therefore, these areas were removed.
(6) Based on Hawks’ (pers. comm.
2011a) observation that no burrow holes
have ever been observed in ChC soil (see
New Species Information section above),
we removed all patches of ChC soil not
completely surrounded by CdC and RA
soils.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries within this final rule, we
made every effort to avoid including
developed areas, such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other
structures, because such lands lack
physical or biological features for
Casey’s June beetle. The scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this designated critical habitat
are excluded by text in this final rule.
Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific
action may affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat
lands that we consider to be occupied
at the time of listing and contain
sufficient physical or biological features
to support life-history processes
essential to the conservation of Casey’s
June beetle.
Summary of Changes From the 2009
Proposed Critical Habitat Rule
Based on comments received during
the public comment periods (see
Comments 2 and 4 in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations
section below), and new survey
information, we added explanations in
the New Species Information and
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat sections above to better
characterize our knowledge of the
species’ present range and the potential
for occupied habitat outside the known
present range.
The most significant changes from the
2009 proposed critical habitat rule to
this final rule include:
(1) We determined two areas included
in the proposed critical habitat
designation do not contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
therefore, do not meet the definition of
critical habitat (see Critical Habitat
Background section above for the
definition of critical habitat). We
determined the easternmost proposed
critical habitat polygon located on State
Route 111 between Broadmoor Drive
and Golf Club Drive did not contain
areas mapped as Carsitas (CdC) gravelly
sand soil series (PCE 1). Based on new
information submitted by a commenter
and examination of digital aerial
photography, we also determined a
portion of land in the vicinity of Araby
Drive was composed of elevated fill dirt
and, therefore, did not contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species (see
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section, Comment
12, below). The edge of the elevated fill
dirt correlated with the parcel map
boundary. Based on recent survey and
habitat information (see New Species
Information and A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range sections above) we determined
that formerly occupied CdC and
associated soils adjacent to and west of
South Palm Canyon Drive are no longer
likely to be occupied or to support
occupancy in the future, and are
therefore not essential for the
conservation of the species. Therefore,
these areas do not meet the definition of
critical habitat. We further determined
that the southernmost non-contiguous
patches of CdC soil in Palm Canyon and
two areas of ChC soil (in Palm Canyon
and near Araby Drive) not completely
surrounded by CdC and RA soil do not
meet the definition of critical habitat.
See New Species Information and
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat sections above for further
discussion. Removal of these lands that
were determined not to meet the
definition of critical habitat resulted in
a total reduction of 179 ac (73 ha) from
the areas proposed for critical habitat
designation in 2009.
(2) Per peer reviewer Comment 2 in
the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section below (see
also Comment 10), satellite image
assessment, and field survey
information provided by David Hawks
(pers. comm. 2010), we modified PCE 2
to include other Sonoran vegetation
types and disturbed habitat. In the
proposed rule it specified ‘‘Intact, native
Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub
vegetation and native desert wash
vegetation that provide shelter and food
for the species.’’ In this rule, we specify
PCE2 as, ‘‘Predominantly native desert
vegetation, to provide shelter from
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
traffic-related mortality and food for the
species.’’ This change to PCE 2 did not
change areas identified as meeting the
definition of critical habitat. The altered
PCE more accurately characterized
lands we had already determined met
the definition of critical habitat.
(3) In the 2009 proposed rule, we
stated we were not considering or
proposing for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act tribal lands owned or
managed by the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians. Following review of
tribal comments and an evaluation of
our partnership with the Tribe, we
determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for tribal trust reservation
lands (i.e., non-fee, non-allotted lands),
and that exclusion of these lands will
not result in extinction of the species.
We believe that excluding Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust
reservation lands from this final critical
habitat will preserve our partnership
with the Tribes and foster future
development of habitat management
plans with Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians and other tribes, thus
positively affecting other listed species.
Therefore, the Secretary is exercising his
discretion to exclude a total of
approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of non-fee,
non-allotted tribal lands owned or
managed by the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians in this final critical
habitat designation. For a complete
discussion of the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion, see Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below.
Of the approximately 777 ac (314 ha)
of land proposed for critical habitat
designation in 2009, approximately 587
ac (237 ha) are included in this final
critical habitat designation. Our
decision to not designate all of the
proposed critical habitat does not imply
that these non-designated areas are
unimportant to Casey’s June beetle.
Projects with a Federal nexus that occur
in these areas, or other areas potentially
occupied by Casey’s June beetle, which
may affect the beetle must still undergo
section 7 consultation. Our decision to
58969
not designate critical habitat in these
areas does not reduce the consultation
requirement for Federal agencies
participating in, funding, permitting, or
carrying out activities in these areas.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating one unit as critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle. The
critical habitat area described below
constitutes our best assessment at this
time of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat.
The approximate area of designated
critical habitat for Casey’s June beetle is
shown in Table 1 and totals 587 ac (237
ha), including 152 ac (62 ha) of tribal
allotment and fee land, 141 ac (57 ha)
of local government land, and
approximately 301 ac (122 ha) of private
and quasi-public (flood control and
water conservation district) land. Area
estimates reflect all land within the
critical habitat unit boundaries. Area
values were computer-generated using
GIS software, rounded to nearest whole
number, and then summed.
TABLE 1—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR CASEY’S JUNE BEETLE
Federal and
state lands
ac (ha)
Location
Local
government
ac (ha)
Tribal
allotment and
fee lands
ac (ha)
Private
ac (ha)
Total
ac (ha)
Palm Springs ..................................................................................
0 (0)
141 (57)
152 (62)
301 (122)
587 (237)
Total Area Final Critical Habitat .............................................
0 (0)
141 (57)
152 (62)
301 (122)
587 (237)
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present a brief unit description,
and reasons why the unit meets the
definition of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle, below.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Palm Springs Unit
The unit consists of 587 ac (237 ha)
and is located in Riverside County,
California, and extends from the
confluence of Andreas Canyon Wash
with Palm Canyon Wash northward
along the toe of slope northeastward
(downstream) along Palm Canyon Wash,
crossing East Palm Canyon Drive to
south and east of Gene Autry Trail. The
unit includes Palm Canyon Wash and
contiguous suitable soils from the
entrance of Indian Canyons north to
Calle Arriba, and one area south of and
adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive (SR
111) west of Gene Autry Trail.
The entire critical habitat unit is
considered occupied by Casey’s June
beetle and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
alluvial soils of the CdC, RA, ChC (if
mapped as completely surrounded by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
CdC and RA soils), MaB, and CpA soil
series at or below 620 ft (189 m) in
elevation, associated with washes and
alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent
slopes (PCE 1), and predominantly
native desert vegetation (PCE 2).
Habitat in the unit is threatened by
development, soil disturbance,
fragmentation, effects of stream
channelization, and effects of climate
change. Specifically, urban expansion,
in-fill development, and recreational
activities continue to result in the loss
and degradation of habitat. Therefore,
the features essential to the conservation
of the species in this unit require special
management considerations or
protection to minimize impacts
resulting from these threats (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection section above).
Approximately 25 percent of this unit
(152 ac (62 ha)) is on Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians reservation
land. As described above (see Factor D),
the Tribe informed us in an October 28,
2008, letter that they removed Casey’s
June beetle from the list of species
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
addressed in the draft Tribal HCP;
however, they indicated they will
‘‘continue to informally coordinate with
the Service regarding this species where
it occurs on the Reservation.’’ The Tribe
stated they are deferring to the Service
to allow ‘‘the Service to take the lead in
addressing how to effectively conserve
and protect this species’’ (ACBCI 2008,
p. 1). We continue to work with the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
to encourage management of Casey’s
June beetle habitat. We determined that
at this time it is appropriate to exclude
11 ac (4 ha) tribal trust reservation lands
(i.e., non-fee and non-allotted lands)
from the critical habitat unit (see Tribal
Reservation Lands under Exclusions
section below).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58970
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth
Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of
‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)
and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434,
442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain those physical or biological
features that relate to the ability of the
area to periodically support the species)
to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
Federal activities that may affect
Casey’s June beetle or its critical habitat
require section 7 consultation under the
Act. Examples of actions that are subject
to the section 7 consultation process are
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private
lands that require a Federal permit
(such as a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) or a permit from the Service under
section 10 of the Act) or that involve
some other Federal action (such as
funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that are likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy
and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We
define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent
alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 402.02) as
alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for Casey’s June
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
beetle. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history
needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species. Generally,
the conservation role of Casey’s June
beetle’s critical habitat unit is to support
a viable, self-sustaining population of
the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Examples of activities that, when
authorized, funded, or carried out by a
Federal agency, may affect critical
habitat and, therefore should result in
consultation for Casey’s June beetle
include, but are not limited to, actions
that would cause disturbance, loss, or
fragmentation of critical habitat. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, development, grading,
building roads and other infrastructure,
constructing commercial and residential
structures, and recreational activities
(for example, ORV use and equestrian
activities). These activities could
permanently destroy critical habitat,
compact soil, or alter soil moisture
levels. Compacted or dry soils do not
allow the species to burrow into, move,
and feed in the soil as needed during the
time they are underground. Please see
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section above for a more
detailed discussion of the impacts of
these actions to the listed species.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands within the designation. Therefore,
we are not exempting lands from this
critical habitat designation for Casey’s
June beetle pursuant to section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Exclusions
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-to-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
government relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area
from the designation, we must identify
the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation,
and determine whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we
make this determination, then we can
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification or destruction as a
result of actions with a Federal nexus;
the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species; and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When considering the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in conservation;
the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or
implementation of a management plan
that provides equal to or more
conservation than a critical habitat
designation would provide.
Tribal Reservation Lands
In accordance with the 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);
President’s Memorandum of November
5, 2009, ‘‘Tribal Consultation’’ (74 FR
57881); Executive Order 13175; and the
relevant provision of the Departmental
Manual of the Department of the Interior
(512 DM 2), we believe that fish,
wildlife, and other natural resources on
tribal lands are more appropriately
managed under tribal authorities,
policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation wherever possible
and practicable. In most cases,
designation of tribal lands as critical
habitat provides very little additional
conservation benefit to endangered or
threatened species. Conversely, such
designation is often viewed by tribes as
an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion
into tribal self-governance, and may
negatively impact a positive
government-to-government relationship
between the Service and tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58971
governments essential to achieving a
mutual goal of successfully managing
ecosystems upon which endangered and
threatened species depend. When
conducting our analysis under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider our
existing and future partnerships with
tribes and existing conservation actions
that tribes have implemented or are
currently implementing. We also take
into consideration conservation actions
that are planned as a result of ongoing
government-to-government
consultations with tribes.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
A Federal Indian reservation is an
area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes
under treaty or other agreement with the
United States, Executive Order, or
Federal statute or administrative action
as permanent tribal homelands, and
where the Federal government holds
title to the land in trust on behalf of a
tribe. The Agua Caliente Indian
Reservation consists of a checkerboard
of parcels found primarily in the City of
Palm Springs, and the Cities of
Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage, and
unincorporated Riverside County,
California. Lands within the Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation boundary
include Tribal trust land, allotted trust
land, Tribe-owned fee land, privately
owned (Tribal members and nonIndians) fee land, and public land.
Individual sections of Agua Caliente
Indian Reservation land are interspersed
with public land owned or under the
control of various Federal and State
agencies, and privately owned land
under the jurisdiction of the County
and/or one of the three municipalities
(ACBCI 2010b p. 1–1). Tribal trust
reservation lands are those lands that
are under the sovereign control of the
Tribe. Through our ongoing
coordination with the Tribe, we have
established a partnership that has
benefitted natural resource management
on tribal lands. For our 4(b)(2) balancing
analysis we considered our partnership
with the Tribe and, therefore, analyzed
the benefits of including and excluding
those lands under the sovereign control
of the Tribe (tribal trust reservation
lands) that met the definition of critical
habitat. Because Tribe-owned fee,
private fee, or allotted lands are
potentially subject to other jurisdictions
and not under the sovereign control of
the Tribe, we did not include these
lands in our exclusion analysis.
Based on the detailed analysis
presented below, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude
approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58972
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
trust reservation lands (i.e., non-fee,
non-allotted land held in trust by the
Federal government for the Tribe) from
this final critical habitat designation for
Casey’s June beetle.
Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians
The principle benefit of including an
area in a critical habitat designation is
the requirement for Federal agencies to
ensure actions they fund, authorize, or
carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
any designated critical habitat, the
regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act under which consultation is
completed. Federal agencies must also
consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
such species. The analysis of effects of
a proposed project on critical habitat is
separate and different from that of the
effects of a proposed project on the
species itself. The jeopardy analysis
evaluates the action’s impact to survival
and recovery of the species, while the
destruction or adverse modification
analysis evaluates the action’s effects to
the designated habitat’s contribution to
conservation. Therefore, the difference
in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and
different regulatory requirements. Thus,
critical habitat designations may
provide greater benefits to the recovery
of a species than would listing alone.
However, for some species, and in some
locations, the outcome of these analyses
will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the
species. All lands considered for
exclusion are currently considered
occupied by Casey’s June beetle and
will be subject to the consultation
requirements of the Act in the future.
Although a jeopardy and adverse
modification analysis must satisfy two
different standards, because any
modifications to proposed actions
resulting from a section 7 consultation
to minimize or avoid impacts to Casey’s
June beetle will be habitat-based, it is
not possible to differentiate any
measures implemented solely to
minimize impacts to the critical habitat
from those implemented to minimize
impacts to the beetle. Additionally, this
species’ highly restricted geographic
range relative to its historical
distribution (as evidenced by
documented loss of occupied habitat),
ongoing habitat impacts and losses, and
slow female dispersal rate, increase the
likelihood an action that adversely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
affects Casey’s June beetle will
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. Therefore, in the case of
Casey’s June beetle, we believe the
benefits of critical habitat designation
are very similar to the benefits of listing,
and in some respects would be
indistinguishable from the benefits of
listing.
Public education is often cited as
another possible benefit of including
lands in critical habitat as it may help
focus conservation efforts on areas of
high value for certain species.
Partnership efforts with the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to
conserve Casey’s June beetle and other
federally listed species addressed in
their draft tribal HCP have resulted in
heightened awareness about the species.
However, we believe there is little, if
any, educational benefit attributable to
critical habitat beyond those achieved
from listing of Casey’s June beetle under
the Act, and the Tribe’s efforts to
develop a HCP. The Service is
conducting ongoing coordination with
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
and other southern California tribes.
Service coordination includes attending
meetings with tribal representatives to
discuss ongoing projects, management
plans, and other issues as they arise. We
believe our continuing coordination
with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians will further promote awareness
of the species and its conservation
needs, and will facilitate development
of additional management plans
(beyond those already in existence), as
well as address Casey’s June beetle
conservation on tribal lands.
We believe existing tribal regulations,
the Indian Canyons Master Plan, and
current management of Heritage Park
will ensure any land use actions,
including those funded, authorized, or
carried out by Federal agencies, are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of all lands
considered for exclusion. For example,
in a letter dated April 29, 2010 (ACBCI
2010c, p. 3), the Tribe stated that, rather
than delegating land use authority to a
local agent such as the City of Palm
Springs in the Planning Area (i.e., in
Casey’s June beetle habitat south of
Acanto Drive), the Tribe will directly
regulate land use in this area through its
Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal
zoning. The Tribe indicated they would
use their existing regulatory structure
and active role in regulating land use
and development in this area to protect
Casey’s June beetle and its habitat
(ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). Furthermore, all
lands being excluded are included in
Heritage Park (ACBCI 2007, p. 5), an
area within Indian Canyons acquired
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with funds from the 1988 California
Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land
Conservation Act (1988 Bond Act)
(ACBCI 2007, p. 2). The 1988 Bond Act
requires Heritage Park to be managed to
preserve Indian heritage and native
palms and other plants. The 1988 Bond
Act further stipulated that: ‘‘[a]fter that
acquisition, the state shall convey title
to all those lands to the United States in
trust for the [Tribe] as part of the [Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation] on the
conditions that * * * the lands be open
to the public, subject to reasonable
restrictions * * * and the lands be used
for protection of wildlife habitat and
other resources.’’ Any potential impacts
to Casey’s June beetle from future
proposed activities on the tribal trust
reservation lands will be addressed
through the Indian Canyons Master Plan
or through a section 7 consultation
using the jeopardy standard, and such
activities would also be subject to the
take prohibitions in section 9 of the Act.
As a result we believe the regulatory
benefits of critical habitat designation
on tribal trust reservation land would
largely be redundant with the combined
benefits of listing and existing tribal
regulations.
The designation of Casey’s June beetle
critical habitat may strengthen or
reinforce some Federal laws, such as
NEPA or Clean Water Act. These laws
analyze the potential for projects to
significantly affect the environment.
Critical habitat may signal the presence
of sensitive habitat that could otherwise
be missed in the review process for
these other environmental law;
however, the listing process, HCP
planning efforts, and consultations
(which included conferencing on effects
to Casey’s June beetle) that have already
occurred will provide this benefit.
Therefore, in this case we view this
benefit as redundant with the benefit
the species will receive from listing
under the Act.
In summary, we do not believe that
designating critical habitat within Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal
trust reservation lands will provide
additional benefits for Casey’s June
beetle. Projects on these lands with a
Federal nexus (e.g., funded, approved,
or carried out by Federal agencies, such
as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian
Health Services, or U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) will require section 7
consultation with the Service
(regardless of critical habitat
designation) because the habitat is
occupied (see New Species Information
section above) by Casey’s June beetle.
Furthermore, a high level of protection
is already provided to tribal trust
reservation lands that meet the
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
definition of critical habitat by existing
conservation, regulations, and
management. The ongoing coordination
between the Service and the Tribe has
already raised the level of awareness
about the species, and we believe our
ongoing coordination with the Tribe
will facilitate development of speciesspecific management actions for these
lands to address the conservation of
Casey’s June beetle.
Benefits of Exclusion—Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians
Under Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Trust Responsibilities and the
Endangered Species Act, we recognize
that we must carry out our
responsibilities under the Act in a
manner that harmonizes the Federal
trust responsibility to tribes and tribal
sovereignty while striving to ensure that
tribes do not bear a disproportionate
burden for the conservation of listed
species, so as to avoid or minimize the
potential for conflict and confrontation.
In accordance with the Presidential
memorandums of April 29, 1994, and
November 9, 2009, we believe that, to
the maximum extent possible, tribes are
the appropriate governmental entities to
manage their lands and tribal trust
resources, and that we are responsible
for strengthening government-togovernment relationships with tribes.
Federal regulation through critical
habitat designation will adversely affect
the tribal working relationships we now
have and which we are strengthening
throughout the United States.
Maintaining positive working
relationships with tribes is key to
implementing natural resource
programs of mutual interest, including
habitat conservation planning efforts. In
light of the above-mentioned orders and
for a variety of other reasons described
in their comment letters and
communications, critical habitat
designation is typically viewed by tribes
as an unwarranted and unwanted
intrusion into tribal self-governance. In
comments submitted during the public
comment periods on this proposed rule,
and in comments submitted on other
proposed critical habitat rules (such as
the 2009 proposed revised critical
habitat designation for arroyo toad
(Anaxyrus californicus) (74 FR 52611;
October 13, 2009)), several tribes stated
that designation of critical habitat
would negatively impact government-togovernment relations.
In the case of the Casey’s June beetle
proposed critical habitat, the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
submitted comments indicating they are
opposed to critical habitat designation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
and believe reservation lands should be
excluded. The Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians cited Executive Order
13175, Secretarial Order 3206, and the
President’s Memorandum on Tribal
Consultation (74 FR 57881; November 9,
2009) in their comments to the Service
and their interpretation of these Federal
enactments as meaning ‘‘no Federal
agency, and especially not any agency of
the Department of the Interior, such as
the Service, will inflict regulatory,
economic, or governmental burdens on
tribes and their members when adequate
alternatives exist, such as avoidance,
cooperation on a government-togovernment basis, or reliance on tribal
measures’’ (ACBCI 2010c, p. 4). In their
comments to the Service on the
proposed rule, the Tribe indicated they
would use their existing regulatory
structure and active role in regulating
land use and development in this area
to protect Casey’s June beetle and its
habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). These
communications clearly indicate that
designation of tribal trust reservation
lands as critical habitat for Casey’s June
beetle would impact future conservation
partnership opportunities with the
Tribe. Therefore, a critical habitat
designation could potentially damage
our relationship with the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians.
We believe significant benefits would
be realized by forgoing designation of
critical habitat on tribal trust reservation
(i.e., non-fee, non-allotted) lands
managed by the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians. These benefits
include:
(1) Continuing and strengthening of
our effective relationship with the Tribe
to promote conservation of Casey’s June
beetle and its habitat;
(2) Allowing continued meaningful
collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this species,
including conservation actions that
might not otherwise occur; and
(3) Encouraging other tribes to
complete management plans in the
future on other reservations for other
federally listed and sensitive species
and engage in meaningful collaboration
and cooperation.
Because the Tribe is the entity that
enforces protective regulations on tribal
trust reservation land, and we have a
working relationship with them, we
believe exclusion of these lands will
yield a significant partnership benefit.
There has been a substantial amount of
government-to-government consultation
between the Tribe and Service on
developing the draft Tribal HCP and this
rulemaking process for Casey’s June
beetle. Although the Tribe informed us
in an October 28, 2008, letter that they
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58973
removed Casey’s June beetle from the
list of species addressed in the draft
Tribal HCP, they indicated they will
‘‘continue to informally coordinate with
the Service regarding this species where
it occurs on the Reservation.’’ The Tribe
stated they are deferring to the Service
to allow ‘‘the Service to take the lead in
addressing how to effectively conserve
and protect this species’’ (ACBCI 2008,
p. 1). Although the Tribe has suspended
their pursuit of a section 10(a) permit
(ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing
to implement the draft HCP and will
continue to protect and manage natural
resources within the Tribe’s jurisdiction
(ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p.
ES–1). We will continue to work
cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts
to conserve Casey’s June beetle.
Therefore, excluding these lands from
critical habitat provides the significant
benefit of maintaining and
strengthening our existing conservation
partnerships and the potential of
fostering new tribal partnerships.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against
Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians
We reviewed and evaluated the
benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion of Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation
lands as critical habitat for Casey’s June
beetle. We believe past, present, and
future coordination with the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has
provided and will continue to provide
sufficient education regarding Casey’s
June beetle habitat conservation needs
on tribal trust lands, such that there
would be no additional educational
benefit from designation of critical
habitat. Further, because any potential
impacts to Casey’s June beetle from
future projects will be addressed
through the Indian Canyons Master Plan
or through a section 7 consultation with
us under the jeopardy standard, we
believe critical habitat designation on
tribal trust reservation land would
largely be redundant with the combined
benefits of listing and existing tribal
regulations and management. Therefore,
the benefits of designating critical
habitat on tribal trust reservation lands
are not significant.
