[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74468-74491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT74


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
(Coachella Valley milk-vetch) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). We are proposing to designate approximately 
3,583 acres (ac) (1,450 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat in three 
units in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, California. Habitat 
essential to the conservation of the species in Riverside and San 
Bernardino counties is being excluded from critical habitat under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until 
February 14, 2005. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by January 28, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, 
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California, 92009.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Office, at the 
address given above.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected]. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section 
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    4. You may fax your comments to (760) 431-9618.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given 
above (760) 431-9440).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In particular, we 
are seeking comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of habitat, 
and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and 
why;
    (3) Whether unoccupied habitat identified as such and which serves 
as a source of sand for the areas proposed as critical habitat should 
be included in the designation;
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (7) The exclusion of Federal lands (e.g., Bureau of Land Management 
and the U.S. Forest Service) from critical habitat based on their 
participation in and contribution to the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae under the proposed Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of

[[Page 74469]]

several methods (see ADDRESSES above). Please submit e-mail comments to 
[email protected] in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special 
characters or any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: 
Coachella Valley milk-vetch'' in your e-mail subject header and your 
name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not 
receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-
mail message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Please note that the e-mail 
address [email protected] will be closed out at the termination of 
the public comment period.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which 
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or 
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for 
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory 
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation 
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, 
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes 
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs). 
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our 
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to 
the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 445 species or 36 percent 
of the 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 
Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs 
of all 1,244 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as 
listing, section 7 consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning 
process, the Section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, 
Section 6 funding to the States, and the Section 10 incidental take 
permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may 
make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
    We note, however, that a recent 9th Circuit judicial opinion, 
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
has invalidated the Service's regulation defining destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. We are currently reviewing 
the decision to determine what effect it may have on the outcome of 
consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, 
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list 
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on 
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left 
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public 
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before 
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the 
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. 
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who 
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in 
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the 
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the 
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is found on loose wind-
blown sands in dunes and flats, and in sandy alluvial washes in the 
northern Coachella Valley area, and to a limited extent, in northern 
Chuckwalla Valley. Its distribution in the Coachella Valley area 
roughly spans from just east of Cabezon to the dunes off Washington 
Avenue, north and west of Indio. The occurrences in the Chuckwalla 
Valley are all along a 5-mile stretch of Highway 177 just north of 
Desert Center.
    Please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596) for a detailed discussion on 
the taxonomic history and description of this taxon. It is our intent 
in this document to reiterate and discuss only those topics directly 
relevant to the development