On the other hand, the benefits of
excluding Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation
lands from critical habitat are
significant. Exclusion of these lands
from critical habitat will help preserve
and strengthen the conservation
partnership we have developed with the
Tribe, reinforce those we are building
with other tribes, and foster future
partnerships and development of
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58974
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
management plans; whereas inclusion
will negatively impact our relationships
with the Tribe and other southern
California tribes. We are committed to
working with the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians to further the
conservation of Casey’s June beetle and
other endangered and threatened
species. The Tribe will continue to use
their existing regulatory structure and
active role in regulating land use and
development in this area to protect
Casey’s June beetle and its habitat
(ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). The Tribe
continues to provide for some indirect
conservation of Casey’s June beetle by
implementing provisions of the draft
HCP. Therefore, in consideration of the
relevant impact to our partnership and
our government-to-government
relationship with the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the
ongoing conservation management
practices of the Tribe and our current
and future conservation partnerships
with other tribes, we determined the
significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion in the
critical habitat designation.
In summary, we find that excluding
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
tribal trust reservation lands from this
final critical habitat will preserve our
partnership and may foster future
habitat management and species
conservation plans with the Tribe and
with other tribes now and in the future.
These partnership benefits are
significant and outweigh the
insignificant additional regulatory and
educational benefits of including these
lands in final critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—Tribal Lands
We determined that the exclusion of
11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust reservation
lands from the designation of Casey’s
June beetle critical habitat will not
result in extinction of the species. The
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act
and routine implementation of
conservation measures through the
section 7 process due to Casey’s June
beetle occupancy and protection
provided by the Indian Canyons Master
Plan provide assurances that this
species will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. Therefore, based on
the above discussion the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust
reservation lands managed by the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians from
this final critical habitat designation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the critical habitat
designation and related factors
(Industrial Economics, Incorporated
(IEc) 2010A, pp. 1–75). The DEA, dated
February 22, 2010, was made available
for public review from March 31, 2010,
through April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046).
Following the close of the comment
period, a final analysis (dated June 1,
2010) of the potential economic effects
of the designation was developed taking
into consideration the public comments
and any new information (IEc 2010b,
pp. 1–84). Substantive comments and
information received on the DEA are
summarized in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations
section below.
The intent of the final economic
analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential
conservation efforts for Casey’s June
beetle; some of these costs will likely be
incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (baseline). The
economic impact of the final critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place
for the species (e.g., under the Federal
listing and other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts are those
not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental
costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and
beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we consider in the final
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis looks at baseline impacts
expected to occur due to listing and
forecasts both baseline and incremental
impacts likely to occur with the
designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost
economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial
development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on
water management and transportation
projects, Federal lands, small entities,
and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to
assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a
particular group or economic sector.
Finally, the FEA looks and considers
those costs that may occur in the 20
years following listing and the
designation of critical habitat, which
was determined to be the appropriate
period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for
most activities to forecast activity levels
for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The FEA quantifies economic impacts of
Casey’s June beetle conservation efforts
associated with the following categories
of activity: (1) Residential and
commercial development, and (2) flood
damage reduction. Baseline impacts
include the potential economic impacts
of all actions relating to the
conservation of the Casey’s June beetle,
including costs associated with sections
7, 9, and 10 of the Act. Baseline impacts
also include the economic impacts of
protective measures taken as a result of
other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation in the area
evaluated in the DEA. In other words,
baseline impacts include those impacts
associated with the listing of the species
and not associated with critical habitat.
Incremental impacts are those potential
future economic impacts of
conservation actions relating to the
designation of critical habitat; these
impacts would not be expected to occur
without the designation of critical
habitat.
Baseline economic impacts are those
impacts that result from listing and
other conservation efforts for Casey’s
June beetle. Conservation efforts related
to development activities constitute the
majority of total baseline costs to areas
proposed for critical habitat
(approximately 86 percent). Impacts to
flood control activities compose the
remaining approximately 12 percent of
impacts. Total future baseline impacts
are estimated to be $19,242,100 in
present value terms using a 7 percent
discount rate over the next 20 years
(2010 to 2029) in the areas proposed as
critical habitat.
Approximately 100 percent of
incremental impacts attributed to the
critical habitat designation are expected
to be related to development activities.
The FEA estimates total potential
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
incremental economic impacts in areas
proposed as critical habitat over the
next 20 years (2010 to 2029) to be
$6,173,340 in present value terms using
a 7 percent discount rate, equivalent to
$582, 320 in annualized economic
impact over the analysis timeframe.
This value is based on an assumption of
total avoidance of designated acres and
thus represents the upper-bound
potential cost for each project. As such,
it likely overstates the expected absolute
cost of future actions to protect critical
habitat.
The FEA considers both economic
efficiency and distributional effects. In
the case of habitat conservation,
efficiency effects generally reflect the
‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the
commitment of resources to comply
with habitat protection measures (such
as lost economic opportunities
associated with restrictions on land
use). The FEA also addresses how
potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment
of any local or regional impacts of
habitat conservation and the potential
effects of conservation activities on
government agencies, private
businesses, and individuals. The FEA
estimates lost economic efficiency
associated with residential and
commercial development and public
projects and activities, such as
economic impacts on water
management and transportation
projects, Federal lands, small entities,
and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to
assess whether the effects of the critical
habitat designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic
sector.
Our economic analysis did not
identify any disproportionate costs that
are likely to result from the designation.
Consequently, the Secretary has
determined not to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle based on economic impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting
documents may be obtained by
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
final rule, we have determined that the
lands within the designation of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle are not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any
areas from this final designation based
on impacts on national security.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public and contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes;
scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment on the proposed rule to list
Casey’s June beetle as endangered and
designate critical habitat during two
comment periods. The first comment
period associated with the publication
of the proposed rule (74 FR 32857)
opened on July 9, 2009, and closed on
September 8, 2009. We also requested
comments on the proposed critical
habitat designation and associated draft
economic analysis during a comment
period that opened March 31, 2010, and
closed on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046).
We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing, with the exception of
one that specified it be conducted only
in the event their property was not
excluded from critical habitat (see
response to Comment 18 below). During
the comment periods, we requested all
interested parties submit comments or
information related to the proposed
revisions to critical habitat, including
(but not limited to) the following: Unit
boundaries; species occurrence
information and distribution; land use
designations that may affect critical
habitat; potential economic effects of the
proposed designation; benefits
associated with critical habitat
designation; areas proposed for
designation and associated rationale for
the non-inclusion or considered
exclusion of these areas; and methods
used to designate critical habitat.
During the first comment period, we
received 11 comments addressing the
proposed listing and critical habitat
designation: 5 from peer reviewers, 5
from public organizations or
individuals, and one from a Native
American tribe. During the second
comment period, we received 14
comments addressing the proposed
listing and critical habitat designation
and the DEA. Of these latter comments,
3 were from Native American tribes and
tribal members, and 11 were from
public organizations or individuals.
We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers and
the public for substantive issues and
new information regarding Casey’s June
beetle listing and critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58975
designation. All comments are
addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from six knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles pertinent to the species. We
received responses from five peer
reviewers who provided additional
information, clarifications, and
suggestions.
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the listing and designation of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated
into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment 1: All five peer reviewers
expressed general and specific support
of our proposal to list Casey’s June
beetle and designate critical habitat.
Support of the proposed rule includes
the following:
(a) The first peer reviewer stated that
the peer reviewer’s collection data
support our estimated population
distribution. The first peer reviewer
further concluded: (1) The cooler, more
moist, and wind-protected environment
found in the southwestern corner of
Palm Springs is a required component
of suitable habitat; (2) Casey’s June
beetle daily and seasonal activity is
dependent on specific temperature and
wind conditions; and (3) a single night
‘‘or more’’ (unspecified) of negative
survey results are not sufficient to
demonstrate absence.
(b) The second peer reviewer stated
‘‘Given the natural history of the beetle
and the accelerated fragmentation,
modification, and loss of habitat, this
species is in imminent danger of
extirpation in part of its currently
known range, and possibly extinction.’’
The peer reviewer agreed that Factor A
threats likely negatively affect all life
stages of Casey’s June beetle throughout
the year, and generally agreed with our
analyses for threat Factors B, C, and D.
This reviewer further stated that even
the slightest disturbance to relatively
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58976
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
small upland habitat areas is likely to
have a significant and lasting effect on
the patchily distributed sedentary
females and larvae. The second peer
reviewer also expressed the opinion that
the central portion of Palm Canyon
Wash is unlikely to support
reproduction and larval development,
and at best is used by males for
movement. The peer reviewer believed
it is prudent and biologically sound to
treat all of the known occurrences of
Casey’s June beetle as a single
population, and that the basic soil and
vegetation types associated with Casey’s
June beetle are appropriate PCEs.
Finally, the peer reviewer indicated that
all Casey’s June beetle habitat proposed
as critical habitat currently under the
jurisdiction of the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians met the definition of
critical habitat.
(c) The third peer reviewer believed
our case for listing was compelling. The
reviewer expressed concern that Casey’s
June beetle listing appears overdue
because the species is found in such a
small area with rapidly shrinking
available habitat, also noting that this
species is arguably the most habitatrestricted scarab beetle in the United
States. The reviewer agreed that the
continued survival of the species cannot
depend on occupancy at a single
locality (such as Smoke Tree Ranch)
because of the possibility of stochastic
events eliminating local occupancy.
This reviewer argued that because the
continued survival of Casey’s June
beetle depends on persistence in
multiple locations, remaining available
habitat meets the definition of critical
habitat.
(d) The fourth peer reviewer agreed
the present distribution of Casey’s June
beetle is well-known based on
numerous formal and informal surveys
conducted during the past several years
by qualified biologists. The reviewer
further stated that because of its present
restricted distribution and imminent
threats to remaining habitat, Casey’s
June beetle is one of the most imperiled
species of insects, and probably the
most endangered scarab beetle.
(e) The fifth peer reviewer stated the
current distribution of Casey’s June
beetle was well-documented in the
proposed rule, as was its soil type
association and land use trends within
the species’’ range. The reviewer noted
that given Casey’s June beetle’s
extremely limited area of occurrence
and ongoing habitat loss, it clearly ranks
as Critically Endangered under the
current International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) criteria; therefore,
Casey’s June beetle’s long-term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
persistence requires the highest level of
protection possible under the law. The
reviewer further noted our methods to
determine what lands meet the
definition of critical habitat seem robust
enough to capture lands where
probability of long-term persistence of
the species is highest.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer
reviewers’’ critical review. Because all
peer reviewers generally agreed on the
validity of our methods and
determinations, we believe the proposed
listing and critical habitat designation is
well-supported. With regard to the
specific recommendation to include
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
reservation lands in critical habitat, we
received some new information
indicating some areas proposed as
critical habitat on the reservation do not
meet the definition of critical habitat.
We further considered the possible
benefits of including and excluding
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians’’ tribal trust reservation lands
that met the definition of critical
habitat. Because benefits provided by
critical habitat designation in this
instance are very similar to the benefits
of listing, and in some respects would
be indistinguishable from benefits
provided by listing and existing
regulations (to minimize the benefits of
inclusion), we find that excluding Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal
trust reservation lands from this final
critical habitat will preserve our
partnership with the Tribe and foster
future development of habitat
management plans with Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians and other
tribes. Furthermore, we determined that
exclusion of tribal trust reservation
lands would not result in the extinction
of the species. Therefore, we are
excluding 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust
reservation (i.e., non-fee, non-allotment)
lands from this final critical habitat
designation (see also Comment 7
below).
We agree with the third peer
reviewer’s statement that continued
survival of the species cannot depend
on occupancy at a single locality (such
as Smoke Tree Ranch) because of the
possibility of stochastic events
eliminating local occupancy. We believe
the species may be threatened by
natural or anthropogenically influenced
factors, such as climate change,
increased intensity and frequency of
scouring events in wash habitat, and
small population size. However, we
note that no species-specific, scientific,
published models describing or
predicting the magnitude of these
threats have yet been conducted, and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
these threats should be the subject of
future research (see below).
Comment 2: Four peer reviewers
supplied information or opinions
regarding species’’ biology, and some
suggested associated edits or revisions
to proposed critical habitat.
(a) The first peer reviewer agreed that
additional studies are needed to
determine the effects of flooding on
Casey’s June beetle within its critical
habitat. The reviewer also believes one
of the greatest threats posed by
developed areas adjacent to critical
habitat is artificial lighting in habitat
corridors during Casey’s June beetle
flight season because potentially large
numbers of males are drawn away from
females and die before they can mate.
The peer reviewer stated that artificial
light sources could lead to unnatural
concentrations of Casey’s June beetle
occupancy that makes them more
vulnerable to catastrophic events. The
reviewer also stated that based on the
known larval habits of other members of
the tribe Melolonthini, Casey’s June
beetle larvae most likely feed on roots.
The peer reviewer noted all surveys for
Casey’s June beetle have occurred in
undeveloped upland habitats, and their
observation of a small number of beetles
along State Route 111 one night 30 years
ago leads the peer reviewer to think
there might still be small pockets of
occupancy that persist within some of
the more developed areas of Palm
Springs west and south of State Route
111. They believe that knowing if and
where these pockets exist would help
biologists understand Casey’s June
beetle tolerance of landscaping and
other land disturbance. The peer
reviewer suggested future surveys
should include storefronts, pools, and
other established light sources within
the urban landscape. The peer reviewer
also suggested changing the wording of
PCE 2 (74 FR 32874; July 9, 2009)
because Casey’s June beetle continues to
occupy a few highly disturbed, weedy,
and even previously graded or disked
fields along State Route 111. They
asserted that desert scrub or wash
vegetation is not a requirement for
Casey’s June beetle presence and
survival. Finally, the peer reviewer
expressed the opinion that given the
extent of the known population,
conservation of anything less than
proposed critical habitat would likely
result in eventual extinction of the
species.
(b) The second peer reviewer
emphasized the most important single
factor for continued species’’ survival is
that female beetles are flightless.
Introduction of females would be the
only way to reestablish the species in
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
isolated suitable areas where occupancy
has been eliminated; therefore, locations
where breeding females are currently
found must be protected. The peer
reviewer also stated persistence of the
species at Smoke Tree Ranch (despite
the annual death of many males due to
lighting) indicates the number of males
that survive has been sufficient to
support continued reproduction;
however, such a chronic drain on the
number of males could eventually have
long-term effects on species’’ survival.
(c) The third peer reviewer stated that
potential Casey’s June beetle habitat is
best characterized as any open space
still existing within its former known
distributional boundaries. They further
clarified that they believe the species’
known distribution is defined by female
flightlessness and factors of soil type
which are historical biogeographic
factors that may never be fully
understood.
(d) The fourth peer reviewer stated
that because Casey’s June beetle has
experienced the loss of 97 percent of its
original habitat, they recommend
including additional isolated patches of
suitable habitat outside the current
known range in critical habitat where
reintroduction could potentially
maintain population size in the
‘‘medium term.’’ They suggested
including habitat patches located on
upland sites above floodplain areas
vulnerable to periodic washout in
critical habitat.
Our Response: Regarding the first peer
reviewer’s concern about artificial
lighting, we understand that artificial
lighting likely has some negative impact
on Casey’s June beetle and therefore,
should be addressed though
management actions to avoid take in
occupied habitat (see E. Other Natural
or Manmade Factors Affecting the
Continued Existence of the Species
section above). Artificial lighting
attracts only males in flight, often
resulting in their death, but not
necessarily impacting the abundance of
female and immature individuals.
Artificial lighting has no effect on the
distribution of flightless females, and
this life stage determines the spatial
concentration of all other life stages. We
agree that unnatural light sources
attracting beetles into development
adjacent to upland habitat poses at least
a moderate threat to Casey’s June beetle.
We agree with the all the peer
reviewers that the following issues
should be research priorities for this
species’ recovery: (1) The impact of
male mortality on population
abundance and fitness; (2) species’
occupancy patterns within Palm Canyon
Wash; (3) the effects of periodic flooding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
on individual mortality and movement;
(4) delineation and protection of
breeding areas; and (5) larval diet. As
discussed in the proposed rule, one
expert particularly familiar with the
biology and taxonomy of the genus
Dinacoma stated Casey’s June beetle
‘‘* * * exhibits no specific host
preferences and larvae likely consume
any available organic resources—
including stratified detritus—
encountered within the alluvial habitat’’
(LaRue pers. comm. 2006). Furthermore,
Hill and O‘Maly (2009, p. 1) recently
found that the frass pellets of larvae of
another endangered June beetle (Mount
Hermon June Beetle, Polyphylla
barbata) contained a variety of plant
species and fungi material,
demonstrating that they are not
specialist feeders but are microhabitat
specialists. Therefore, while they will be
helpful in prioritizing research
objectives, we do not believe any of the
peer reviewers’ comments on research
priorities require revisions to text in the
New Species Information section above.
We agree with the first peer reviewer
that more surveys should occur to
validate our current knowledge of
habitat occupancy. Most surveys that
have occurred in the past have had
variable methodologies and durations,
and focused almost exclusively on
attracting males in flight from an
unknown distance to light traps. We
will develop recommendations
regarding where and how surveys
should be done, and will likely require
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit holders to
follow a survey protocol that maximizes
the likelihood of male and female
Casey’s June beetle detection at
occupied sites. We will also continue to
facilitate and fund surveys outside of
designated critical habitat (Service 2009,
p. 3) and encourage biologists and the
public to examine urban light sources
and report any observations of male
Casey’s June beetles to us for analysis.
We considered the first peer
reviewer’s recommendation to change
proposed PCE 2 to not include desert
scrub or wash vegetation to allow for
incorporation of disturbed, weedy, and
previously graded or disked fields. In
order to confirm the validity of this
recommendation, we reviewed satellite
imagery of the sites where occupancy
was recently documented that best fit
the description of ‘‘disturbed, weedy,
and previously graded or disked fields’’
and noted the presence or absence of
desert scrub or wash vegetation. We also
obtained field survey information
regarding habitat conditions (Hawks
pers. comm. 2010). We determined the
peer reviewer had raised a valid point
and edited PCE 2 to include other
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58977
Sonoran vegetation types and disturbed
habitat (as long as they were not isolated
by development and unlikely to return
to their natural state). In the proposed
rule we specified PCE 2 to include
‘‘Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan)
desert scrub vegetation and native
desert wash vegetation * * *.’’ In this
final rule we use the more inclusive
language of ‘‘predominantly native
desert vegetation.’’
Regarding the fourth peer reviewer’s
recommendation to include additional
areas as critical habitat, we carefully
considered all patches of apparently
suitable habitat within the species’
historical (versus current) range for
proposal as critical habitat, even areas of
suitable habitat where reintroduction of
beetles would be necessary for them to
be utilized (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section). We
emphasized the importance of upland
sites least likely to be subject to periodic
flooding and explained their value as
refugia (see Background section of
proposed rule). However, the amount of
remaining undeveloped land within the
species’ historical range that meets the
definition of critical habitat is extremely
limited. All areas designated as critical
habitat are within likely flight distance
of occupied habitat for male Casey’s
June beetles (considered occupied at the
population level); as a result several
relatively small non-contiguous habitat
areas without occupancy records were
also designated as critical habitat. No
unoccupied habitat patches outside the
likely flight range of adult males were
clearly large enough or otherwise
suitable to support an independent
population based on our current
knowledge of the species; therefore, we
did not determine that any of these
areas met the definition of critical
habitat.
Comment 3: One peer reviewer
emphasized they felt it is important for
the Service to work closely with the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
to develop a management and public
education plan for the species and for
habitat on tribal reservation lands. The
reviewer also stated development and
implementation of an overall
management plan that simultaneously
provides guidance for the restoration
and enhancement of existing critical
habitat and educates citizens about the
importance of conserving Casey’s June
beetle is crucial to the species’ survival.
The peer reviewer asserted that a public
education program must be developed
along with habitat management guides
and plans.
Our Response: We agree that
management and conservation planning
and public outreach are important
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58978
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
aspects of endangered species recovery
planning. As stated above, we believe
our continuing coordination with the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
should provide sufficient future
education, facilitate development of
additional management plans (beyond
those already in existence on the
reservation), and help promote Casey’s
June beetle conservation on tribal
reservation lands. In the Spotlight
Species Action Plan (Service 2009, p. 2),
we state that in order to reduce or
eliminate threats to Casey’s June beetle
we will need to determine current
occupancy (presence or absence) within
portions of the population distribution
(which was done in 2010, see New
Species Occupancy and Habitat
Information above), conserve occupied
habitat, and gain scientific information
required to inform recovery criteria.
Actions recommended in the Spotlight
Species Action Plan (Service 2009, p. 3)
include developing agreements with
landowners to conserve habitat. We will
continue to work with all stakeholders,
including the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians, to conserve habitat,
conduct public outreach, and recover
Casey’s June beetle.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer had
specific text edit recommendations.
They suggested changing the word
‘‘considered’’ under the Life History and
Habitat section on page 32858 of the
proposed rule to ‘‘known to be,’’
because it is a fact that the females are
flightless, and the word ‘‘family’’ on
page 32859, line 1 under Factor A, to
‘‘genus’’ (74 FR 32857; July 9, 2009).
Our Response: We agree with the
suggested text and taxonomic
corrections and made edits to the New
Species Information above and the
Factor A discussion in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section,
above.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the
Secretary shall submit to the State
agency a written justification for his
failure to adopt regulations consistent
with the agency’s comments or
petition.’’ We did not receive any
comments from the State regarding the
listing of Casey’s June beetle or the
designation of its critical habitat.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Public Comments
Comments From Tribes
Comment 5: The Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) asserted
there is not enough information known
regarding the biology of the species or
its distribution to justify listing. They
argued it is not known what the species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
eats or how long it remains in the soil,
and the species’ distribution may be
significantly greater than estimated in
the proposed rule. They argued
specifically that soils named in the PCEs
are widely distributed throughout the
Coachella Valley where more Casey’s
June beetles might be found and are not
appropriate to use as PCEs. They further
stated there has been no systematic
effort to locate Casey’s June beetle
elsewhere in the Coachella Valley or
desert areas further south, and that they
know of a Casey’s June beetle captured
‘‘well outside’’ the proposed critical
habitat and another report of what may
be a Casey’s June beetle from a site near
the City of Yuma, Arizona. The Tribe
concluded the Service needs to conduct
or fund new surveys to determine the
species’ range before listing is justified.
The Tribe claimed no recent surveys
have detected the species south of
Bogert Trail or west of South Palm
Canyon Drive, and indicated they
believe unoccupied land should,
therefore, not be designated as critical
habitat. The Tribe further indicated they
believe the data on which the proposed
rule was based should have been subject
to peer review prior to publication of
the draft rule.
Finally, the Tribe stated that in
drawing the conclusion that existing
tribal regulatory structure is not
adequate to protect Casey’s June beetle,
the Service did not consider the Tribe’s
active role in regulating land use and
development. They cited the Indian
Canyons Master Plan and tribal
development zoning that apply to
reservation lands south of Acanto Drive.
Our Response: 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 (see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section above). As
required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
the Secretary shall determine whether
any species is an endangered or a
threatened species solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available to him after conducting a
review of the status of the species.
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 our decisions are
based on the best scientific data
available. We used primary and original
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sources of information as the basis for
our recommendations. We acknowledge
the Tribe’s concern that little
information is known about Casey’s
June beetle life habits. While lifespan
and diet information will help inform
species recovery actions, we believe the
status of the species is clear without this
knowledge. Species’ decline and habitat
loss, as well as the imminence of threats
to species’ habitat and survival for
Casey’s June beetle have been clearly
demonstrated (see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section and
Comment 1 above). Furthermore, the
need for listing is determined ‘‘solely on
the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available,’’ even
though biological information is
typically incomplete for rare species in
need of protection. Therefore, we
believe our determination that Casey’s
June beetle is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range is supported
by the best available scientific and
commercial information.
We respectfully disagree with the
Tribe’s comment that Casey’s June
beetle has a wider distribution than
estimated. As required by section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Secretary shall
determine whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species
solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available to him
after conducting a review of the status
of the species. Two researchers have
undertaken recent and relatively
widespread assessments of Casey’s June
beetle occupancy and habitat
distribution (Hovore 1997a, p. 1–3;
1997b, p. 1–3; 1997c, p. 2–17; Cornett
2004, p. 8). Both studies generally agree
with our conclusions regarding the
limited distribution of Casey’s June
beetle habitat, and both concluded the
distribution was more restricted than we
described in our proposed rule (Hovore
1997b, p. 1–3; 1997c, p. 2–17; Cornett
2004, p. 13). A species expert has
examined specimens and populations of
Dinacoma species found in locations as
proximal as Joshua Tree National Park
and the City of Hemet and described
them as different species (LaRue pers.
comm. 2006). We are also aware of a
collection (one individual) by Cornett
(Anderson, Service, pers. comm. 2009)
that resembled Casey’s June beetle from
a site near the City of Yuma, Arizona.
We have communicated with the
collector, and they confirmed it
resembles Casey’s June beetle. However,
they have not determined the taxonomic
identity of this specimen, nor have they
had taxonomic experts examine it
(Anderson, pers. comm. 2009; Cornett,
James Cornett Biological Consultants,
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
pers. comm. 2009a, 2009b). We do not
believe this specimen will be identified
as a Casey’s June beetle because it was
collected far from known collection
locations, and in an area
topographically different from areas
known to support Casey’s June beetle
(see Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements and Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, and Rearing (or
Development) of Offspring that are
Protected from Disturbance sections
above for further discussion). Most
recently, David Hawks conducted a
survey in 2010 funded by the Service
specifically focused on surveying
suitable soils north (just south of the
Chino Cone in the City of Palm Springs)
and south (past Palm Desert as far as La
Quinta) of the current known species
distribution. Hawks did collect Casey’s
June beetles outside the current known
range (see New Species Information
section above for more information), but
only within a patch of remnant wash
channel just outside of proposed critical
habitat and still within the City of Palm
Springs (Hawks pers. comm. 2010).
Regarding the Tribe’s assertion that
we used widely distributed soil types to
inappropriately define critical habitat,
we do not agree. To clarify, Casey’s June
beetle critical habitat is first defined by
other environmental factors (such as soil
moisture and wind conditions) unique
to the base of the San Jacinto and Santa
Rosa mountains (see Food, Water, Air,
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements section and
our response to Comment 1 above). We
identify critical habitat by first defining
the area of occupancy or potential
occupancy (which is by default limited
to those areas where the unique
environmental factors mentioned above
are found), then second by ‘‘focusing in
on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements (primary
constituent elements) within the
defined area’’ (see Critical Habitat
Background section above). PCEs are
only one component of the definition of
critical habitat (see Critical Habitat
Background section above). Therefore,
based on the best scientific information
available regarding species’ taxonomy
and distribution, it is likely the species
was not historically distributed beyond
the eastern San Jacinto Mountain
foothills outside of the City of Palm
Springs. We will continue to
recommend and facilitate surveys to
refine our knowledge of the species’
distribution, but we believe our current
biological conclusions and the need to
list Casey’s June beetle as endangered
under the Act are well supported by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
best available scientific and commercial
data.
The Tribe’s comment that no recent
surveys have detected the species south
of Bogert Trail or west of South Palm
Canyon Drive is not supported by
available occupancy data. Most recently,
David Hawks (pers. comm. 2010; 2011a;
2011b) detected numerous adult male
and female Casey’s June beetles in Palm
Canyon Wash south of Bogert Trail and
south of Acanto Drive (south of Acanto
Drive these observations were made
incidentally without the aid of light
traps), indicating this area is a current
population density center (see New
Species Information section above for
more information). In 2004, Cornett
(2004, p. 8) detected Casey’s June beetle
south of Bogert Trail, north of Acanto
Drive, and midway between South Palm
Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Wash.
In 2001, Simonsen-Marchant (2001, p.
6) detected Casey’s June beetles south of
Bogert Trail and north of Acanto Drive
in upland habitat adjacent to Palm
Canyon Wash; this area remains
undeveloped. It is true no Casey’s June
beetles have been recently detected west
of South Palm Canyon Drive, and the
sparse remaining suitable soils are
heavily degraded. Furthermore, two
separate surveys in 2010 (Hawks, pers.
comm. 2011; Cornett 2010, pp. 10 and
14) in areas adjacent to and west of
South Palm Canyon Drive were negative
(see New Species Information section
above). Therefore, based on the best
available data we believe the majority of
lands proposed for designation south of
Bogert Trail are occupied and meet the
definition of critical habitat. However,
lands adjacent to and west of South
Palm Canyon Drive approximately west
of Via Fortuna, and the southernmost
non-contiguous patches of CdC soil
within Palm Canyon, are not occupied
nor appear to be occupiable and
therefore do not meet the definition of
critical habitat because they would not
contribute to the conservation of the
species (see Summary of Changes From
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule,
above).
With regard to the Tribe’s question of
our peer review practices, the purpose
of a proposed rule is to allow peer and
public review of data and conclusions
drawn from the data, so that we can
make appropriate adjustments prior to
publication of the final rule. It is our
policy that peer review be conducted
during the public comment period
(Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities, July 1, 1994, 59
FR 34270); we can not allow outside
review of pre-decisional internal draft
proposed rules. Nevertheless, we do
commonly, and did in this case, discuss
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58979
the data we use and the biological
implications of those data with species
experts who collect it in a scientific
context as needed prior to publication of
the proposed rule. We believe we
followed the best scientific practices in
writing the proposed and final rules.
Finally, regarding the Tribe’s
assertion that existing tribal regulatory
structure is adequate to protect Casey’s
June beetle, we subsequently considered
the Tribe’s active role in regulating land
use and development via the Indian
Canyons Master Plan and tribal
development zoning (as articulated by
the Master Plan) that apply to
reservation lands south of Acanto Drive.
We did not determine these documents
were adequate to address the threats
placing the species in danger of
extinction and, therefore, meeting the
definition of an endangered species (see
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range section above).
Comment 6: The Tribe asserted that
critical habitat should include only the
minimum amount of habitat needed to
avoid short-term jeopardy to the species.
The Tribe further stated that designation
of critical habitat on their reservation is
not needed because they are required to
conduct section 7 consultations for
many activities that might potentially
pose a threat to the species.
Our Response: As required by section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available
to designate critical habitat (see Critical
Habitat Background and Criteria Used
To Identify Critical Habitat above).
Critical habitat is defined as the specific
areas within the geographical area
occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management
considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed that are essential for the
conservation of the species.
‘‘Conservation’’ means all methods and
procedures necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary
(the recovery standard, see Critical
Habitat Background section above).
Therefore, critical habitat is not defined
as the minimum amount of habitat
needed to avoid short-term jeopardy to
the species. Whether or not section 7
consultation is required is not a factor
in determining those areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. However,
when we analyze the benefits of
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58980
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
including versus excluding an area as
critical habitat, we do consider, among
other relevant factors, whether the
regulatory benefit of designation may be
largely redundant with listing.
Comment 7: The Tribe stated that if
the Casey’s June beetle is listed, the
Service should at least find the benefits
of excluding ‘‘the lands of the Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation’’ outweigh
the benefits of including them in critical
habitat. The Tribe cited multiple
regulatory and tribal sovereignty
documents including Secretarial Order
3206 (June 5, 1997), Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000),
and two other critical habitat rules
where tribal land was excluded based
on partnerships in support of their
request for exclusion. The Tribe stated
the ‘‘relevant thrust’’ of the cited
Federal enactments is that no agency of
the Department of the Interior will
inflict regulatory, economic, or
governmental burdens on tribes and
their members when adequate
alternatives exist.
Our Response: We considered the
Tribes’ request that reservation lands be
excluded from critical habitat based on
partnership benefits and the existence of
adequate alternatives to the regulatory,
economic, and governmental burdens of
designating Casey’s June beetle critical
habitat. The Act specifies that the
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor (see
Exclusions section above).
We considered the possible benefits of
including and excluding Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians’ tribal trust
reservation lands that met the definition
of critical habitat. For our exclusion
analysis we considered our partnership
with the Tribe and, therefore, analyzed
the benefits of including and excluding
those lands under the sovereign control
of the Tribe (tribal trust reservation
lands) that met the definition of critical
habitat. Because Tribe-owned fee,
private fee, or allotted lands are
potentially subject to other jurisdictions
and not under the sovereign control of
the Tribe, we did not include these
lands in our exclusion analysis (see
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
under Tribal Reservation Lands, above).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
We find that existing regulations and
listing provide habitat protection of
tribal trust reservation lands and are
largely redundant with protections that
would be provided by critical habitat
designation (minimizing the benefits of
inclusion), and we find that excluding
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
tribal trust reservation lands from this
final critical habitat will help preserve
our partnership with the Tribe and
foster future development of habitat
management plans with Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians and other
tribes (maximizing the benefits of
exclusion). Furthermore, we determined
that exclusion of tribal trust reservation
lands would not result in the extinction
of the species. Therefore, we are
excluding 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust
reservation (i.e., non-fee, non-allotment)
lands from this final critical habitat
designation. See Tribal Reservation
Lands under Exclusions, above, for
further discussion.
Comment 8: Two members of the
Tribe who own allotted land in
proposed critical habitat south of
Acanto Drive, north and adjacent to
South Palm Canyon Drive commented
that: (1) The reasoning that the soil type
‘‘lends itself to potential habitat’’ is not
sufficient scientific evidence their land
meets the definition of critical habitat
and sounds speculative; (2) their
properties are not occupied because
surveys of one commenter’s parcel were
negative, and the second commenter’s
parcel is adjacent to the surveyed
parcel; (3) the proposed designation
would affect tribal reservation land in a
disproportionate manner since over 60
percent of the land identified is on the
reservation; and (4) their land is too far
from the wash to meet the definition of
critical habitat. The commenters
submitted a tract map and two letters
from a consultant in support of their
statements.
Another apparent tribal allottee
expressed similar concerns. The
commenter made the following
statements with regard to their property:
(1) Surveys by James Cornett were
negative; (2) in order to occupy on-site
habitat, Casey’s June beetles would have
to travel a distance greater than 1 mi
(2 km) over several concrete dams and
a concrete dike; (3) 75 percent is rock
or hillside, and 10 to 15 percent of the
remainder is imported material behind
a 100-year flood wall; and (4) Riverside
County FCWCD periodically removes
several feet of material from behind the
flood wall to maintain the wash depth.
They concluded that for the above
reasons their property should not be
designated as Casey’s June beetle critical
habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Our Response: The commenters gave
several reasons for why they believed
their lands should not be designated as
critical habitat. We address their reasons
in this response in the order presented.
We could not find the quoted language
regarding soil type in our proposed rule
to which objection was made.
Nonetheless, we understand the
comment did not agree with the soil
type associations articulated in the
PCEs. We believe language in the text of
this rule clearly reflects the strong
relationship of soil type (PCE 1) to
habitat suitability (see Primary
Constituent Elements for Casey’s June
Beetle, and Comment 1 above).
Historical occupancy data (Hovore 1997,
p. 4; Hovore 2003, p. 4), 2004 survey
data (Cornett 2004, p. 8), 2010 survey
data (Hawks pers. comm. 2010, 2011a
and b), and soil maps indicate some
properties south of Acanto Drive fall
within currently occupied Casey’s June
beetle habitat. Furthermore,
documented occupancy of a particular
site is not required for land to meet the
definition of critical habitat; however, if
the particular site is within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, it must
support physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species (see Critical Habitat
Background, above).
We understand the first two
commenters’ concern that a relatively
large amount of proposed critical habitat
falls within the Tribe’s reservation. It is
not our intent to designate critical
habitat in a disproportionate manner.
Rather, the distribution of lands that
meet the definition critical habitat on
tribal land is a result of past biological
and social factors we cannot change.
However, based on new scientific
information we determined these
commenters’ lands did not meet the
definition of critical habitat, and
therefore they are not included in this
critical habitat designation for that
reason (see New Species Information
and Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat sections above). We further
excluded all tribal trust reservation land
from critical habitat, thus reducing the
amount of reservation designated as
critical habitat (see Tribal Reservation
Lands under Exclusions above).
Therefore, we believe these
commenters’ concerns have been
addressed to the extent appropriate.
The third commenter stated their
property is not occupied and is situated
such that Casey’s June beetle
immigration is precluded. In order to
assess the validity of these comments
we would need to know the exact
location of the commenter’s property
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
and details of any surveys conducted.
We were not able to determine the
precise location of the commenter’s
property based on the information
provided. Furthermore, the commenter
did not provide survey documentation,
nor a date surveys were conducted.
Therefore, we were not able to assess
the validity of the commenter’s
statements with regard to occupancy.
The third commenter generally
described their property as not
containing the PCEs. All areas proposed
as Casey’s June beetle critical habitat
were defined as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species on which are found the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species (see
Critical Habitat Background, above).
Without knowing exactly where the
property is located, we are not able to
make a determination on the
characteristics of the site. However, we
based our designation partly on the soil
type and landscape-level characteristics
we determined are important for the
beetle and consider all areas occupied
by the species and to contain the PCEs.
Any developed lands that do not
contain the PCEs inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this designated critical
habitat are excluded by text in this final
rule (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section above).
Comments Related to Biological
Information That Informed Our Listing
or Critical Habitat Determinations
Comment 9: Three commenters stated
that Casey’s June beetle is more widely
distributed than the proposed rule
described, based on observations of
Casey’s June beetles at their homes. The
first commenter from the City of Palm
Desert said they observed many Casey’s
June beetles during the early morning at
their home during a 3-week period in
June, dropping off the first week of July.
The second commenter said they
observed Casey’s June beetle at their
home in La Quinta several times during
the late spring and early summer
months of 2009. The third commenter
said they had observed Casey’s June
beetle ‘‘a few miles north of the reported
[proposed critical habitat] boundary’’
and at 393 West Mesquite Ave in the
City of Palm Springs. They stated they
hope this information helps protect the
species because they believe it is
important no species become extinct.
Our Response: There are other species
of June beetles in the Palm Desert and
La Quinta areas that are related and
similar in appearance to Casey’s June
beetle (Cornett 2004, pp. 4–5). As stated
in the proposed rule, Casey’s June
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
beetles are crepuscular, meaning they
are active at dusk, not in the early
morning (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Although
it is commonly called a ‘‘June’’ beetle,
peak abundance for this species
typically occurs in April and May, not
during the summer months of June and
July (Cornett 2004, pp. 4, 18–26). The
timing of the first two commenters’
observations indicates the beetles they
observed were a species of common
June beetle in the genus Phyllophagia
(see Cornett 2004, p. 4–5). Additionally,
none of the commenters provided any
substantiating information to support
the comment they had observed Casey’s
June beetles, such as identifying
characteristics of specimens, or
experience on which their ability to
identify Casey’s June beetle was based.
Casey’s June beetle surveys were
conducted in 2010, during the flight
season in potential habitat in the areas
described by the third commenter
(vicinity of Tahquiz Creek in western
foothills of the City of Palm Springs);
however, no Casey’s June beetles were
detected (Hawks pers. comm. 2010).
Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that
beetles observed by the commenters
were Casey’s June beetles.
Comment 10: Four commenters
argued there is not enough information
known regarding the biology of the
species or its distribution to justify
listing. They argued it is not known
what the species eats or how long it
remains in the soil, and the species’
distribution may be significantly greater
than estimated in the proposed listing
and critical habitat rule. They
collectively stated or implied there has
been no systematic effort to locate
Casey’s June beetle elsewhere in the
Coachella Valley or desert areas farther
south, and such an effort is needed
before listing would be warranted. The
first two commenters specifically stated
they know of a Casey’s June beetle
captured ‘‘well outside’’ the proposed
critical habitat, and another report of
what may be a Casey’s June beetle from
a site near the City of Yuma, Arizona.
The second commenter made several
statements questioning the scientific
credibility of the proposed listing and
critical habitat rule. The commenter
argued: (1) Survey methodology requires
further development and may be
skewed because light traps require
access to electricity; (2) the Service’s
assumption that all areas occupied by
Casey’s June beetle comprise a single
population is not based on scientific
data; (3) proposed PCE 2 (intact, native
Sonoran desert scrub vegetation and
native desert wash vegetation) is not
valid (citing James Cornett’s detection of
the species in the Smoke Tree Ranch
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58981
maintenance yard and the tennis court,
and consistent species observations in a
dry wash characterized as Sonoran
creosote bush scrub and desert wash
vegetation, portions of which were
disturbed); and (4) preliminary results
from spring 2010 surveys conducted by
James Cornett confirm an association
with ‘‘non-native tamarisk’’ (submitted
an email communication from James
Cornett). They concluded the species’
biological and physical requirements are
so poorly understood that proposed
PCE 2 is not valid, and data contradict
the assumption habitat disturbance
threatens the species’ continued
survival; therefore, the proposed critical
habitat designation is arbitrary and
capricious. They further commented
this ‘‘fundamental legal flaw’’ renders
the proposed listing determination in
violation of the Act’s best available
scientific evidence standard and is,
therefore, also arbitrary and capricious.
The third commenter stated listing
was not warranted because it is not clear
what actions would be required to
recover the species, and because Casey’s
June beetle appears to be less
susceptible to human interaction than is
currently recognized. They specifically
stated the species has been collected in
higher numbers where habitat has
greater exposure to human impacts.
Our Response: The comment
regarding the species’’ known range and
a need for surveys is the same as the
Tribe’s above (Comment 5), and the
commenter’s statement that Casey’s June
beetle listing and critical habitat
designation are not supported by the
best available scientific data is similar to
the Tribe’s comment as well. We believe
our current biological conclusions and
the need to list Casey’s June beetle as
endangered under the Act are well
supported by the best available
scientific and commercial data. Please
see our response to Comment 5 above
for further discussion.
Regarding the second commenter’s
specific statements numbered above:
(1) Some past surveys may have been
biased by trap placement proximal to
electricity sources; however, some light
traps are battery-powered, and past
trapping efforts represent the best
available scientific data. (2) We agree it
is possible all individuals in currently
occupied habitat areas do not belong to
a single population. Nevertheless, we
believe we adequately acknowledged
this uncertainty in the proposed rule by
stating, ‘‘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.’’ Our consideration is
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58982
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
based on the flight and movement
potential of male Casey’s June beetles,
as well as the fact that all currently
occupied habitat areas were historically
contiguous. Furthermore, it is not
unusual for species’’ population
distributions to be ill-described prior to
listing (see Euphydryas editha quino
(Quino checkerspot butterfly) final
revised critical habitat rule; 74 FR
28775, June 17, 2009). (3) We agree that
the proposed PCEs were overly
restrictive; therefore, we edited PCE 2 to
include other Sonoran vegetation types
and disturbed habitat. In the proposed
revised rule we specified ‘‘Intact, native
Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub
vegetation and native desert wash
vegetation * * *.’’ In this final revised
rule we use the more inclusive language
in PCE 2, i.e., ‘‘predominantly native
desert vegetation’’) (see Primary
Constituent Elements for Casey’s June
Beetle and response to peer reviewer
Comment 2 above). (4) The email from
James Cornett describing his
preliminary 2010 survey results
presents inconclusive and incomplete
data. Cornett listed beetle abundance
data from 3 nights of collection using an
unspecified number of traps of
unspecified design placed ‘‘near’’
cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola) and
tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). The first 2
nights he reported higher numbers of
male Casey’s June beetle attracted to
traps located near Tamarix spp.;
however, on the third night he collected
almost twice as many individuals from
traps located near Hymenoclea salsola.
Cornett did not discuss any other
possible habitat correlations with trap
placement that could have affected his
results. Furthermore, preliminary
results from David Hawks’’ 2010 (pers.
comm.) surveys on Smoke Tree Ranch
indicate no correlation of female Casey’s
June beetle emergence holes with any
particular species or type of plant, not
even native plants (see New Species
Information and Primary Constituent
Elements for Casey’s June Beetle
sections above). Hawks’’ (pers. comm.
2010) study indicated soil type,
moisture content, and other factors were
more likely determinants of habitat than
associated plant species or types.
Therefore, based on information
discussed in the response above, and
reasons discussed in the response to
Comment 5 above, we conclude there is
no valid basis for the second
commenter’s statement that this critical
habitat designation or listing
determination are arbitrary and
capricious.
We considered the third commenter’s
statements that listing is not warranted
because it is not clear what actions are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
required to recover the species, and the
species appears to survive equally well
in habitats exposed to disturbance. Until
a species is recovered there is always
some level of uncertainty regarding
actions required to achieve recovery;
furthermore actions required for
recovery are not typically analyzed or
described until a species is listed and a
recovery outline or plan is developed.
Articulated recovery actions are not a
prerequisite for listing. On the
disturbance issue, the data do not
support that the species has been
collected in higher abundance where
human impacts are greatest. Some of the
highest observed numbers and most
consistent collections of male Casey’s
June beetles have been in the gated
community of Smoke Tree Ranch,
where the largest and most protected
area of remaining occupied habitat is
found. Therefore, we do not believe the
best scientific and commercial data
available support the commenter’s
statement that listing is not warranted.
Comment 11: Three commenters
argued specific areas proposed for
critical habitat designation and
considered occupied are not occupied
and should not be included in the final
critical habitat designation. The first
commenter stated surveys conducted in
2009 indicate habitat south of Bogart
Trail and west of South Palm Canyon
Drive is not occupied, and stated this
area should not be designated as critical
habitat. The second commenter stated
the proposed critical habitat south of
State Route 111 near Gene Autry Trail
as mapped appears to extend arbitrarily
beyond what was mapped as occupied
in the 2006 Bruyea report. The third
commenter stated multiple past surveys
of their property (the easternmost
polygon of proposed critical habitat),
and a survey conducted in April of
2010, were all negative. The third
commenter submitted a letter from
James Cornett documenting negative
survey results.
Our Response: The commenters’’
statements that areas proposed as
critical habitat must be occupied to
meet the definition of critical habitat
appear to be based on the assumptions
that negative surveys are definitive, the
scale of occupancy described in a
critical habitat rule is the same as that
determined in the smallest-scale
presence-absence project-based survey,
and occupancy is a requirement for
critical habitat designation. First, it is
not uncommon for Casey’s June beetle
surveys, for which we have not yet
developed a robust survey protocol, to
not detect occupancy where it in fact
exists. For example, Cornett’s (2004, p.
8) surveys near Gene Autry Trail at the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
wash crossing and at another site near
the State Route 111 intersection with
Gene Autry Trail did not detect Casey’s
June beetle; however, Powell (2003, p.
4) had reported collecting 70 male
Casey’s June beetles in the first 15
minutes and ‘‘many afterwards’’ one
night at the wash crossing, while Bruyea
(2006, pp. 10–11) reported traps
‘‘consistently attracted [Casey’s June
beetle] during each of the four survey
visits’’ at the State Route 111
intersection site. Second, the scale of
occupancy described in critical habitat
rules is at the population distribution
scale, not the individual, local scale
sometimes determined by smaller-scale
presence-absence surveys. Because
population distributions could expand
and contract over time at the local scale
depending on habitat conditions and
other factors, individual-or ‘‘colony-’’
scale occupancy may not reflect the
greater longer-term population
distribution. We also note the first
commenter did not provide any further
information regarding the referenced
survey, and we do not have any
information corresponding with the
described survey. Therefore, with regard
to Casey’s June beetle occupancy status,
we believe the designation of critical
habitat would be appropriate for those
areas referred to by the commenters.
We did, however, determine the third
commenter’s property does not contain
the primary soil type specified in PCE
1 (CdC) required to meet the definition
of critical habitat. Therefore, we
determined this property did not meet
the definition of critical habitat (see also
Summary of Changes From the 2009
Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, above)
and did not include it in this final
critical habitat designation.
Comment 12: One commenter
asserted the maintained Palm Canyon
Wash channel and levee system does
not meet the definition of critical habitat
because the reoccurrence of scouring
and sediment deposition within the
channel and levee system likely
precludes any long-term development of
viable Casey’s June beetle PCEs. They
stated that published annual peak
stream flow information from the U.S.
Geological Survey shows Palm Canyon
Wash has experienced at least 16 peak
flow events of over 1,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) (28 cubic meters per second
(cms)) since 1980, and these peak
streamflows have occurred at a
minimum of every 1 to 3 years.
Two other commenters gave reasons
why they believed their property did
not meet the definition of critical
habitat. The second commenter stated
their property is surrounded on three
sides by existing homes and was ‘‘pretty
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
well torn up’’ 2 years ago when they
were compelled to clean up a vegetation
dump created by their neighbors. The
third commenter objected to the
proposed designation of their property
in the vicinity of Araby Drive (‘‘Araby
Cove’’) as critical habitat. The reasoning
the third commenter articulated in
support of their objection was: (1) Their
property is elevated with fill dirt (and
therefore does not contain the PCEs); (2)
no experts have evaluated their property
to establish soil suitability; and (3) they
have been at their property for 5 years
at dusk and evening and never observed
any beetle species. The commenter
suggested the Service could maintain
the total area proposed as critical habitat
by moving mapped proposed critical
habitat off their property to include
‘‘non-buildable,’’ adjacent, undisturbed
land. They stated that designating their
residential lot and not any other
neighboring properties with similar
physical and biological features is
illegal. The commenter submitted
several photographs in support of their
written comments.
Our Response: We considered the first
commenter’s statement that the Palm
Canyon Wash channel and levee system
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat. We also acknowledge that some
portions of Palm Canyon Wash are not
likely to support occupancy by females
and immature life stages. While it makes
sense that some level of scouring
intensity would extirpate occupancy in
some places, at relatively small scales
within the Palm Canyon Wash channel,
the correlation between flood intensity
and mortality at a given life stage is
unknown. Many collections of adult
males have been made within and
adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash, even
where there is no adjacent upland
habitat (such as Powell 2003, p. 4). The
best available data also indicate that all
areas of Palm Canyon Wash will always
contain both PCEs. We believe any
conclusions regarding peak stream flow
effects on Casey’s June beetle occupancy
in Palm Canyon Wash are premature,
and use of the channel and levee system
by adult males also justifies inclusion of
this area as designated critical habitat.
Lands which are ‘‘occupied’’ in some
capacity but do not contain the PCEs
(for example areas where only
movement of males in flight is possible)
do not meet the definition of Casey’s
June beetle critical habitat; therefore,
any levees or areas elevated by fill dirt
inadvertently mapped as designated
critical habitat would not be considered
critical habitat. When determining the
critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to map precisely only the
areas that contain the PCEs and provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
for the conservation of Casey’s June
beetle. However, due to the mapping
scale that we use to determine critical
habitat boundaries, we cannot guarantee
that every fraction of critical habitat
contains the PCEs. Additionally, we
made every attempt to avoid including
developed areas such as lands
underlying buildings, paved areas, and
other structures that lack PCEs for
Casey’s June beetle. The scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed areas. Any
developed structures (such as a
developed levee) and the land under
them inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this critical habitat designation are
excluded by text in this rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Federal
actions involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific actions may affect
the PCEs in adjacent critical habitat (see
Critical Habitat Background section
above). Therefore, we believe
designation of the Palm Canyon Wash
channel and other lands as critical
habitat, as mapped in this final rule, is
warranted.
We considered the third commenter’s
statements that they have never
observed any beetle species on their
property and that designating their
residential lot and not any other
neighboring properties with similar
physical and biological features is
illegal. We further considered their
suggestion we could maintain the total
area proposed as critical habitat by
‘‘moving’’ mapped critical habitat off
their property to include adjacent,
undisturbed land. The Act specifies we
use the best commercial and scientific
data available to determine what lands
meet the definition of critical habitat
(see Critical Habitat Background, above).
We do not base our designation on a
particular size area or property
boundaries. For us to alter the mapped
final critical habitat designation to
remove their property as the commenter
suggested, without sound scientific or
commercial data to support our actions,
would be arbitrary and capricious in our
decision making. Therefore, we did not
alter mapped final critical habitat to
avoid the commenter’s property based
on any of these statements.
Regarding the third commenter’s
statement that their property did not
contain the PCEs, we examined digital
aerial photography and did not include
buildings and structures and
surrounding areas that appeared to be
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58983
constructed on raised fill dirt (their
entire property) in this final critical
habitat designation (see Summary of
Changes from the 2009 Proposed
Critical Habitat Rule, above).
Comment 13: One commenter argued
that although their property (a patch of
habitat near the intersection of Gene
Autry Drive and State Route 111) is
occupied, it should not be designated as
Casey’s June beetle critical habitat. They
stated the Casey’s June beetle
population on their property is isolated
and not viable because: (1) The habitat
is not contiguous with other occupied
habitats and is 0.5 miles (1 km) distant
from the nearest occupied location; (2)
females are flightless; (3) male beetle
movement appears to be limited to less
than 7 ft (2 m) above the ground and to
‘‘short distances;’’ (4) the property is
bordered by a road and developed areas
where artificial lights would attract and
disorient male beetles resulting in
mortality; (5) the property is disturbed
and has compacted soils; and (6) the
‘‘low’’ numbers of Casey’s June beetles
collected on this property relative to
typical collections in other habitats
indicate a relatively small population
size. They concluded their property
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat.
The letter from James Cornett
submitted by the commenter further
stated, ‘‘To successfully immigrate or
emigrate from [this habitat] site, a beetle
would need to fly higher than the
species ever does, or fly in a straight
line and head directly down highway
111 or Gene Autry Trail at the
approximate level of rapidly moving
motor vehicles (thereby risking
substantial harm). The limited
distribution of the species strongly
suggests these latter scenarios rarely, if
ever, happen.’’
Our Response: Beetle behaviors
described in the best available scientific
and commercial data do not support the
commenter’s statements. It is less than
1 mi (less than 2 km) to the nearest
occupied habitat (Palm Canyon Wash)
through undeveloped foothills below
600 ft (180 m) in elevation, and
approximately 0.5 mi (1 km) through
residential development to the north or
the west. No available scientific
information we reviewed indicates any
beetle species must fly in a straight line
down roads. In fact, Casey’s June beetles
could take an equally direct route of
equal distance to occupied wash habitat
through residential homes from any
number of points on the property other
than the road intersection indicated by
Cornett. While it is true the male
beetle’s attraction to lights is known to
cause some mortality (e.g., drowning in
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58984
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
pools and attraction to light-based bug
traps), there is no data indicating all
individuals attracted to lights in
residential areas die. If males are
disoriented the lights may also cause
them to move in a wandering, indirect
fashion through a development. No data
were provided to support the assertion
they never fly above 7 ft (2 m), nor were
any data presented that indicated how
far or in how much of a straight line
male Casey’s June beetles are likely to
fly. Therefore, as long as females on site
are not eradicated, there is potential for
population survival and genetic
exchange with individuals in other
occupied habitats.
We considered the commenter’s
statement that habitat on their property
is too degraded and isolated to support
a viable Casey’s June beetle population.
We acknowledge habitat suitability may
have been compromised; however
disturbance, nonnative plant invasion,
and soil compaction are all habitat
features that may require management
to maintain PCEs. Furthermore, in a
habitat assessment conducted by Hovore
(1997c, p. 4), he described this area as
‘‘of sufficient size to sustain viable
populations despite having [SR] 111
pass along [its] margin.’’ Inspection of
historical Google Earth imagery from
1996 indicates the amount of
undeveloped land in this area has not
changed significantly since Hovore’s
assessment. Therefore even with some
undesirable habitat features, this
property meets the definition of critical
habitat.
We further considered James Cornett’s
statement submitted by the commenter
that the limited distribution of the
species strongly suggests flight of male
Casey’s June beetles more than 0.5 miles
(1 km) or above 7 ft (2 m) rarely, if ever,
occurs. An equally plausible
explanation for the species’ limited
distribution is direct mortality of
females during habitat disturbance and
loss, coupled with adaptation of the
species to limiting habitat factors such
as wind exposure and soil moisture
content that we do not yet fully
understand. Therefore, we do not agree
the limited species’ distribution
suggests a limited movement capability
of male Casey’s June beetles.
Comment 14: One commenter stated
they fully support listing Casey’s June
beetle as endangered for reasons
identified in the original petition
(threatened by loss and degradation of
habitat, mortality due to artificial
lighting and vehicular traffic,
fragmentation of habitat, chance
catastrophic events such as flooding,
small population size, and inadequate
regulatory protection) and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
subsequent information provided in the
proposed listing rule. The commenter
also stated they support the designation
of critical habitat for this species.
Our Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s review of our proposed
rule. Please see Comment 1 and our
response for further discussion of the
scientific validity of this final rule.
Comment 15: One commenter stated
they were concerned the proposed
critical habitat is ‘‘limited * * * to the
present range of the species’’ and did
not include any unoccupied habitat that
may be necessary for recovery of the
species. They stated critical habitat
must include areas required for species
recovery, not just survival. They argued
that past attempts by the Service to
disregard the critical habitat recovery
standard under the Act have repeatedly
been found unlawful (see Gifford
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1069–70
(9th Cir. 2004), citing Sierra Club v. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Serv., 245 F.3d 434,
441–42 (5th Cir. 2001) and N.M. Cattle
Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Serv., 248 F.3d 1283 & n.2 (10th Cir.
2001)). The commenter cited the Ninth
Circuit Court, ‘‘[i]f the [Service] follows
its own regulation, then it is obligated
to be indifferent to, if not to ignore, the
recovery goal of critical habitat’’ and
such an interpretation ‘‘would
drastically narrow the scope of
protection commanded by Congress
under the Endangered Species Act’’
(Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1070). The
commenter concluded that the Service
should consider designation of
additional areas of unoccupied habitat
that may be necessary to provide
sufficient habitat to support recovery of
Casey’s June beetle.
Our Response: We considered the
commenter’s argument that our
proposed critical habitat designation
may have been too limited in scope. As
required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act,
we use the best scientific and
commercial data available in
determining the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species that contain the features
essential to the conservation of species
which may require special management
considerations or protection, as well as
when determining if any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species are essential for the
conservation of the species. 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–
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines provide
criteria, establish procedures, and
provide guidance to ensure our
decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. We used primary and
original sources of information as the
basis for our recommendations. We only
designate areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species when the
Secretary determines that a designation
limited to a species’ present range
would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species (50 CFR
424.12(e)). We carefully considered all
patches of apparently suitable habitat
within the species’ historical (versus
current) range for proposal as critical
habitat, even where reintroduction
could potentially occur (see Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section). As defined in section 3(5)(A) of
the Act, we believe we have designated
all specific areas that the best available
scientific data indicate meet the
definition of critical habitat. We do not
believe there is sufficient scientific data
to indicate specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species are essential for conservation of
the species. Section 3(5)(C) of the Act
states that except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary, critical
habitat shall not include the entire
geographical area which can be
occupied by the endangered or
threatened species. As we learn more
about the biology of this species and its
habitat requirements we may identify
additional habitat areas necessary for
conservation of the species. Please see
Comment 2 and response above for
further discussion of this issue.
Comments Relating to Potential
Exclusions From Critical Habitat
Designation
Comment 16: One commenter
requested exclusion of Palm Canyon
Wash and two ‘‘isolated’’ proposed
critical habitat areas within the
approved Palm Springs Master Drainage
Plan Line 41, Stage 3 project alignment
located east of Palm Canyon Wash and
south of Palm Canyon Drive based on
economic hardship and public health
and safety. They stated inclusion of the
maintained flood control system within
the final critical habitat designation
would trigger a lengthy section 7
consultation process and likely prevent
timely construction and maintenance
essential to safeguard the physical and
economic well-being of the city of Palm
Springs and its citizens. The commenter
believes that potential direct and
indirect impacts of critical habitat
designation include but are not limited
to: (1) Increased costs associated with
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
species surveys and the section 7
consultation process; (2) increased risk
that the flood control system may fail to
provide the full measure of its crucial
public health and safety benefits due to
a lengthy section 7 consultation process
and any requirements imposed through
that process to minimize effects of the
action; (3) increased costs (such as
increased flood insurance rates)
imposed on the local community
through the National Flood Insurance
Program as a result of not meeting
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) requirements; (4) potential
damages to the communities that may
result if critical maintenance activities
are delayed; and (5) ‘‘additional
mitigation costs and potential conflicts
associated with flood control facilities.’’
Specifically, they stated the Palm
Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 41,
Stage 3 project alignment will provide
100-year flood protection to existing
downstream development currently
located within a FEMA-mapped Special
Flood Hazard Area.
The commenter argued that exclusion
of the wash would not result in
extinction of the species because the
species is frequently extirpated from the
wash by scouring events. The
commenter also stated exclusion of the
two isolated areas proposed as critical
habitat would not result in extinction of
the species because continued
occupancy and reproduction on-site is
not viable long-term. They argued that
occupancy in these two sites depends
on flightless females for reproduction,
and claimed the sites are isolated from
Palm Canyon Wash by existing
contiguous development and steep
rocky hillsides. They further stated that
a past Casey’s June beetle survey
indicated that species’ density in these
areas may be low (cited Bruyea 2006),
and beetles occupying this area may be
a remnant colony of past conditions
when dense urban development did not
separate it from Palm Canyon Wash.
The commenter concluded that
occupancy would eventually be lost and
recolonization from Palm Canyon Wash
would be unlikely.
Our Response: We considered the
commenter’s statement that Palm
Canyon Wash and areas within the
approved Palm Springs Master Drainage
Plan Line 41, Stage 3 project alignment
should be excluded from critical habitat
designation based on economic
hardship and public health and safety.
Any emergency or critical infrastructure
projects undertaken to protect public
health and safety can be appropriately
and quickly addressed through
emergency consultations. Furthermore,
the DEA and subsequent FEA attributed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
the majority of flood control activity
costs to the listing of the species as
endangered (baseline impacts), not to
designation of critical habitat
(incremental impacts). We will work
with the responsible agencies to
facilitate and expedite any consultations
regarding projects that may affect public
health and safety. Therefore, we do not
believe exclusion of Palm Canyon Wash
and areas within the approved Palm
Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 41,
Stage 3 project alignment from critical
habitat designation is justified.
Regarding the commenter’s
conclusion that recolonization is
unlikely following eventual loss of
occupancy in some areas designated as
critical habitat, we may determine that
artificial recolonization and
management will be required to achieve
species’ recovery. See also our response
to Comment 2 above regarding Casey’s
June beetle occupancy.
Comment 17: One commenter stated
they believe the designation of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle in Palm
Springs is not appropriate because it
does not ‘‘conform’’ to the Coachella
Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley
MSHCP).
A second commenter objected to
designation of the same property as
critical habitat for Casey’s June beetle
‘‘or any other species.’’ They stated this
property is planned for development as
a senior continued care retirement
community for the gay and lesbian
community in the city of Palm Springs.
They further asserted it is the last
available ‘‘[tribal] fee site’’ in the city of
Palm Springs large enough for the
planned development project, and is
ideally located for senior citizens
because it is close to medical care,
grocery stores, and public
transportation. They stated they should
get special consideration because gays
and lesbians have ‘‘been declared a
suspect and protected class of state
citizens by the California State Court.’’
Our Response: We reexamined the
soil maps with regard to the property
identified by these commenters, and
have determined the primary soil type
specified in PCE 1 (CdC) required for
critical habitat is not mapped on this
property. Therefore, we determined this
property does not meet the definition of
critical habitat (see also Summary of
Changes From the 2009 Proposed
Critical Habitat Rule, and response to
Comment 11 above) and did not
designate it as critical habitat. While we
appreciate the commenters’ concerns,
because we determined that these lands
do not meet the definition of critical
habitat, we did not further consider the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58985
commenters’ request for exclusion of
this area under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Comment 18: One commenter argued
portions of Smoke Tree Ranch should be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation. The commenter stated they
spent over 2 years negotiating a Casey’s
June beetle Candidate Conservation
Agreement (‘‘CCA’’) with the Service.
They argued that, although the CCA was
not finalized, they remain committed to
implementing the terms of the CCA and
have proceeded to implement it. They
further stated the Service, the Center for
Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club,
and the commenter spent 2 years
evaluating Smoke Tree Ranch habitat,
and areas identified as valuable habitat
have been placed under a conservation
easement monitored by the Center for
Natural Lands Management. The
commenter provided a copy of the
conservation easement deed in support
of their statement. The commenter
argued they are the only landowner who
has, to date, entered into binding
agreements to protect beetle habitat, and
the portions of their land not covered by
a conservation easement should be
considered for exclusion. The
commenter proposed to continue their
conservation partnership with the
Service to finalize the CCA if the species
is not listed or, should the species be
listed, to explore additional habitat
conservation within the easement, or
provide for adaptive management. They
cited exclusion precedents they believe
supported their request that critical
habitat designation should be limited to
areas covered by the conservation
easement, and the remainder of Smoke
Tree Ranch property should be
excluded from critical habitat.
The commenter further argued the
Service’s proposal to designate most of
Smoke Tree Ranch, including all homes
and property of residents, does not
reflect the best scientific data available
and ignores the definition of the species’
PCEs. The commenter suggested
designation of private homes and other
developed areas as critical habitat is
unprecedented. They expressed concern
that although the proposed rule text
purports to exclude ‘‘lands covered by
developed areas, such as buildings,
pavement, and other structures’ from
the critical habitat, it includes areas
around homes and structures and only
applies to existing structures. They
further concluded the ‘‘mere threat of
Service regulation of improvement or
modification of an existing home or
structure undermines public support for
the [Act] and distracts the scarce
resources of the Service from real and
important conservation challenges.’’
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58986
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
They stated even if the Service elects
not to exercise regulatory authority over
the activities of private homeowners at
Smoke Tree Ranch, the designation of
critical habitat will create a powerful
legal weapon for the use of third parties.
They stated Smoke Tree Ranch has also
recorded deed restrictions on all of the
property that restrict development and
retain native desert habitat as the
prominent property feature. The
commenter submitted a ‘‘form’’ of deed
restrictions (superseded) and an excerpt
of current Smoke Tree Ranch covenants,
conditions, and restrictions in support
of their statements.
Our Response: We considered the
commenter’s statements regarding
potential impacts resulting from the
critical habitat designation and their
request for exclusion of lands within
Smoke Tree Ranch not covered by the
conservation easement. We recognize
and appreciate the efforts made by
Smoke Tree Ranch, Inc., to assist in the
conservation of Casey’s June beetle, and
look forward to continuing to work with
these partners to assure that long-term
conservation and management is
assured for the species. However, after
considering the relevant impacts, the
Secretary is declining to exercise his
discretion to exclude these lands, in
part because we determined there were
no existing regulations or other
measures in place on these lands
redundant with protection provided by
critical habitat designation.
We do not agree that inclusion of
private homes and other developed
areas in areas mapped as designated
critical habitat is unprecedented. We
routinely include structures such as
single-family dwellings, and other
features that do not contain PCEs, in
areas mapped as designated critical
habitat because the scale of our mapping
does not allow us to remove such areas
from our maps. The cost and time
required to remove all areas that do not
contain the PCEs at the scale of a singlefamily dwelling would be prohibitive.
In the case of Smoke Tree Ranch, there
are occupied habitat patches distributed
within the developed area, making it
especially difficult to remove structures
from mapped areas. Where inclusion of
developed lands lacking PCEs in
mapped critical habitat cannot be
avoided, these areas are excluded by
text in this final rule and are not
designated as critical habitat.
Comments Related to Legal and
Procedural Issues
Comment 19: Two commenters
expressed concern that they were not
personally notified of the proposed
critical habitat designation, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
expressed concern that their legal rights
might be violated in the future. The first
commenter expressed concern that they
were ‘‘denied’’ a requested public
hearing. The second commenter
specifically requested an extension of
the 30-day comment period (initiated on
March 31, 2010, at 75 FR 16046) under
50 CFR 424.16(c)(2) because they were
not notified by the Service of the
proposed rule. They stated they were
not aware of the proposed rulemaking
until the City of Palm Springs informed
them in a letter on April 19, 2010. They
also stated that if their property was not
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation, they were requesting a
public hearing under 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3). Finally, the second
commenter argued that designation of
critical habitat would constitute
regulatory ‘‘taking’’ of their property.
Our Response: We considered the
commenters’ concerns regarding
notification of our proposed rulemaking
and the associated request for comment
period extension. Under 50 CFR
424.16(c)(2) the Secretary may extend or
reopen the period for public comment
on a proposed rule upon a finding that
there is good cause to do so. Under 50
CFR 424.16(c)(1)(iii), we gave notice of
the proposed regulation to local
authorities and private individuals
known to be affected by the rule. In
particular we notified the Tribe and the
City of Palm Springs who have
jurisdiction over the commenters’
properties. We did not know the
commenter would be affected by the
rule because we do not know the
identity of most private property owners
within a proposed critical habitat
designation prior to publication.
However, under 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(vi),
we published a public notice of the
proposed rulemaking on July 20, 2009,
in the local Desert Sun newspaper, at
the beginning of the first comment
period. Furthermore, as the second
commenter stated, the City notified
them personally of our proposed
rulemaking and open comment period
on April 19, 2010, in time to submit
their comments. Therefore, we
determined that lack of personal
notification of the commenters upon
publication of the proposed rule was not
a good cause to extend the 30-day
comment period.
We considered the commenters’
concerns and requests regarding the
opportunity for a public hearing. Under
50 CFR 424.16(c)(3), the Secretary shall
promptly hold at least one public
hearing if any person so requests within
45 days of publication of the proposed
regulation (during the first 60-day
comment period). The commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
submitted their requests more than
45 days after the proposed rule
published, during the second comment
period. We believe we fulfilled our
obligation under the Act to notify the
public of our proposed rulemaking, and
provided sufficient time to prepare and
submit comments (see above
discussion). Therefore, we informed the
commenters of our policies and
notifications, and did not hold a public
hearing as requested.
Regarding the commenter’s statement
that designating the property as critical
habitat would result in a ‘‘taking’’ of the
property, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation (see
Takings—Executive Order 12630, under
Required Determinations, below).
Comments Related to the Draft
Economic Analysis
Comments From Tribes
Comment 20: The Tribe and one tribal
member stated the Service’s
methodological approach of separately
estimating incremental impacts of the
designation relative to existing baseline
protections has been invalidated in
court and violates the Act.
Our Response: The estimation of
incremental impacts is consistent with
direction provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
Federal agencies for the estimation of
the costs and benefits of Federal
regulations (see OMB, Circular A–4,
2003). It is also consistent with several
recent court decisions, including Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F.
Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.) and Center for
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d
1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Those decisions
found that estimation of incremental
impacts stemming solely from the
designation of critical habitat is proper.
Comment 21: The Tribe and one other
commenter stated the DEA’s assignment
of costs to the baseline and incremental
scenarios relies on the untested
assumption that there is a 25-percent
chance of a negative or false negative
survey for the beetle at a given project
site. They asserted this approach is
inconsistent with real world experience
where project proponents, Federal
agencies, and the Service develop and
negotiate minimization and mitigation
strategies.
Our Response: Where a Federal nexus
is present, project proponents typically
engage biologists and survey to
determine whether listed species are
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
present prior to determining whether
consultation with the Service is
required. Thus, the presence or absence
of the beetle is a key factor in
determining whether a consultation will
go forward absent critical habitat. The
assumption about likely outcomes of
future surveys is necessary to estimate
the possible impacts in our FEA.
Comment 22: The Tribe asserted that
if 100 percent of critical habitat is
essential, then the economic analysis
should assume 100 percent of the area
will be fully and equally conserved due
to that critical habitat designation, not
only 25 percent.
Our Response: This comment appears
to reflect a misunderstanding of the
DEA, confusing all costs associated with
listing and critical habitat designation
with total costs of conserving areas
designated as critical habitat. The DEA
assumed 75 percent of all costs
associated with listing would occur due
to occupancy regardless if critical
habitat were designated (baseline), and
where there was no occupancy detected
(25 percent of the time), costs would be
attributable solely to critical habitat. In
areas where the beetle has been
previously identified, we expect
positive surveys, and all costs are
attributed to the baseline. The analysis
assumes 100-percent conservation of the
designated habitat; however, the
majority of the time, these areas would
have been conserved anyway as a result
of the presence of the beetle at the site.
Comment 23: The Tribe clarified it
has chosen not to delegate land use
authority to a local agent (e.g., the City
of Palm Springs) in the area of its
reservation south of Acanto Drive. This
area is subject to the Tribe’s Indian
Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning.
The Tribe states it was not contacted for
land use information in this area and
that the economic analysis should be
revised to consider tribal land uses and
controls in this area.
Our Response: The Service’s
consultants responsible for preparing
the DEA attempted to contact the Tribe
to collect information about land uses
and the potential impact of the
designation on reservation lands via
email and telephone multiple times
between August and October 2009;
however, the Tribe did not respond.
Therefore, consultants relied on
economic and other data they obtained
from the Tribe at the end of 2007 during
the preparation of the economic analysis
of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Ovis canadensis nelsoni
(Peninsular bighorn sheep). At that
time, the Tribe identified several
planned development projects north of
Acanto Drive that overlap proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
critical habitat for the beetle, including
the Eagle Canyon (Alturas) Project, the
Monte Sereno residential development,
and an unnamed residential
development project also identified in
the City of Palm Springs’ Canyon South
Specific Plan. Data provided by the
Tribe did not identify any planned
projects on tribal reservation lands
south of Acanto Drive.
We reviewed the Indian Canyons
Master Plan, which includes tribal
zoning maps, and have revised the
economic analysis to incorporate this
newer information. Specifically, that
plan identifies allotted trust and tribal
trust lands south of Acanto Drive zoned
for low density residential development
(2 dwelling units per ac (0.4 ha)) and
open space—rural development
(1 dwelling unit per ac (0.4 ha)). The
Tribe’s master plan outlines a vision for
the type of development it would like to
see, as opposed to demand, for
development expressed by the market.
The likelihood these lots will be
converted to residential housing in the
reasonably foreseeable future (e.g., the
next 10 to 20 years) is difficult to
predict. The City of Palm Springs is
predominantly built-out, increasing the
value of remaining, developable land. In
addition, parcels south of Acanto Drive
are adjacent to recently developed
parcels to the north and east, suggesting
this area may be subject to development
as the City of Palm Springs’’ population
grows. However, in its 2007 General
Plan, the City of Palm Springs reports
higher than optimal housing vacancy
rates, which is likely to depress housing
prices and the demand for raw land.
Data on sales transactions for these or
similar, undeveloped parcels are scarce,
and because the lands are not subject to
local real estate taxes, assessed values
are not available. Furthermore, lacking
information about the demand for and
timing of future development, it is not
possible to estimate the present value of
these parcels based on current housing
prices. Therefore, the potential impact
of critical habitat designation on these
parcels is discussed qualitatively in
Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Comment 24: One tribal commenter
stated the economic analysis should
consider the unique circumstances
regarding the loss of value of tribal
lands, which go beyond simple losses in
land value. Indian allotments represent
economic and cultural patrimony for the
allottee.
Our Response: Additional discussion
of these unique circumstances has been
added to Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Comment 25: One tribal member
commented they intend to sell their
4-ac (1.6-ha) property to help support
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58987
their children, who are not members of
the Tribe and, therefore, cannot inherit
tribal property or receive financial
support from the Tribe.
Our Response: Based on information
in the comment letter and our
independent mapping effort, the
commenter’s parcel appears to be part of
the Tribe’s allotted trust lands south of
Acanto Drive. According to the Indian
Canyons Master Plan, the parcel is
targeted for residential development at a
maximum density of 2 units per ac
(0.4 ha). Potential impacts to this parcel
are discussed in conjunction with other
tribal lands located in this area in
Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Comment 26: One apparent (based on
land property information) tribal
commenter asserted their parcel is
currently approved for three residences
and the total value of the parcel is
$3 million. They stated designating the
property as critical habitat would render
it undevelopable, resulting in a ‘‘taking’’
of the property.
Our Response: Based on information
provided in the comment letter, this
parcel appears to be part of the Tribe’s
allotted trust lands located south of
Acanto Drive. Depending on its exact
location, the parcel lies in an area zoned
for either two units per ac (0.4 ha) or
one unit per 40 ac (16 ha) consistent
with the Indian Canyons Master Plan.
The commenter provides no detail on
the approval of the 25-ac (10-ha)
property for three residences
(presumably by the tribal planning
authorities) or whether development of
the site is imminent. Land for the 56-ac
(23-ha) Eagle Canyon (Alturas)
development project located
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) northwest
of the site will be developed at a
significantly higher density of four units
per ac (0.4 ha) and sold for
approximately $6.6 million in 2007
(based on information obtained from the
Riverside County Assessor). Thus, the
subject parcel, which is less than half
the size, will be developed at a
significantly lower density, is farther
from the City of Palm Springs, and is
likely to have a present value that is less
than the $3 million value provided in
the comment letter. Potential impacts to
this parcel are discussed in conjunction
with other tribal lands located in this
area in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Regarding the commenter’s statement
that designating the property as critical
habitat would result in a ‘‘taking’’ of the
property, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation (see
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58988
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Takings—Executive Order 12630,
below).
Comment 27: The Tribe stated that in
the course of its ongoing section
10(a)(1)(B) habitat conservation plan
(HCP) permit consultation process with
the Service, the Service indicated if
Casey’s June beetle is not covered by the
draft HCP, it will ‘‘exclude’’ 2,160 ac
(874 ha) from HCP coverage. The Tribe
noted this ‘‘exclusion’’ area is greater
than the area containing recent and
historic Casey’s June beetle observation
records and expressed concern that it
includes areas never before identified as
potential habitat for this species. The
Tribe contended this HCP ‘‘exclusion’’
area is equivalent to expansion of
critical habitat to almost four times the
proposed area and requests the costs of
this larger area be included in the
economic analysis.
Our Response: The Tribe notified us
in a letter dated October 6, 2010, that
they suspended their pursuit of a
section 10(a) permit for their draft HCP
(ACBCI 2010a, p. 1). The Tribe is
continuing to implement the draft HCP
and will continue to protect and manage
natural resources within its jurisdiction
(ACBCI 2010b, p. ES–1). This final rule
reflects the best available information
we have at this time regarding the areas
that meet the definition of critical
habitat. It is possible that, as we learn
more about the species, new areas may
be identified as potential habitat for the
species. Critical habitat designations do
not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not
be required for recovery. Areas outside
the critical habitat designation will
continue to be subject to conservation
actions that may be implemented under
section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the
section 9 take prohibition, as
determined on the basis of the best
available information at the time of the
action. 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, or other species conservation
planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Regarding Tribe’s request that these
areas be included in the economic
analysis, any additional costs related to
any areas outside the designation would
result from the listing of the species, not
critical habitat designation. The focus of
an economic analysis is the incremental
cost of critical habitat designation.
Thus, the geographic scope of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
analysis is limited to the areas
designated as critical habitat.
Furthermore, section 4(b)(1) of the Act
specifically prohibits the consideration
of economic impacts in decisions
concerning the listing of a species.
Therefore, impacts associated with
species listing to areas outside of
proposed critical habitat are not
included in an economic analysis.
Public Comments on the Economic
Analysis
Comment 28: One commenter stated
the discount rate applied should be
reevaluated given current economic
conditions.
Our Response: The U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
requires Federal agencies to report
results using discount rates of 3 and 7
percent (see OMB, Circular A–4, 2003).
Furthermore, most of the costs
presented in the DEA are based on
current land values derived from
assessor’s data and adjusted to current
dollars using retrospective price
indexes. Thus, these values are not
influenced by the discount rate
assumption.
Comment 29: One commenter stated
the DEA did not clearly define how it
estimates potential costs associated with
time delays, regulatory uncertainty, and
stigma.
Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA
and subsequent FEA defines these
categories of cost for the purposes of the
analysis. Data are not readily available
to quantify potential impacts from
regulatory uncertainty and stigma; thus
they are only discussed qualitatively.
For residential and commercial
development projects that may proceed
with modification, the value of potential
time delays resulting from the need for
additional section 7 or CEQA review
should be less than the value of the
property; otherwise the project would
likely be cancelled. Given the
uncertainty regarding viable reasonable
and prudent alternatives, the DEA (and
FEA) estimated an upper-bound impact
equivalent to the total value of the
parcels. We discuss potential delay
costs to flood damage reduction projects
qualitatively in Chapter 4 of the FEA
because the data required to quantify
impacts are unavailable.
Comment 30: One commenter stated
the DEA failed to acknowledge the
impact to species or the costs to
conservation efforts that will accrue due
to any exclusions or failure to include
additional habitat required for species
recovery.
Our Response: The commenter
implied exclusion of lands from critical
habitat and failure to include additional
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lands (outside of those proposed) would
result in increased species’’ recovery
costs. Data and models required to
understand changes in recovery
probability are not readily available.
Thus, such costs to the species of
excluding areas cannot be quantified at
this time. The DEA evaluated regulatory
alternatives proposed by the Service,
effectively the designation of all or some
combination of the proposed lands.
Evaluation of costs or benefits of
designating lands outside the proposal
are beyond the scope of the economic
analysis. Additionally, we do not
believe that our exclusion of 11 ac (4 ha)
tribal trust reservation lands (see Tribal
Reservation Lands under Exclusions) is
likely to result in increased costs
associated with species conservation.
Regarding possible failure to include
additional habitat required for recovery,
the lands that we determined meet the
definition of critical habitat are what we
consider essential for conservation of
the species. Therefore, we do not
believe conservation costs would accrue
due to exclusion of lands from or noninclusion of lands in critical habitat
designation.
Comment 31: One commenter stated
the Service’s economic analysis
framework ignores indirect and
cumulative effects of critical habitat
designation. They asserted measurement
of these types of impacts is required
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
Our Response: Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and OMB’s Circular A–4, which
provides direction to Federal agencies
on the implementation of Executive
Order 12866, represent the framework
used to estimate the costs and benefits
of regulations promulgated by all
Federal agencies. They do not require
the estimation of indirect or cumulative
impacts. Furthermore, section 4(b)(2) of
the Act is silent on the definition of
‘‘economic impacts’’ to be considered
prior to the designation of critical
habitat. Thus, the Service relies on the
well-established and universally
followed principals laid out in OMB’s
Circular A–4.
Comment 32: One commenter pointed
out the DEA noted, ‘‘the City of Palm
Springs has not mandated changes in a
project’s design as a result of critical
habitat designation for other species.’’
They asserted this statement is
inaccurate, and stated that nearly
15 years ago the City of Palm Springs
worked with the Service to revise plans
for the Mountain Falls, Palm Hills, and
Shadowrock projects to support
restoration of the Peninsular bighorn
sheep.
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Our Response: Language has been
added to the FEA to clarify that the City
of Palm Springs has not mandated
changes in a project’s design to address
listed species conservation without
input from the Service and the
California Department of Fish and Game
to facilitate these changes. With regards
to changes proposed by the wildlife
agencies to protect the Peninsular
bighorn sheep, proposed changes were
due to the presence of the sheep, not
critical habitat. Fifteen years ago, no
critical habitat was designated for the
Peninsular bighorn sheep.
Comment 33: One commenter argued
the economic analysis should rely on
the fair market value of affected parcels
rather than the assessed or adjusted
values.
Our Response: Fair market value is
determined through observed sales
transactions for parcels of land. Given
the small size of the designation and the
recent economic downturn, sales of raw
land within critical habitat in the last
year are rare. Therefore, as described in
Chapter 3, the economic analysis relies
on assessed values, which are based on
the most recent sales transaction for the
parcel and adjusted for changes in the
value of homes or commercial property
in the region since the date of that
transaction using retrospective indices.
We believe the assessor’s values
represent the best available data.
Comment 34: One commenter asked
how the estimate of $12,703,000 of
baseline costs referenced in the
document announcing the availability of
the DEA was derived (75 FR 16046;
March 31, 2010). A second commenter
stated that in assessing the costs of
designating critical habitat, the Service
must look only at the incremental cost
and should not consider costs
attributable to the listing alone. They
commended the Service for clearly
separating baseline costs from the
incremental costs of the designation.
Our Response: This estimate is the
total of the present value impacts,
assuming a 7 percent discount rate,
presented in Exhibit ES–4 of the DEA.
This Exhibit has been updated in the
FEA based on new information. We
appreciate the second commenter’s
opinion and agree that our methods
were appropriate.
Comment 35: One commenter noted
the DEA provides caveats to its cost
estimates describing the possibility that
impacts may be reduced if reasonable
and prudent alternatives to specific
projects are possible. The commenter
stated the report should instead simply
acknowledge that designation results in
the complete loss of value of the
affected parcels.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Our Response: Given the high degree
of uncertainty associated with the
potential outcome of specific future
section 7 consultations or the CEQA
review process, the DEA made the
simplifying assumption that affected
parcel value could be lost completely.
This assumption is intended to bound
potential impacts to developable
parcels. However, as described in the
report, the Service believes that if a
project is likely to adversely modify
critical habitat it may be possible to
maintain the viability of the project
through the development of reasonable
and prudent alternatives, resulting in
impacts that are less than projected.
Comment 36: One landowner stated
they intend to build a home and a guest
house on their approximately 2.7-ac
(1.1 ha) parcel located at 2540 Araby
Drive. They stated they believe
designation of critical habitat would
prevent their development plans from
being realized and lower the value of
their land.
Our Response: Chapter 3 of the FEA
was revised to include this development
project. The effect of critical habitat on
development plans depends on the
presence of a Federal nexus, and in the
absence of a nexus, actions taken by the
City of Palm Springs in response to the
designation. However, see Comment 11
above for further discussion of this land;
we ultimately did not include it in this
final critical habitat designation.
Comment 37: One commenter stated
they own two lots that they are holding
for possible development of a small
home for personal use. They are
opposed to critical habitat designation if
it restricts their ability to develop the
lots. If development is precluded, they
stated they would like to sell the
property to a conservation organization.
Our Response: A discussion of the
value of these lots has been added to
Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Comment 38: One commenter stated
the designation of private homes and
other developed areas within Smoke
Tree Ranch is unprecedented. They
argued the designation of critical habitat
would threaten the ‘‘specter of Federal
regulatory control over home
maintenance, landscaping, and other
normal routine activities.’’ They
expressed concern that despite the
Service’s textual exclusion of developed
areas, this exclusion does not apply to
the areas around the homes or future
modifications to the existing structure.
Our Response: The activities
described above are unlikely to involve
a Federal agency; thus section 7
consultation is not anticipated. City of
Palm Springs permitting is also unlikely
to be required for the routine activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58989
Future modifications to existing
structures could require approval from
the City of Palm Springs’ planning or
building departments. Given the
existing conservation easement in place
at Smoke Tree Ranch to protect Casey’s
June beetle, and the deed restrictions
associated with individual homes, local
authorities are unlikely to require
additional protection measures for the
beetle. Any additional protection
measures would be due to the presence
of the listed beetle and therefore will
occur regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated. The FEA discusses
the data needed to quantify these
baseline impacts; however, data
limitations prevent the quantification of
such impacts at this time.
Comment 39: One commenter stated
the DEA underestimates potential
economic losses at Smoke Tree Ranch
for two reasons. First, it omits the value
of undeveloped lots. Second, it ignores
the potential decreases in property
value for developed parcels resulting
from the stigma associated with the
designation and the inability of these
homeowners to make home
improvements.
Our Response: The comment is not
explicit as to whether the referenced
undeveloped lots are lots targeted as
homesites that simply have not been
developed yet, or are parcels adjacent to
homes that comprise part of the home’s
value but are likely to remain
undeveloped to protect the viewshed
and natural aesthetics of the community
(view lots). Chapter 3 of the FEA has
been updated to include the value of
currently undeveloped lots that are not
part of Smoke Tree Ranch’s
conservation easement. This value
represents an upper-bound estimate of
the potential impacts of restricting
development because we are unable to
distinguish between sites targeted for
development and lots likely to remain
undeveloped permanently to protect the
viewshed. Potential impacts are
attributed to the baseline scenario based
on the known presence of the beetle.
It is possible the designation of
critical habitat may stigmatize existing
homes, reducing their value, if potential
buyers are concerned they will not be
able to modify or improve the existing
structures due to the designation.
However, given the potential for
existing stigma associated with the
presence of the beetle and current deed
restrictions, it is difficult to measure the
potential incremental decrease in value.
Therefore, this issue is discussed
qualitatively in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
Comment 40: One commenter stated
that the Gay and Lesbian Association of
Retiring Persons, Inc. (GLARP), a
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58990
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
nonprofit organization, has been in the
planning stages of developing senior
housing in Palm Springs for the last 10
years. After several unsuccessful
attempts involving other parcels, the
organization has identified the Rim
Rock property as their last remaining
option. The owner is prepared to sell to
GLARP; however, designation of critical
habitat may affect the development
potential of the parcel. Therefore,
GLARP objects to the designation of this
property as Casey’s June beetle critical
habitat, citing the hardship that will be
caused to the senior gays and lesbians,
a protected class of California citizens.
Our Response: This additional
information regarding the potential use
of the Wessman property has been
added to Chapter 3 of the FEA. This
land is not included in this final critical
habitat designation due to lack of PCEs.
See response to Comment 17 above for
more information.
Comment 41: One commenter stated
their property, located at the southwest
corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and
Matthew Drive (referred to in the DEA
as the ‘‘Rainbow Vision’’ site), has
approval from the City for development
of a mixed-use retirement community.
The original recipient of the approvals
was Rainbow Vision Palm Springs LLC;
however, through a series of
transactions in 2008, the commenter
became the fee owner and acquired all
development rights related to the
project. The commenter stated the value
of the property reported in the DEA is
understated, because the property is
fully entitled for development.
Our Response: The FEA has been
updated to reflect current ownership
information, development approvals,
and the confirmed presence of the beetle
at the property. As described in Chapter
3, the DEA relied on assessor’s data to
estimate property values. The
assessments are based on the market
value of the property at the date of its
most recent acquisition and adjusted
annually thereafter based on the
California Consumer Price Index. The
commenter’s property is comprised of
two parcels that were sold in 2008 and
2009. Thus, the market data relied upon
by the assessor is current and likely
reflects the entitled status of the
property (project approval was granted
by the Palm Springs City Council on
March 19, 2008). The landowner did not
provide an alternate estimate of the
market value of the property; therefore,
we relied on the existing estimate
presented in the DEA.
Comment 42: One commenter stated
the DEA should consider the cost of
maintenance activities beyond
sedimentation removal (e.g., grading,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
erosion repair, vegetation removal)
within the Palm Canyon Wash channel
and levee system.
Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA
includes language indicating other
maintenance activities may be affected
by the critical habitat designation, but
detailed information about these
activities is not available to calculate
cost estimates.
Comment 43: In relation to the flood
control projects, one commenter
expressed concern the DEA did not
provide Federal decision makers a
complete and accurate estimate of the
incremental costs associated with the
proposed critical habitat designation.
They argued the DEA did not evaluate
scenarios that could occur if flooding
and scouring events within the
maintained Palm Canyon Wash channel
and levee system periodically eliminate
suitable habitat for the beetle and
preclude beetle occupancy and section
7 consultations are still required due to
the critical habitat designation.
Our Response: While it is true that
flooding and scouring events within the
maintained Palm Canyon Wash channel
and levee system could periodically
eliminate beetle occupancy, we believe
these events would not eliminate
suitable habitat nor preclude
recolonization during the next active
beetle season following a given event.
We believe this area, regardless of
periodic flooding and scouring events is
occupied because within the area:
(1) There is consistently high
population abundance; (2) there are
consistent positive survey findings; and
(3) the location of the wash at the center
of the species’ current range and known
population distribution. Therefore, the
costs associated with projects within
Palm Canyon Wash are appropriately
considered baseline costs associated
with listing, and not critical habitat
designation.
Comment 44: One commenter stated
the DEA is based on the inaccurate
assumption that all Palm Canyon Wash
maintenance activities would always
involve a Federal nexus under section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The
commenter also pointed out the
proposed critical habitat designation has
the potential to increase the costs of
State and local approvals (such as
CEQA) associated with maintenance
activities that are similar to potential
increased Federal regulatory costs.
Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA
clarifies that some Palm Canyon Wash
maintenance activities may not have a
Federal nexus. Although unlikely,
where no Federal nexus exists, the City
of Palm Springs may request project
modifications via its review under
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CEQA. The CEQA review process may
be affected by the critical habitat
designation in a manner similar to that
for section 7 consultation.
Comment 45: Two commenters stated
the DEA did not evaluate the potential
increased flood insurance cost, and the
costs associated with increased flood
risks and damages, if critical habitat
designation delayed flood damage
reduction activities. They suggested
these costs may be reflected as reduced
property values.
Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA
presents the cost of sedimentation
removal as the low-end estimate of the
lost value that would result if the
Riverside County FCWCD is not able to
carry out maintenance activities. It is
likely the lost value is higher. This
value may include increased flood
insurance cost and increased flood risks
and damages, but data required to
quantify these costs are not readily
available. Similarly, the FEA states that
if the Palm Springs Master Drainage
Plan (MDP) Line 41, Stage 3 Flood
Control Project cannot move forward
then increased risk to health and human
safety from floods and increase cost of
flood insurance may result. Again, data
do not exist to quantify these costs.
Comment 46: One commenter
described possible mitigation measures
that may be required for Palm Canyon
Wash maintenance activities to avoid
adverse modification.
Our Response: Chapter 4 focuses
specifically on sedimentation removal
within Palm Canyon Wash. The FEA
assumes that the Riverside County
FCWCD will be prevented from carrying
out sedimentation removal due to
presence of the beetle and presents the
cost of sedimentation removal as the
low-end estimate of the lost value of this
activity. The FEA notes it is possible the
Service will find complete avoidance of
sedimentation removal is not necessary
and may recommend reasonable and
prudent alternatives or other
conservation measures to avoid adverse
modification. Measures requested by the
Service may be similar to those outlined
in the MDP Line 41, Stage 3 Flood
Control Project, including replacement
of permanently impacted suitable
habitat at a 2:1 ratio with offsite habitat
creation or enhancement, or a mitigation
fee of $5,730 per ac (0.4 ha). The
Riverside County FCWCD suggested the
sedimentation removal project could
permanently impact 47 ac (19 ha) of
habitat, resulting in the need for a 94ac (38-ha) mitigation area or
approximately $269,000 in mitigation
fees.
Comment 47: One commenter took
issue with the fact that the DEA
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
assumed all costs associated with the
MDP Line 41, Stage 3 Flood Control
Project, except for a portion of the
administrative costs of consultation
related to adding adverse modification
to the consultation, are considered
baseline.
Our Response: Because a Federal
nexus is present and the project location
has had positive surveys for the beetle
in the past, all costs, except for a portion
of the administrative costs of
consultation related to adding adverse
modification to the consultation, are
considered baseline. The FEA notes that
the entire project may not fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, but similar impacts would
likely be felt as the result of challenges
to previously prepared CEQA
documents. Based on the best available
scientific information, including several
recent studies and multiple years of
positive surveys, the Service considers
all of Palm Canyon Wash to be entirely
occupied (see New Species Information
above), and will continue to view this
area as occupied; thus costs are
considered baseline (see our responses
to Comments 22 and 46 above).
Comment 48: One commenter stated
the potential slowing of development as
a result of critical habitat designation
and the corresponding reduction in
infrastructure needs has an economic
benefit of reducing greenhouse gas
emission. They argued this benefit
should be assessed in the FEA.
Our Response: Whether the proposed
designation will have a measurable
impact on greenhouse gas emissions is
subject to considerable uncertainty.
First, many of the development projects
discussed are already sited in areas with
existing infrastructure; thus new roads
and utilities may not be required.
Furthermore, certain projects may find
alternate locations, redistributing
emissions geographically without
producing a net reduction. Finally, the
Service has stated previously that the
underlying causes of climate change are
complex global issues that are beyond
the scope of the Act (see 74 FR 56070;
October 29, 2009). Thus, the potential
for such benefits is not discussed in the
FEA.
Comment 49: One commenter stated
the designation of tribal reservation
lands as critical habitat may encourage
the Tribe to relocate these projects to
other reservation lands where housing
and commercial buildings can be
constructed more efficiently. They
suggested that, alternatively, existing
housing in the area could be purchased
at a deep discount in the current
economic climate. They asserted that in
failing to look at these alternatives,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
estimates in the DEA of foregone
economic value are grossly inaccurate.
Our Response: Regardless of whether
other options are available to the Tribe,
potentially removing the existing
development potential associated with
designated parcels represents a real loss
of resource value that should be
quantified in the analysis. Furthermore,
the majority of the reservation lands
proposed for designation (75 percent)
are either allotted trust lands held in
trust for the benefit of individual tribal
members (or their heirs), or fee-title
lands owned by individuals who may or
may not be members of the Tribe. Thus,
these individuals may not have
alternative reservation lands available to
them, or their substitution options may
be limited and already slated for
development (see Chapter 3 of the FEA
and Comment 23 above). In these cases,
potential losses estimated in the DEA
are unlikely to be offset. Furthermore,
these parcels are often seen as an
investment to be sold to a developer,
rather than as a source of housing for
tribal members. To make members
whole, the Tribe would need to provide
alternative parcels of land of equal
value. The development value of the
designated parcel is still lost to society,
even though the impact has been
redistributed from individuals to the
tribal entity. Finally, we assume the
Tribe is a rational economic actor whose
current development plans represent the
most efficient allocation of resources.
Thus, if alternative sites are developed,
these are likely to be second-best
options. These alternative parcels may
experience an increase in value;
however, that increase is not likely to
completely compensate for the lost
value of the designated parcels. The
data required to estimate such net
effects are not readily available.
Comment 50: One commenter stated
the DEA failed to include consideration
of all benefits that would result from
critical habitat designation, such as the
preservation of open space; protecting
and improving water quality by
maintaining the alluvial fan in its
natural state; preservation of natural
habitat for other species, including
those displaced by global warming;
prevention of development in flood
prone areas; and reduction of hazards
(e.g., wildfires, erosion) associated with
development on the alluvial fan. They
asserted the DEA assumed the market
accounts for these benefits and
suggested these benefits should be
assessed and quantified where possible
or otherwise included in a detailed
qualitative analysis.
Our Response: As described in
Chapter 5 of the DEA, the purpose of
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58991
critical habitat is to support the
conservation of Casey’s June beetle. The
data required to estimate and value in
monetary terms incremental changes in
the probability of conservation resulting
from the designation are not available.
Depending on the project modifications
ultimately implemented as a result of
the regulation, other ancillary benefits
that are not the stated objective of
critical habitat (such as increasing the
value of homes adjacent to preserved
habitat or preserving habitat for other
non-listed species) may occur. We do
not assume that these benefits have been
accounted for in development decisions
made by the market; rather, these
benefits are discussed qualitatively. The
FEA (5.1.111) has been revised to
include discussion of the new ancillary
benefit categories referenced in the
comment.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order (E.O.)
12866. OMB bases its determination
upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an
agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations,
and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58992
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
In this final rule, we are certifying that
the critical habitat designation for
Casey’s June beetle will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our
rationale.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations, such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term significant economic
impact is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the rule could
significantly affect a substantial number
of small entities, we consider the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., development). We apply the
‘‘substantial number’’ test individually
to each industry to determine if
certification is appropriate. However,
the SBREFA does not explicitly define
‘‘substantial number’’ or ‘‘significant
economic impact.’’ Consequently, to
assess whether a ‘‘substantial number’’
of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely
to be impacted in an area. In some
circumstances, especially with critical
habitat designations of limited extent,
we may aggregate across all industries
and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial.
In estimating the number of small
entities potentially affected, we also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
consider whether their activities have
any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only
affects activities authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have
any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat
designation. In areas where the species
is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may
affect Casey’s June beetle. Federal
agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat,
therefore, could result in an additional
economic impact on small entities due
to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal
activities (see Application of the
‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard
section).
In our final economic analysis of the
critical habitat designation, we
evaluated the potential economic effects
on small business entities resulting from
implementation of conservation actions
related to the designation of critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle. The
analysis identifies the estimated
incremental impacts associated with the
proposed rulemaking, as described in
Appendix A of the analysis, and
evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to activity categories
including residential and commercial
development, tribal activities, flood
control activities, and recreational
activities. The analysis concludes that
the incremental impacts resulting from
this rulemaking that may be borne by
small businesses will be associated only
with development. Incremental impacts
are either not expected for the other
types of activities considered or, if
expected, will not be borne by small
entities.
As discussed in Appendix A of the
final economic analysis, the largest
impacts of the proposed rule on small
businesses would potentially result
indirectly from CEQA compliance
associated with the identified
development projects. In the 20-year
time frame for the analysis, one
developer (the analysis identifies two;
however, we did not include the lands
owned by one of these companies in
this final critical habitat designation)
may experience significant impacts. The
one-time costs resulting from
compliance with CEQA, including
administrative time spent by the
businesses, compensation costs, and the
value of time delays, total
approximately $400,000 (7 percent
discount rate present value impacts).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
These costs result from complete
avoidance of habitat under CEQA that
could occur even in the absence of
critical habitat designation. The final
economic analysis did not specify if this
business qualifies as a small business;
however, as it is the only business that
may be significantly affected, the
number of small entities significantly
affected is not substantial.
In summary, we considered whether
the rule will result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For the above
reasons and based on currently available
information, we conclude that this rule
will not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, we are certifying that
the designation of critical habitat for
Casey’s June beetle will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use—
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
E.O. 13211 on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. The OMB’s
guidance for implementing this
Executive Order outlines nine outcomes
that may constitute ‘‘a significant
adverse effect’’ when compared to not
taking the regulatory action under
consideration. The final economic
analysis finds that none of these criteria
are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based
on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with Casey’s June beetle
conservation activities within the
critical habitat designation are not
expected. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501),
we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal
governments,’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does
not apply, nor does critical habitat shift
the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above on to State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it would not
produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or greater in any year; that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Act. The FEA concludes incremental
impacts may occur due to project
modifications that may need to be made
for development and flood control
activities; however, these are not
expected to affect small governments.
Incremental impacts are expected to be
borne by the Riverside County FCWCD,
which is not considered a small
government based on the county’s
population. Consequently, we do not
believe that the critical habitat
designation will significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(‘‘Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating 587 ac (237 ha) of lands in
Riverside County, California, as critical
habitat for Casey’s June beetle in a
takings implications assessment. Critical
habitat designation does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that
this designation of critical habitat for
Casey’s June beetle does not pose
significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism summary impact statement
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 designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in
California. The designation may have
some benefit to State and local
governments because the areas that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of Casey’s
June beetle are specifically identified.
This information does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur. However, it may assist these
local governments in long-range
planning (rather than having them wait
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58993
for case-by-case section 7 consultations
to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action may be indirectly impacted by
the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have designated
critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. This final rule
uses standard property descriptions and
identifies the features essential to the
conservation of the species within the
designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of
Casey’s June beetle.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The rule does not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Tenth Circuit, we
do not need to prepare environmental
analyses under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld by the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58994
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516
U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal reservation lands are not subject
to the same controls as Federal public
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information
available to tribes. We identified tribal
reservation lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat for Casey’s
June beetle. There has been a substantial
amount of government-to-government
consultation between the Tribe and
Service on developing the draft Tribal
HCP and this rulemaking process for
Casey’s June beetle. Although the Tribe
informed us in an October 28, 2008,
letter that they removed Casey’s June
beetle from the list of species addressed
in the draft Tribal HCP, they indicated
they will ‘‘continue to informally
coordinate with the Service regarding
this species where it occurs on the
Reservation.’’ The Tribe stated they are
deferring to the Service to allow ‘‘the
Service to take the lead in addressing
how to effectively conserve and protect
this species’’ (ACBCI 2008, p. 1).
Although the Tribe has suspended their
pursuit of a section 10(a) permit (ACBCI
2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to
implement the draft HCP and will
continue to protect and manage natural
resources within its jurisdiction (ACBCI,
2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES–1). We
will continue to work cooperatively
with the Tribe on efforts to conserve
Casey’s June beetle. We believe the
exclusion of tribal trust reservation
lands from critical habitat will help
preserve and strengthen the partnership
we have developed with the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,
reinforce those relations we are building
with other tribes, and foster future
partnerships and development of future
management plans with both Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and
other tribes throughout the United
States. At this time the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
tribal trust lands (i.e., non-fee, nonallotted lands) from critical habitat (see
Tribal Reservation Lands discussion
under Exclusions, above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rulemaking is available on
Species
Common name
*
*
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Beetle, Casey’s June’’, in
alphabetical order under ‘‘INSECTS,’’ to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Vertebrate population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic
range
Scientific name
https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
*
Status
*
*
When
listed
*
Critical
habitat
*
Special
rules
*
INSECTS
*
*
*
Beetle, Casey’s June ........... Dinacoma caseyi ................
*
*
U.S.A.
(CA)
*
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Casey’s June Beetle
(Dinacoma caseyi),’’ in the same
alphabetical order that the species
appears in the table at § 17.11(h), to read
as follows:
*
*
Entire ..................................
*
*
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
■
Casey’s June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi)
§ 17.95
(1) The critical habitat unit is
depicted for Riverside County in
California on the map below.
(2) Within this area, the primary
constituent elements of critical habitat
for Casey’s June beetle are the habitat
components that provide:
(i) Soils of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly
sand and Riverwash (RA) series, or
inclusions of Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC)
series soils, or inclusions of Myoma fine
*
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
(i) Insects.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
*
E
Sfmt 4700
*
793
*
17.95(i)
NA
*
sands (MaB) or Coachella fine sands
(CpA) within CdC soils, at or below 620
ft (189 m) in elevation, associated with
washes and alluvial fans deposited on
0 to 9 percent slopes to provide space
for population growth and reproduction,
moisture, and food sources; and
(ii) Predominantly native desert
vegetation, to provide shelter from
traffic-related mortality and food for the
species.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
lands covered by manmade structures,
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Data
layers defining the map unit were
created on a base of USGS 7.5′
quadrangles, and the critical habitat unit
was then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates
zone 11, North American Datum (NAD)
1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Map of critical habitat for
Casey’s June beetle follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
ER22SE11.006
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
such as buildings, aqueducts, airports,
and roads, existing on the effective date
of this rule and not containing one or
more of the primary constituent
elements.
58995
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
58996
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Palm Springs: Palm Canyon Wash,
Riverside County, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Palm
Springs and Cathedral City, land
bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): (E, N): 546545,
3740363; 546556, 3740362; 546566,
3740362; 546577, 3740362; 546587,
3740362; 546595, 3740361; 546603,
3740360; 546608, 3740360; 546614,
3740359; 546625, 3740360; 546637,
3740361; 546650, 3740363; 546657,
3740362; 546667, 3740364; 546668,
3740364; 546674, 3740364; 546680,
3740362; 546700, 3740357; 546722,
3740353; 546734, 3740350; 546746,
3740348; 546756, 3740350; 546764,
3740355; 546767, 3740358; 546768,
3740359; 546789, 3740351; 546791,
3740349; 546791, 3740343; 546795,
3740334; 546799, 3740329; 546805,
3740325; 546810, 3740322; 546821,
3740320; 546823, 3740320; 546833,
3740314; 546865, 3740301; 546941,
3740289; 546971, 3740284; 546980,
3740284; 547001, 3740284; 547022,
3740282; 547038, 3740280; 547058,
3740277; 547075, 3740275; 547086,
3740279; 547092, 3740281; 547093,
3740281; 547104, 3740290; 547115,
3740290; 547133, 3740287; 547158,
3740281; 547169, 3740278; 547170,
3740278; 547175, 3740272; 547183,
3740257; 547192, 3740251; 547199,
3740249; 547199, 3740249; 547241,
3740242; 547291, 3740233; 547343,
3740225; 547345, 3740225; 547360,
3740231; 547371, 3740237; 547382,
3740231; 547395, 3740224; 547408,
3740219; 547425, 3740213; 547442,
3740210; 547449, 3740209; 547464,
3740209; 547473, 3740207; 547482,
3740202; 547488, 3740193; 547488,
3740183; 547480, 3740159; 547474,
3740137; 547473, 3740133; 547468,
3740120; 547455, 3740117; 547446,
3740116; 547436, 3740123; 547418,
3740129; 547397, 3740136; 547380,
3740141; 547354, 3740148; 547344,
3740151; 547323, 3740159; 547285,
3740167; 547274, 3740168; 547267,
3740170; 547212, 3740182; 547147,
3740193; 547092, 3740199; 547017,
3740206; 546951, 3740207; 546942,
3740207; 546890, 3740206; 546840,
3740206; 546782, 3740206; 546740,
3740205; 546722, 3740205; 546721,
3740204; 546717, 3740204; 546693,
3740203; 546650, 3740201; 546584,
3740199; 546513, 3740197; 546387,
3740193; 546325, 3740191; 546220,
3740191; 546158, 3740190; 546119,
3740188; 546081, 3740185; 546024,
3740181; 546000, 3740177; 545991,
3740176; 545976, 3740173; 545955,
3740169; 545938, 3740168; 545908,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
3740158; 545884, 3740153; 545855,
3740146; 545821, 3740135; 545781,
3740122; 545754, 3740111; 545748,
3740109; 545743, 3740106; 545742,
3740106; 545717, 3740096; 545699,
3740088; 545681, 3740081; 545664,
3740073; 545646, 3740064; 545629,
3740055; 545612, 3740046; 545595,
3740037; 545578, 3740028; 545550,
3740010; 545533, 3740000; 545516,
3739989; 545499, 3739977; 545483,
3739965; 545467, 3739953; 545450,
3739941; 545435, 3739929; 545431,
3739926; 545427, 3739923; 545425,
3739921; 545419, 3739916; 545404,
3739903; 545388, 3739889; 545373,
3739876; 545359, 3739862; 545344,
3739848; 545330, 3739833; 545330,
3739833; 545330, 3739833; 545330,
3739833; 545330, 3739833; 545329,
3739833; 545329, 3739833; 545329,
3739833; 545329, 3739832; 545329,
3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545329,
3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545329,
3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545328,
3739832; 545326, 3739830; 545306,
3739812; 545305, 3739811; 545305,
3739808; 545303, 3739801; 545297,
3739796; 545297, 3739796; 545285,
3739787; 545276, 3739771; 545272,
3739754; 545271, 3739750; 545269,
3739731; 545260, 3739722; 545250,
3739712; 545248, 3739704; 545243,
3739689; 545232, 3739657; 545229,
3739650; 545229, 3739649; 545223,
3739639; 545201, 3739601; 545201,
3739601; 545180, 3739575; 545179,
3739573; 545178, 3739572; 545171,
3739562; 545155, 3739540; 545149,
3739536; 545146, 3739535; 545142,
3739533; 545139, 3739528; 545138,
3739523; 545137, 3739517; 545137,
3739509; 545138, 3739501; 545145,
3739496; 545152, 3739491; 545152,
3739491; 545153, 3739490; 545155,
3739477; 545155, 3739477; 545151,
3739474; 545145, 3739470; 545135,
3739465; 545129, 3739462; 545126,
3739460; 545122, 3739454; 545121,
3739453; 545121, 3739453; 545120,
3739449; 545120, 3739444; 545120,
3739437; 545120, 3739430; 545117,
3739423; 545117, 3739423; 545116,
3739416; 545115, 3739409; 545114,
3739408; 545108, 3739398; 545106,
3739396; 545094, 3739353; 545055,
3739334; 545046, 3739330; 545045,
3739330; 545045, 3739334; 545023,
3739334; 545023, 3739331; 545023,
3739330; 545002, 3739330; 544997,
3739330; 544995, 3739331; 544990,
3739330; 544978, 3739327; 544965,
3739325; 544941, 3739321; 544929,
3739319; 544924, 3739318; 544921,
3739317; 544921, 3739320; 544915,
3739326; 544911, 3739332; 544909,
3739334; 544895, 3739331; 544878,
3739327; 544868, 3739321; 544864,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3739309; 544860, 3739295; 544821,
3739281; 544792, 3739270; 544775,
3739264; 544767, 3739261; 544754,
3739256; 544751, 3739253; 544748,
3739249; 544726, 3739226; 544725,
3739226; 544722, 3739226; 544718,
3739224; 544709, 3739219; 544709,
3739218; 544703, 3739211; 544701,
3739200; 544699, 3739186; 544697,
3739181; 544691, 3739169; 544669,
3739152; 544642, 3739130; 544576,
3739067; 544533, 3739029; 544487,
3739002; 544487, 3739002; 544485,
3739001; 544435, 3738976; 544434,
3738976; 544433, 3738975; 544405,
3738943; 544388, 3738897; 544388,
3738896; 544375, 3738851; 544345,
3738778; 544317, 3738731; 544302,
3738717; 544285, 3738701; 544273,
3738690; 544272, 3738689; 544249,
3738644; 544248, 3738643; 544246,
3738638; 544239, 3738620; 544230,
3738596; 544216, 3738578; 544186,
3738560; 544155, 3738551; 544154,
3738550; 544128, 3738526; 544127,
3738525; 544118, 3738499; 544109,
3738474; 544107, 3738468; 544087,
3738437; 544057, 3738388; 544010,
3738316; 543957, 3738246; 543954,
3738243; 543942, 3738229; 543906,
3738190; 543901, 3738185; 543900,
3738184; 543881, 3738154; 543860,
3738120; 543858, 3738117; 543844,
3738075; 543830, 3738015; 543819,
3737992; 543800, 3737955; 543799,
3737953; 543775, 3737922; 543774,
3737920; 543731, 3737863; 543688,
3737825; 543687, 3737825; 543685,
3737821; 543678, 3737810; 543671,
3737798; 543667, 3737791; 543667,
3737785; 543667, 3737752; 543667,
3737739; 543667, 3737739; 543659,
3737692; 543643, 3737662; 543597,
3737610; 543568, 3737578; 543549,
3737550; 543517, 3737511; 543469,
3737470; 543468, 3737469; 543451,
3737446; 543451, 3737446; 543451,
3737446; 543452, 3737443; 543457,
3737423; 543455, 3737425; 543452,
3737426; 543447, 3737427; 543440,
3737427; 543427, 3737426; 543412,
3737422; 543411, 3737423; 543411,
3737424; 543411, 3737424; 543411,
3737425; 543411, 3737426; 543411,
3737426; 543411, 3737427; 543410,
3737427; 543410, 3737428; 543410,
3737429; 543410, 3737429; 543410,
3737430; 543410, 3737430; 543410,
3737431; 543410, 3737432; 543410,
3737432; 543409, 3737433; 543409,
3737433; 543409, 3737434; 543409,
3737435; 543409, 3737435; 543409,
3737436; 543409, 3737436; 543409,
3737437; 543409, 3737438; 543408,
3737438; 543408, 3737439; 543408,
3737439; 543408, 3737440; 543408,
3737441; 543408, 3737441; 543408,
3737442; 543408, 3737442; 543408,
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3737443; 543408, 3737444; 543408,
3737444; 543408, 3737445; 543408,
3737445; 543408, 3737446; 543407,
3737447; 543407, 3737447; 543407,
3737448; 543397, 3737458; 543394,
3737467; 543390, 3737463; 543383,
3737459; 543380, 3737458; 543369,
3737450; 543342, 3737385; 543340,
3737378; 543338, 3737373; 543333,
3737365; 543333, 3737365; 543333,
3737365; 543330, 3737362; 543309,
3737335; 543301, 3737267; 543279,
3737068; 543272, 3737011; 543272,
3737009; 543251, 3736822; 543241,
3736729; 543227, 3736600; 543203,
3736387; 543200, 3736359; 543198,
3736326; 543198, 3736324; 543194,
3736290; 543190, 3736255; 543183,
3736201; 543190, 3736202; 543191,
3736202; 543212, 3736202; 543221,
3736202; 543257, 3736202; 543284,
3736202; 543274, 3736190; 543264,
3736177; 543262, 3736168; 543258,
3736159; 543254, 3736142; 543251,
3736128; 543248, 3736115; 543245,
3736105; 543243, 3736097; 543239,
3736090; 543223, 3736070; 543221,
3736069; 543220, 3736069; 543217,
3736072; 543213, 3736078; 543209,
3736085; 543204, 3736095; 543199,
3736108; 543195, 3736126; 543193,
3736134; 543186, 3736125; 543137,
3736125; 543126, 3736126; 543073,
3736129; 543050, 3736140; 543052,
3736162; 543043, 3736213; 543039,
3736233; 543043, 3736266; 543051,
3736290; 543051, 3736303; 543047,
3736305; 543035, 3736300; 543004,
3736278; 542996, 3736272; 542960,
3736231; 542952, 3736217; 542938,
3736200; 542928, 3736188; 542914,
3736182; 542905, 3736178; 542887,
3736166; 542865, 3736139; 542835,
3736084; 542831, 3736070; 542825,
3736060; 542816, 3736052; 542782,
3736031; 542740, 3735997; 542721,
3735985; 542720, 3736121; 542720,
3736145; 542720, 3736145; 542720,
3736145; 542720, 3736145; 542720,
3736148; 542720, 3736149; 542720,
3736156; 542720, 3736156; 542720,
3736157; 542720, 3736157; 542720,
3736159; 542720, 3736159; 542720,
3736159; 542720, 3736159; 542720,
3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720,
3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720,
3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720,
3736160; 542720, 3736161; 542720,
3736161; 542720, 3736161; 542720,
3736161; 542720, 3736161; 542720,
3736161; 542720, 3736162; 542720,
3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720,
3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720,
3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720,
3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720,
3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720,
3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720,
3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720,
3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720,
3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720,
3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720,
3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720,
3736165; 542720, 3736166; 542720,
3736166; 542720, 3736166; 542720,
3736166; 542720, 3736166; 542720,
3736200; 542720, 3736200; 542708,
3736200; 542528, 3736200; 542527,
3736200; 542521, 3736221; 542520,
3736225; 542519, 3736226; 542521,
3736246; 542521, 3736246; 542523,
3736250; 542523, 3736250; 542521,
3736276; 542519, 3736289; 542520,
3736345; 542520, 3736398; 542520,
3736452; 542520, 3736495; 542520,
3736519; 542520, 3736556; 542522,
3736552; 542539, 3736520; 542551,
3736502; 542564, 3736487; 542571,
3736481; 542585, 3736499; 542613,
3736567; 542720, 3736563; 542724,
3736563; 542726, 3736484; 542753,
3736484; 542760, 3736478; 542778,
3736473; 542796, 3736471; 542817,
3736468; 542830, 3736464; 542840,
3736455; 542854, 3736456; 542858,
3736461; 542859, 3736471; 542857,
3736477; 542853, 3736482; 542839,
3736545; 542829, 3736586; 542853,
3736572; 542869, 3736559; 542867,
3736545; 542907, 3736518; 542915,
3736504; 542923, 3736484; 542923,
3736604; 542879, 3736605; 542879,
3736647; 542879, 3736656; 542881,
3736805; 543095, 3736807; 543121,
3736807; 543121, 3736839; 543120,
3736951; 543119, 3737008; 543119,
3737008; 543119, 3737008; 543119,
3737008; 542903, 3737006; 542893,
3737009; 542876, 3737008; 542876,
3737108; 542876, 3737108; 542776,
3737108; 542776, 3737182; 542784,
3737185; 542796, 3737201; 542797,
3737207; 542875, 3737208; 543116,
3737210; 543116, 3737210; 543144,
3737219; 543159, 3737223; 543180,
3737239; 543185, 3737243; 543195,
3737251; 543203, 3737257; 543210,
3737263; 543221, 3737293; 543230,
3737318; 543248, 3737381; 543248,
3737382; 543249, 3737388; 543254,
3737405; 543257, 3737413; 543261,
3737426; 543277, 3737463; 543283,
3737475; 543287, 3737481; 543289,
3737484; 543306, 3737511; 543317,
3737526; 543339, 3737555; 543351,
3737575; 543370, 3737602; 543384,
3737619; 543404, 3737637; 543417,
3737649; 543433, 3737662; 543445,
3737672; 543465, 3737689; 543483,
3737709; 543504, 3737733; 543514,
3737743; 543526, 3737760; 543535,
3737773; 543538, 3737782; 543541,
3737820; 543534, 3737820; 543538,
3737828; 543541, 3737837; 543591,
3737900; 543601, 3737906; 543607,
3737914; 543614, 3737917; 543618,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58997
3737924; 543619, 3737931; 543625,
3737936; 543634, 3737949; 543646,
3737960; 543657, 3737971; 543666,
3737979; 543672, 3737989; 543676,
3738002; 543677, 3738009; 543678,
3738011; 543678, 3738049; 543678,
3738056; 543678, 3738093; 543678,
3738157; 543677, 3738225; 543677,
3738425; 543677, 3738448; 543722,
3738487; 543773, 3738532; 543894,
3738634; 543901, 3738634; 543904,
3738634; 543904, 3738672; 543904,
3738674; 543904, 3738701; 543903,
3738701; 543902, 3738718; 543880,
3738718; 543838, 3738717; 543818,
3738717; 543675, 3738715; 543675,
3738722; 543675, 3738752; 543674,
3738772; 543672, 3738999; 543672,
3739066; 543669, 3739139; 543669,
3739148; 543668, 3739178; 543668,
3739208; 543666, 3739643; 543665,
3739807; 543665, 3739844; 543665,
3739922; 543670, 3739922; 543701,
3739922; 543710, 3739923; 543714,
3739923; 543716, 3739923; 543727,
3739935; 543733, 3739942; 543738,
3739947; 543736, 3739948; 543712,
3739948; 543711, 3739973; 543726,
3739973; 543730, 3739983; 543731,
3739986; 543734, 3739995; 543742,
3739995; 543769, 3739994; 544024,
3739989; 544059, 3739988; 544075,
3739987; 544170, 3739985; 544186,
3739985; 544185, 3739987; 544194,
3739985; 544278, 3739984; 544415,
3739983; 544469, 3739983; 544469,
3739929; 544469, 3739893; 544470,
3739837; 544470, 3739828; 544472,
3739646; 544473, 3739430; 544473,
3739324; 544473, 3739183; 544473,
3739148; 544759, 3739426; 544762,
3739429; 544763, 3739430; 544807,
3739471; 544816, 3739479; 544873,
3739533; 544882, 3739542; 544892,
3739550; 544892, 3739544; 544901,
3739559; 544911, 3739570; 544917,
3739576; 544924, 3739583; 544932,
3739591; 544953, 3739613; 544977,
3739637; 544994, 3739655; 545180,
3739837; 545213, 3739869; 545217,
3739872; 545241, 3739901; 545248,
3739907; 545260, 3739917; 545287,
3739941; 545296, 3739954; 545388,
3740038; 545533, 3740135; 545536,
3740136; 545536, 3740137; 545537,
3740148; 545535, 3740184; 545535,
3740207; 545539, 3740233; 545566,
3740232; 545590, 3740233; 545605,
3740233; 545616, 3740232; 545651,
3740233; 545681, 3740233; 545716,
3740233; 545727, 3740233; 545731,
3740233; 545740, 3740233; 545742,
3740233; 545757, 3740236; 545771,
3740240; 545782, 3740241; 545785,
3740241; 545785, 3740242; 545785,
3740242; 545794, 3740245; 545799,
3740246; 545809, 3740249; 545840,
3740256; 545849, 3740256; 545861,
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
58998
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
3740259; 545892, 3740266; 545912,
3740270; 545914, 3740271; 545925,
3740273; 545965, 3740281; 545990,
3740285; 546011, 3740288; 546052,
3740294; 546077, 3740299; 546094,
3740309; 546108, 3740317; 546117,
3740321; 546139, 3740332; 546156,
3740335; 546170, 3740337; 546170,
3740337; 546179, 3740338; 546186,
3740337; 546188, 3740340; 546188,
3740340; 546195, 3740343; 546203,
3740344; 546210, 3740346; 546217,
3740347; 546225, 3740348; 546231,
3740347; 546240, 3740349; 546249,
3740352; 546256, 3740354; 546263,
3740355; 546270, 3740356; 546275,
3740359; 546281, 3740357; 546289,
3740359; 546295, 3740357; 546297,
3740355; 546304, 3740352; 546323,
3740353; 546328, 3740353; 546328,
3740353; 546332, 3740353; 546474,
3740353; 546476, 3740354; 546484,
3740353; 546492, 3740354; 546500,
3740359; 546505, 3740367; 546510,
3740372; 546515, 3740374; 546528,
3740370; 546528, 3740368; 546534,
3740366; thence returning to 546545,
3740363; continuing to land bounded by
542904, 3737623; 542904, 3737612;
542941, 3737612; 543061, 3737613;
543075, 3737613; 543075, 3737581;
543075, 3737544; 543075, 3737508;
543075, 3737469; 543076, 3737429;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
543076, 3737420; 542976, 3737420;
542975, 3737438; 542975, 3737485;
542975, 3737511; 542975, 3737511;
542875, 3737511; 542875, 3737511;
542875, 3737545; 542875, 3737584;
542875, 3737600; 542875, 3737600;
542875, 3737622; 542875, 3737623;
thence returning to 542904, 3737623;
continuing to land bounded by 546332,
3739429; 546332, 3739418; 546331,
3739399; 546328, 3739390; 546324,
3739383; 546313, 3739372; 546302,
3739363; 546286, 3739353; 546272,
3739349; 546263, 3739347; 546247,
3739346; 546210, 3739346; 546162,
3739346; 546161, 3739346; 546160,
3739346; 546155, 3739348; 546155,
3739349; 546154, 3739405; 546154,
3739424; 546157, 3739424; 546164,
3739425; 546173, 3739424; 546190,
3739420; 546205, 3739417; 546219,
3739417; 546231, 3739418; 546236,
3739419; 546244, 3739420; 546255,
3739419; 546263, 3739419; 546269,
3739421; 546274, 3739424; 546277,
3739428; 546277, 3739433; 546277,
3739440; 546277, 3739447; 546277,
3739450; 546278, 3739454; 546280,
3739457; 546319, 3739447; 546324,
3739444; 546329, 3739439; thence
returning to 546332, 3739429;
continuing to land bounded by 546405,
3739025; 546401, 3739010; 546395,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
3739013; 546374, 3739026; 546356,
3739042; 546356, 3739042; 546341,
3739060; 546342, 3739090; 546335,
3739100; 546326, 3739112; 546325,
3739152; 546324, 3739225; 546335,
3739225; 546365, 3739227; 546365,
3739227; 546364, 3739240; 546362,
3739241; 546359, 3739242; 546347,
3739246; 546347, 3739260; 546347,
3739437; 546347, 3739450; 546359,
3739447; 546392, 3739437; 546562,
3739387; 546651, 3739361; 546703,
3739346; 546707, 3739344; 546699,
3739300; 546685, 3739275; 546682,
3739269; 546658, 3739254; 546620,
3739239; 546606, 3739238; 546605,
3739238; 546557, 3739237; 546553,
3739228; 546551, 3739225; 546546,
3739218; 546536, 3739203; 546536,
3739203; 546508, 3739181; 546493,
3739161; 546489, 3739157; 546469,
3739132; 546447, 3739096; 546437,
3739083; 546415, 3739053; 546411,
3739042; thence returning to 546405,
3739025.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 12, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011–24047 Filed 9–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\22SER3.SGM
22SER3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58954-58998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24047]
[[Page 58953]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 184
September 22, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical
Habitat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 58954]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0019; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AV91
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical
Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also
designating approximately 587 acres (237 hectares) of land as critical
habitat for the species in Riverside County, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. Comments and materials received, as well
as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA
92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011 (telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5901). If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the listing and designation of critical habitat
for Casey's June beetle under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
genus Dinacoma and approximately 90 other genera constitute the New
World members of the subfamily Melolonthinae (i.e., May beetles, June
beetles, and chafers) of the scarab beetle family (Scarabaeidae) (Smith
and Evans 2005). Despite past references to potentially new species or
subspecies of Dinacoma (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 173-174; La Rue pers.
comm., 2006), Casey's June beetle, Dinacoma caseyi Blaisdell, and D.
marginata (Casey) Casey remain the only described taxonomic entities in
the genus (Evans and Smith 2009, p. 44). For additional information on
the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Casey's June beetle, and the
history of this rulemaking, refer to the August 8, 2006, 90-day finding
(71 FR 44960), the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), the
July 9, 2009, proposed listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR 32857),
and the March 31, 2010, document making available the draft economic
analysis (DEA) (75 FR 16046) published in the Federal Register. These
documents are available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.
New Species Information
In our proposed listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR 32857;
July 9, 2009), we requested comments on any new species information.
One peer reviewer suggested we clarify the fact that female Casey's
June beetles are known to be flightless, because our wording in one
sentence was not clear in that regard. Information submitted by peer
reviewers and an expert in scarab beetles (Hawks, University of
California, Riverside, pers. comm. 2010) also disagreed with the
appropriateness of primary constituent element (PCE) 2. We have made
the appropriate changes to this final listing and critical habitat
rule.
New Species Occupancy and Habitat Information
Multiple commenters and one peer reviewer further suggested that
the species may occupy areas outside proposed critical habitat. To
determine if areas outside of the proposed critical habitat designation
harbor the Casey's June beetle, we funded a survey of likely habitat
within the species' known historical range and beyond. While the survey
focused on areas north of Palm Springs (i.e., immediately south of the
Chino Cone) and south to Palm Desert, we have yet to receive a final
report from the surveyor (i.e., David Hawks). Nonetheless, preliminary
survey information received to date primarily supports our
determination of the species' current range and population
distribution, and modification of PCEs to include disturbed soils and
predominantly, but not exclusively, native vegetation (i.e., not the
two specific ``intact'' vegetation types listed in the proposed rule)
(Hawks pers. comm., 2010; see below discussion).
Hawks (pers. comm. 2010, 2011a and b) located two occupied Casey's
June beetle sites outside of proposed critical habitat, in natural
remnants of the Palm Canyon Wash channel surrounded by golf course
landscaping just east of the easternmost section of wash proposed as
critical habitat, in the vicinity of Golf Club Drive. These wash
habitat remnants total 17 acres (ac) (7 hectares (ha)), and are
downstream from the confluence of Palm Canyon Wash and Tahquiz Creek,
where additional streamflow occurs following a storm event. Although it
is possible these habitat remnants could contribute to species
recovery, their ability to support occupancy long-term is questionable
because these areas are subject to scouring flood events, which would
remove available habitat and displace and most likely extirpate any
individuals occupying the sites. In addition, the frequency of scouring
flood events likely to extirpate resident individuals is expected to
increase with climate change (see E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species section below).
Therefore, at this time, we have determined that these wash habitat
remnants do not meet the definition of critical habitat. However, we
will continue to gather information regarding the potential for this
wash habitat area to contribute to species recovery.
Hawks' comprehensive survey (pers. comm. 2010) included potential
Casey's June beetle habitat remnants identified throughout the City of
Palm Springs, including many vacant lots within the developed areas of
the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City Hawks (pers. comm. 2010)
documented numerous female emergence holes and observed many female
beetles during his surveys, confirming occupancy of Coachella fine sand
series (CpA), and Myoma fine sands (MaB) soil types. Hawks (pers. comm.
2010) stated he never found emergence holes in the Carsitas cobbly sand
series (ChC) soil type. However, he believes ChC soil may be occupied
if it is an inclusion surrounded by Carsitas gravelly sand series (CdC)
soil, and if it is not part of the landscape defining the edge of the
floodplain, such as along South Palm Canyon Drive to the west. Based on
this information from Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) we determined that ChC
soils not 100 percent surrounded by CdC and Riverwash (RA) soils do not
meet the definition of critical habitat (see Summary of Changes From
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, Physical or Biological
Features, and
[[Page 58955]]
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections below).
Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) positive survey results generally
supported our estimation of Casey's June beetle population distribution
within proposed critical habitat, with the exception of newly
discovered occupied wash habitat remnants described above that
represent a slight northeastern distribution extension, and the lack of
occupancy in some southern areas that were determined not to meet the
definition of critical habitat and therefore were not designated (see
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule,
Physical or Biological Features, and Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat sections below). In a subsequent communication, Hawks (pers.
comm. 2011a) described his survey results from the southern population
distribution area: ``Adults of both sexes of [Casey's June beetle] as
well as emergence holes were observed in the wash and in [adjacent]
floodplain areas west of the wash between Bogert Trail and Acanto
Drive. Adults of both sexes as well as emergence holes were observed in
the wash and in floodplain areas west of the wash from Acanto and south
for a few hundred meters. South of this area, [Casey's June beetle]
emergence holes were observed in late June 2010 (after the adult
emergence period) in both the wash and the floodplain habitat adjacent
to the wash as far south as the fence and almost to the small dam and
this is as far south as we surveyed. Emergence holes were less common
towards the southern extent of this area, and, especially in the wash,
they were not apparent in the close vicinity of the dam (within about
[328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m))]). The wash [close to the dam] is
narrow and much more disturbed (apparently by turbulent water flow),
gravelly, and rocky in this area, and is perhaps unsuitable as [Casey's
June beetle] habitat.'' This new information confirms occupancy of the
southernmost wash and upland designated critical habitat areas where
beetles had not previously been reported (as described in Barrows 1998,
p. 1), and increases the highest elevation for a Casey's June beetle
observation (southernmost wash area) to approximately 580 ft (177 m).
New survey information shed light on the occupancy and suitability
status of lands proposed for critical habitat designation at the
southern extreme of the population distribution. Light trap surveys of
southern portions of the species' population distribution were
conducted by Jim Cornett (2010, pp. 10-11) in upland habitat, from
South Palm Canyon Drive south into Indian Canyons Preserve. Although
Cornet (2010, p. 14) did not trap any male Casey's June beetles or
observe any females, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a) observations do not
support Cornett's conclusion that uplands contiguous with the wash
south of Acanto Drive are not occupied. Traps on the eastern edge of
Cornett's ``Area 3'' (Cornett 2010, p. 10), where he sampled in April,
were within approximately 660 ft (200 m) of locations where Hawks
reported Casey's June beetle occupancy in May. Cornett did not survey
for females or emergence holes in 2010. Conversely, the results of
Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011b) and Cornett's (2010, pp. 10 and 14) surveys
in western areas adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive were all negative.
Furthermore, Hawks (pers. comm. 2011b) reported unsuitable habitat
conditions for this western area, similar to those described by Hovore
(1997a, p. 3) and evident on current aerial imagery. Therefore, we
believe habitat in this southwestern portion associated with South Palm
Canyon Drive is not occupied and not likely occupiable. However, as
noted in the preceding paragraph, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a and b) new
information does indicate occupancy in the southernmost mapped
contiguous CdC and RA soil areas.
New habitat information resulted in changes to our habitat area
estimates. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) discovery of 17 ac (7 ha) of
occupied Casey's June beetle habitat outside of proposed critical
habitat in Palm Canyon Wash increased our estimates of extant and
historic occupied habitat. However, based on the currently available
information, we have determined that this newly discovered occupied
habitat does not meet the definition of critical habitat (see above
discussion). Multiple tribal commenters further suggested the species
may no longer occupy areas within the southern portion of the proposed
critical habitat unit, and that these habitat areas were no longer
suitable for Casey's June beetle occupancy (see Comments 5 and 8 below
in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section). Survey
information from 2010 supports this hypothesis for areas in the
southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit associated
with South Palm Canyon Drive (see above discussion). The determination
that the southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit
associated with South Palm Canyon Drive is no longer occupied or
contains suitable habitat decreased the total area estimate of
remaining suitable habitat (despite the addition of the two newly
discovered occupied sites in a natural remnant of the Palm Canyon Wash
channel discussed above). As a result of this new information, we have
made appropriate changes to this final rule.
New Information on Casey's June Beetle Diet and Movement
We found one new study on the diet of another endangered June
beetle, and some new information on June beetle movement distances.
Hill and O'Malley (2009, p. 1) found that the frass pellets (pelletized
fecal matter) of larvae of the Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla
barbata) contained a variety of plant species and fungi material
demonstrating that they are not specialist host plant feeders but are
microhabitat specialists. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) observations at
Smoke Tree Ranch indicate Casey's June beetle may be similar when he
stated that, ``We did not observe females at Smoke Tree [Ranch], but
many hundreds of emergence holes associated with native vegetation [and
nonnative vegetation such as] irrigated tamarisk, fan palms, oleander,
and olive. We still are not sure what plants of any sort mean to
[Casey's June beetle] grubs. * * * '' These results support our
hypothesis that Casey's June beetles do not require particular species
of host plants for feeding. However, native plant species likely are
important habitat components in other ways not fully understood at this
time, because native plant species are an integral component of the
ecosystem in which Casey's June beetle evolved. We incorporated this
information into the Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June
Beetle section below.
The observation of a male Casey's June beetle at a street light in
a suburban neighborhood approximately 750 ft (230 m) from the nearest
suitable habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 6; Google Earth historical imagery
1996 and 2002) indicates that movement of males among occupied areas
occurs over at least that distance, and it is likely that potential
movement is much farther. The maximum male dispersal distance recorded
for male Mount Hermon June beetles, a related species that also has
flightless females, is 923 ft (281 m) (Arnold, Entomological Consulting
Services, Ltd., pers. comm. 2011). Arnold (pers. comm. 2011) noted this
datum was from a mark-release-recapture study limited to his study
site, and therefore it is ``entirely possible'' adult male June beetles
are capable of making longer distance movements. This information
supports the conclusion articulated in our Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section below that all lands meeting the definition of
critical habitat are likely
[[Page 58956]]
occupied at the population level and fall within the distribution of a
single population. Please see Summary of Comments and Recommendations
section below for further discussion of comments and information
received.
Previous Federal Actions
In our July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), we determined
that listing Casey's June beetle as an endangered species was warranted
but precluded. Because of the lack of funding for the large number of
candidate species we were unable to propose and finalize the listing
for Casey's June beetle at that time. 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). Although funding to work on a proposed
listing determination was not available at the time of the 12-month
finding, we subsequently received funding for development of proposed
and final listing with critical habitat rules. On July 9, 2009 (74 FR
32857), we published in the Federal Register a proposal to list Casey's
June beetle as endangered and to designate critical habitat. In this
final rule, we determine endangered status for Casey's June beetle and
designate critical habitat.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened 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: (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; or (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly, or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles that has
naturally restricted ranges (LaRue, University of California,
Riverside, pers. comm. 2006). Casey's June 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
population footprint of Casey's June beetle due to the generality and
paucity of location descriptions from early collection records (see
discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR 44962; August 8, 2006)).
However, museum specimen records indicate the historical range can be
described as the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains from
the City of Palm Springs south to the community of Indian Wells. This
historical range, while far greater than the current known population
distribution, is nonetheless relatively restricted compared to most
species.
We used soils data correlated with occupancy data to estimate the
historical suitable habitat distribution of Casey's June beetle. Our
review of the soil and occupancy data showed that over 97 percent of
habitat likely to have been included in Casey's June beetle historical
population distributions has been converted to development or rendered
unsuitable by the impacts of adjacent development. Of the approximately
605 ac (245 ha) of remaining extant suitable habitat, approximately 70
percent remains relatively unprotected by existing regulations (see D.
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section below).
Approximately 50 percent of the unprotected habitat areas are tribal
reservation lands and 30 percent are in private ownership. The
remaining approximately 20 percent is owned by local entities (City of
Palm Springs and County Flood Control) for roads, flood control, and
water facilities. Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal reservation
land consists of approximately 11 ac (4 ha) in tribal trust, and 152 ac
(62 ha) in fee-title and allotted lands. The majority of tribal
reservation lands are at risk of development, as are any undeveloped
portions of the relatively unprotected lands owned by local governments
and private landowners.
The population of the City of Palm Springs 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 on properties zoned for
residential and commercial use, uses which would encroach upon Casey's
June beetle habitat.
Development
We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from
2003 to 2007 to determine the habitat impacts of completed and pending
projects as cited in the petition to list Casey's June beetle (Wright
et al. 2004, pp. 8-9) and referenced in the July 5, 2007, 12-month
finding (72 FR 36635). We were unable to identify all projects cited in
the petition, 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 5 years between 2003 and 2007. Habitat disturbance activities such
as development can result in direct mortality of larvae and adults.
The Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail adjacent to Palm
Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands) impacted approximately 39 ac (16
ha) of occupied habitat in 2005. Expected mitigation measures described
by Dudek and Associates (2001, p. 24) for impacts to Casey's June
beetle habitat were an in-lieu payment of $600 per ac ($240 per ha)
(total of $21,960) to the City of Palm Springs or a habitat
conservation entity designated by the City for loss of approximately 37
ac (15 ha) of ``creosote bush scrub habitat'' (no specified use of
these funds), and re-creation of 9 ac (4 ha) of lost ``desert wash
scrub habitat'' (no specified cost). To our knowledge, no appropriate
habitat has yet been conserved or restored for Casey's June beetle to
offset the Monte Sereno project impacts.
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 were
developed (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
[[Page 58957]]
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,
City of Palm Springs, pers. comm. 2007).
The other four identified projects 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 reservation 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 and 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.'' Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) noted that
although Hovore was always conscientious and reported any Casey's June
beetle observation, not all biologists do so, and in at least one case
a biologist apparently omitted Casey's June beetle observations from
their environmental impact report for a proposed golf course project in
the early 1990s. Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) did not identify the exact
location he referenced, although his description that it is found in
``the vicinity of the mouth of Palm Canyon, adjacent to Palm Springs,
Riverside County, California,'' and approximate construction dates of
golf course projects based on digital aerial photography indicate the
referenced project is the current Indian Canyons Golf Resort, located
between Smoke Tree Ranch and the Monte Sereno project north of Bogart
Trail and adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands).
We conducted an analysis for the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635)
that used available digital aerial photographs taken at various
intervals from 1991 to 2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-2) and 2006
field surveys (Anderson 2006, pp. 1-36), which determined that Casey's
June beetle experienced an approximate 25 percent reduction in
contiguous occupied habitat from 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233
ha) in 2006. Based on new biological surveys and information provided
to us since 2006, we now know an area larger than 770 ac (312 ha) was
occupied by Casey's June beetle in 1991. With this new information and
2008 digital aerial photographs, we determined that there was
approximately 1,018 ac (412 ha) of occupied habitat in 1991. Therefore,
our new analysis showed that Casey's June beetle has experienced an
approximately 22 percent reduction in occupied habitat from 1,018 ac
(412 ha) in 1991 to 794 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our updated calculations
accounted for these additional acres and revealed 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 (dates based on available photographs). Although habitat loss
since 2005 has slowed (likely due to the economic downturn), after our
2008 analysis was completed (post-12 month finding; 72 FR 36635, July
5, 2007) we discovered approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of habitat where two
adjacent development pads were cleared on the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indian's reservation south of Acanto Drive, removing the PCEs
from the majority of the parcel (per available satellite imagery). The
loss of this graded area is of particular concern because it comprises
approximately one-fourth of a formerly contiguous occupied upland
habitat area adjacent to an area of the wash.
Since publication in the Federal Register 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 reservation lands (Davis, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007; Park, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007). The project is in
the area containing CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon Drive near
Bogart Trail and Acanto Drive (tentative tract number 30047) (City of
Palm Springs 2008, p. 14). We believe this area is not likely to be
occupied by Casey's June beetle or occupiable in the future based on
historical and recent disturbances (Hovore 1997a, p. 3; Google Earth
imagery 2011) (see New Species Information section above), and because
recent surveys conducted within and adjacent to the Eagle Canyon
project area (Osborne 2008a, p. 3, Cornett 2010 p. 10 and 14; Hawks
pers. comm. 2011b) where occupancy was previously documented (Hovore
1995, pp. 4-5) were negative.
Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey's June
beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy following severe flood
events (Hovore 2003, p.11; Cornett 2004, p. 14). Of the total 794 ac
(321 ha) of estimated remaining habitat in 2008, only 523 ac (212 ha)
was upland habitat. Upland habitat refers to any upland terrace area
that is outside of the wash and does not occur on Riverwash (RA) soils.
According to data from the Coachella Valley General Plan (Riverside
County 2005), all remaining upland habitat on tribal land north of
Acanto Drive is projected to be developed at a density of two homes per
ac (0.5 per ha) by the year 2020, even though some parcels designated
as parks and recreation in the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 =
``1145'') have already been developed with three homes per ac (7.5 per
ha). Undeveloped habitat on tribal reservation 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 Bogart Trail area, except that it is outside the city limit
of Palm Springs (code GP2020 = ``58''). Code GP2020 = ``58'' signifies
tribal land or open space in the General Plan; lands with this code
have been developed at a density as high as 3 homes per ac (more than 7
homes per ha). Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) indicate
that more than 48 percent of the approximately 523 ac (212 ha) of
upland Casey's June beetle habitat that we estimated to be extant in
2008 could be impacted by development.
Further indicating that development in Casey's June beetle habitat
is likely, the Director of Planning Services for the City of Palm
Springs stated in a communication to economists writing the DEA (Ewing
pers. comm. 2009) that ``* * * much of the [proposed critical habitat]
is within the urban boundaries of the city and along a major
thoroughfare (and former state highway). These lands are of significant
economic value to the community and have already been the subject of
entitlement applications, processing, and approval.''
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
[[Page 58958]]
Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry Trail have been converted
to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 2007, p. 3). LaRue (pers.
comm. 2006) 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, both
now and in the foreseeable future.
Soil Disturbance
In addition to the threat of habitat loss, soil disturbance
activities may degrade habitat quality and can cause direct Casey's
June beetle mortality (also see E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species below). 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
(Riverside County FCWCD). In the vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge
and Araby Drive, there are road maintenance and flood control
activities, as well as unregulated off-road vehicle (ORV) disturbance
(based on examination of Google Earth imagery, both current and
historical). Cornett (2004, p. 12) noted similar ORV impacts during
Casey's June beetle surveys on a nearby site adjacent to Whitewater
Wash and the Palm Springs Airport. ORV use impacts 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 (Adams et al. 1982, pp. 167-175; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983,
pp. 144-145; Webb 1983, pp. 51-79). 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. Waste dumping at habitat edges, as discovered
through review of digital aerial photography of proposed critical
habitat areas and described in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section (see Comment 12) below, or frequent use for
horseback riding by local riding clubs (as described by Hawks pers.
comm. 2011b) can also cause direct mortality of adult females and may
have detrimental effects on habitat. Therefore, land disturbance
activities likely pose a threat to the species' survival; however, the
magnitude of impacts is unknown.
Habitat Fragmentation
Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly
fragmented by development in recent years (see above discussion
regarding development). Continued fragmentation of already limited,
remnant habitat compromises the ability of various species to disperse
and establish new, or augment declining, populations (Collinge 2000,
pp. 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). Elimination of dispersal areas and isolation of
population segments increase chances of extirpation by stochastic
events (Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Collinge 2000, pp. 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
Casey's June beetle populations (Cornett 2004, pp. 11, 14). Casey's
June beetle is especially impacted by smaller-scale 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
population scale, fragmented patches that no longer support any female
Casey's June beetles may be attractive to male beetles and act as
population sinks. 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 (Forman and Godron,
1986, pp. 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 that 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 ``clusters
of individuals around areas of repeated female emergence.'' 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 habitat
fragments. Although fragmentation of habitat occupied by females within
a population still allows mixing of genes by males visiting multiple
habitat fragments (habitat is not fragmented with regard to male
movement), it would preclude recolonization of an area if all
flightless females were eliminated from that fragment. Fragmentation of
suitable habitat into smaller patches increases the risk of colony loss
and decreases the probability of the species' survival.
Current Conservation Measures
Indian Canyons Master Plan
We reviewed the Indian Canyons Master Plan (Master Plan; ACBCI
2007) and the zoning designations in it to determine what type of
protective measures it provides Casey's June beetle and its habitat.
Upon review of the Master Plan we noted that the planning area
encompasses all Casey's June beetle habitat south of Acanto Drive
(including some trust, fee, and allotted lands). The majority of this
habitat falls within allotted lands owned by tribal members (ACBCI
2007, p. 17). According to acquisition priorities articulated in the
Master Plan, some parcels identified as Casey's June beetle habitat
(south of the east-west aligned portion of South Palm Canyon Drive)
represent the highest priority for acquisition because they contain
valuable cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and have the highest
potential for future development plans that are incompatible with
resource protection goals (ACBCI 2007 pp. 27 and 29). Allotted lands
identified as Casey's June beetle habitat within Palm Canyon Wash
between Acanto Drive and the east-west aligned portion of South Palm
Canyon Drive fall within the Master Plan Low Density Residential (2
single family dwellings per acre (0.4 ha)) land use category (ACBCI
2007 pp. 35 and 37). In summary, the Master Plan provides some
protection of some Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal land, but does
not assure protection.
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a
draft habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the
[[Page 58959]]
Service, which has undergone public review in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112; October 12, 2007). The
Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they removed
Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the draft
Tribal HCP; however, they indicated they will ``continue to informally
coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on
the Reservation.'' The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service
to allow ``the Service to take the lead in addressing how to
effectively conserve and protect this species'' (ACBCI 2008, p. 1).
Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a)
permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft
HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural resources within
the Tribe's jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We
will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts to
conserve Casey's June beetle.
Our analysis indicates that although some tribal environmental
policies do exist (ACBCI 2000; ACBCI 2007) that provide some
conservation benefit for the species and its habitat, they do not
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 all
tribal reservation lands.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella
Valley MSHCP)
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 (Service
file: TE-104604-0 (Service 2008)) 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
10(a)(1)(B) permit did not include Casey's June beetle as a covered
species. Because it is not a covered species, the Coachella Valley
MSHCP does not provide specific measures for the protection or
conservation of the species and its habitat, nor does the incidental
take permit authorize take of the species. We are working with
individual permittees within the species' range to address the species'
needs in their planned projects. We are engaged in discussions with the
City of Palm Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to avoid, minimize, and offset
impacts to the species appropriately. However, actions taking place
after the effective date of this final rule would require any take
associated with their activities be exempted from the prohibitions of
section 9 of the Act through section 7 consultation (where appropriate)
or permitted under an amendment to the Coachella Valley MSHCP or a
separate HCP focused on the Casey's June beetle. No such amendment or
permit is currently in place.
Summary of Factor A
Within the historical distribution of Casey's June beetle, we
estimate that over 97 percent of habitat likely to have been occupied
by Casey's June beetle has been converted to development or rendered
unsuitable due to impacts of adjacent development. Loss of occupied
habitat has continued since the early 1990s. Twenty-eight percent (287
ac (116 ha)) of the 1,018 ac (412 ha) of contiguous suitable habitat
for Casey's June beetle identified as extant (based on 1991 aerial
photographs) has been lost to development. From 2003 to 2005, the loss
of occupied Casey's June beetle habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8
percent per year. Although habitat loss since 2005 has slowed (likely
due to the economic downturn), development and habitat impact 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 estimate the
amount of undeveloped habitat currently occupied by the species is
approximately 605 ac (245 ha) (including all non-contiguous habitat
containing any soil types used by the species). Based on current
projected development and habitat impacts, the loss of historically
occupied locations, the limited distribution of Casey's June beetle,
existing and future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and
land use changes associated with urbanization, we find that the threats
associated with the present and threatened destruction, modification,
and curtailment of Casey's June beetle habitat are significant. These
threats are currently ongoing and will continue into the foreseeable
future.
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.
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.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection
for Casey's June beetle include: (1) Federal laws and regulations; (2)
State laws and regulations; and (3) 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 habitat for
Casey's June beetle. However, there are regulatory mechanisms that
could provide incidental benefit to Casey's June beetle. The following
section discusses these mechanisms.
Federal Laws
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) of 1970 for
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500-1518) state that, in their environmental impact statements,
agencies shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the
various project alternatives (including the proposed action), any
adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any
irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR
part 1502). NEPA itself is a disclosure law that provides an
opportunity for the public to submit comments on the particular project
and propose other conservation measures that may directly benefit
listed species; however, it does not require subsequent
[[Page 58960]]
minimization or mitigation measures by the Federal agency involved. Any
such measures are typically voluntary in nature and are not required by
the statute. Activities are subject to NEPA regardless of ownership if
there is a Federal nexus, such as under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and tribal lands held in trust by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary mechanism in the United
States for surface water quality protection. It establishes the basic
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the
United States. It employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory
tools to reduce direct water quality impacts, finance water treatment
facilities, and manage polluted run-off. The CWA made it unlawful to
discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable water unless
a permit was obtained. The EPA's National Pollutant Discharges
Eliminations System permit program controls discharges. The EPA
determines water quality standards for each State, and the CWA requires
States to either adopt this level or determine another with
documentation (EPA 2000, p. 31682). Under section 404, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill material
into waters of the United States, which include navigable and isolated
waters, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). In general,
the term ``wetland'' refers to areas meeting the Corps' criteria of
hydric soils, hydrology (either sufficient annual flooding or water on
the soil surface), and hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically
adapted for growing in wetlands). Any action with the potential to
impact waters of the United States must be reviewed under the CWA.
These reviews require consideration of impacts to water quality and
recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts. Most wash
habitat suitable for Casey's June beetle could meet the definition of
waters of the United States; thus some impacts to this sensitive taxon
and its habitat within the wash could potentially fall under Corps'
jurisdiction and be averted. However, the CWA has not proven sufficient
to alleviate threats to Casey's June beetle and its habitat to date.
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). Although such overrides are rare, the possibility remains that
projects that cause significant environmental damage, such as taking of
endangered species or destruction of their habitat, will be approved.
Therefore, protection of listed species through CEQA is dependent upon
the discretion of the agency involved. Furthermore, because the
availability of occupied and suitable Casey's June beetle habitat is
extremely limited, regulatory protections such as CEQA that do not
prohibit mortality or habitat loss, nor require acquisition of
available habitat to mitigate such losses, would not be sufficient to
reduce threats or prevent the species' extinction.
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 existing regulatory mechanism
does not provide for the protection of Casey's June beetle or its
habitat.
Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms
Based on occurrence of soil types and species collection records,
historically (pre-European settlement), Casey's June beetle potentially
occupied 5,834 ac (2,361 ha) (18 percent) of tribal land. Lands within
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' reservation encompass 274
ac (111 ha), or approximately 45 percent of the estimated extant
Casey's June beetle habitat. All post-1996 development of occupied
habitat, with the exception of the Smoke Tree Commons and Cottages
projects, has occurred on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians''
reservation land. The remaining undeveloped suitable upland habitat on
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' reservation 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 (see the discussion of the Eagle Canyon project under A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the
Species' Habitat or Range section 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) (ACBCI 2000) states that the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) is the lead for preparing environmental
review documents, and that tribal policy is to protect the natural
environment, including ``all living things.'' According to the Tribal
Act (ACBCI 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will consult with any Federal, State,
and local agencies that have special expertise with respect to
environmental impacts. In a second letter dated April 29, 2010, the
Tribe further stated they have chosen not to delegate land use
authority to a local agent (such as the City of Palm Springs) in the
area of the reservation south of Acanto Drive. Instead, the Tribe
stated they directly regulate land use in this area through the Indian
Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning designation.
Several projects implemented on tribal reservation 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;
Hovore 1997b, p. 4; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Hovore 2003, p. 4;
Cornett 2004, p. 3) has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by
development since our receipt of the petition to list the Casey's June
beetle in 2004 (see A. The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range above).
The Alta and Monte Sereno development projects eliminated most of the
species' upland habitat estimated to have been occupied in 2003 outside
of Smoke Tree Ranch. Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that grading for the
Alta project near South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in May 2003
reduced the known 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 conclusion is that
the
[[Page 58961]]
Tribal Act does not effectively protect the species'' habitat. The
Chief Planning and Development Officer for the Tribe (Davis, pers.
comm. 2007) affirmed that the Tribal Act does not apply to all tribal
reservation lands; for example, the currently planned Alturas
development project (see A. The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range 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 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, pers.
comm. 2007). Summary of Factor D
Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect Casey's
June beetle or its habitat. 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 adequate protection for
this species or its habitat throughout its range, we believe this
presents a significant threat to the survival of Casey's June beetle,
both now and in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
The Casey's June beetle population may be impacted by other natural
or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as changing environmental
conditions resulting from climate change, increased intensity and
frequency of scouring events in wash habitat, and indirect effects
associated with adjacent development. However, there are no species-
specific, scientific, published models describing or predicting the
magnitude of these threats, and this should be the subject of future
research.
Stream Channelization
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 (Poff et al. 1997, p. 772). Therefore, scouring events
that cause species mortality are likely to occur more frequently today
than they did prior to development. Scouring events may temporarily
eliminate Casey's June beetles within Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p.
9; Cornett 2004, p. 14). After scouring or long-term inundation events,
depopulated wash habitats would be slowly repopulated by females from
neighboring occupied, higher elevation habitat. However, if scouring
events increase in frequency, there may be insufficient time for
females to emigrate from higher elevation refugia between scouring flow
events. 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. Should these recolonization events fail, Casey's June beetles
may become extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash, which comprises a
significant portion of the known occupied habitat area. We believe the
increased frequency of scouring events due to indirect effects of
development adjacent to the Wash poses at least a moderate threat to
Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors,
such as increased windspeed and temperatures (that dry alluvial soils
and disperse female pheromones), and increased catastrophic flood
events (Noss et al. 2001, p. 42; LaRue pers. comm. 2006). As discussed
above, increased intensity and frequency of flooding and scouring
events from habitat modification in Palm Canyon Wash is of particular
concern for Casey's June beetle. However, this increased flooding and
scouring may also result from changes in climatic conditions. 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) indicated temperature, precipitation, peak
stream flow (NWIS 2008), and other weather patterns since 1950, are
consistent with global patterns described and predicted by the IPCC
(2007 p. 2, pp. 8-9, and 15). General Circulation Models predict a 1 to
3 [deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.5 to 1.7 [deg]Celsius ([deg]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 (Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399; Field et al.
1999, pp. 5-10), and increasing intensity of flood and drought events
(Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399; Dessens 1995, pp. 1241-1244).
Downscaled average climate model predictions for Casey's June beetle
habitat calculated using Climate Wizard (Maurer et al. 2007; medium A1
scenario for 2050) predict an increase in temperature of 5 [deg]F (2.8
[deg]C) and a 5 percent increase in annual precipitation. Increased
temperatures, combined with concentration of total annual precipitation
into more extreme storm events with associated high wind speeds should
cause soil drying, as a result of increased evaporation and runoff,
regardless of an increase in total annual precipitation (Field et al.
1999; pp. 9 and 20). Therefore, per Field et al. (1999, pp. 9 and 20)
and the above Climate Wizard predictions, drought frequency, soil
dryness, and the frequency of flash flood scouring events over
saturated winter soils are expected to increase in the future.
Alternating drought and flash flood events may exacerbate threats
already facing the species as a result of its small population size and
threats to its habitat.
The Application of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability
Index (NatureServe 2010) ranked Casey's June beetle as extremely
vulnerable (abundance and range extent within geographical area
assessed extremely likely to substantially decrease or disappear by
2050) based primarily on climate model predictions, dependence on a
moisture regime, vulnerability to disturbance regime change, restricted
mobility, historical reduction of occupied habitat, and its narrow
endemic status (Anderson 2010, p. 1). Therefore, the best available
science indicates ongoing changing environmental conditions resulting
from climate change effects pose a significant threat to Casey's June
beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Artificial Light
Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey's June
beetles traveling up to 328 ft (100 m) to artificial light sources
(Osborne, Osborne Biological Consulting, pers. comm. 2008a). Such
artificial light sources as black lights or mercury vapor lights may
draw males in 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
[[Page 58962]]
them to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where
they are preyed upon, or to local swimming pools, that are also an
unnatural source of light even if it is only reflected, 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 as a result of 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 diminish the overall genetic diversity of the population.
We believe that loss of male beetles due to unnatural light sources
attracting beetles into development adjacent to upland habitat poses at
least a moderate threat to Casey's June beetle, both now and in the
foreseeable future.
Soil Disturbing Activities
Foot, vehicle, and horse traffic and other soil disturbing
activities from adjacent developed areas are likely to cause direct
mortality of adults because adult female Casey's June beetles are
flightless. It is also likely that vehicle traffic could compress or
compact soils to a depth deep enough to kill Casey's June beetle
larvae. Discing, grading, soil removal, and soil filling all have the
potential to harm individuals below the soil surface. These activities
are a common occurrence, as evidenced by eyewitness accounts (Anderson
2006, pp. 17, 20, 22; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b) and aerial imagery from
multiple years.
Small Population Size and Restricted Range
As stated above, Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles
that have naturally restricted ranges, and it is adapted to specialized
habitat and soil types within the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto
Mountains from the City of Palm Springs south to the community of
Indian Wells. Casey's June beetle occupies only a portion of this area,
and the majority of the occupied area is threatened by development,
habitat fragmentation, or other anthropogenic or natural factors. In
addition to having a restricted range and small population size, the
species also has limited dispersal capabilities (Hovore 2003, p. 3).
These conditions most likely increase the degree of threat due to
chance events, such as floods or drought, that are beyond the natural
variability of the ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912). 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 (Forman and Godron, 1986, pp. 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38;
Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).
Summary of Factor E
Casey's June beetle is negatively affected by increased intensity
and frequency of catastrophic flood events; environmental effects
resulting from changing climatic patterns; loss of individuals due to
foot, vehicle, horse traffic and other soil disturbing activities; and
loss of individuals due to attraction to light sources. We conclude
from available information that climate change is likely to reduce
Casey's June beetle population densities by increasing scouring events
and decreasing water retention in the soil. Additional development
within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat will likely increase
traffic into habitat areas and include external lighting and swimming
pools, all of which may result in additional losses and will continue
to adversely affect the existing population. Therefore, we find that
other natural or manmade factors in total pose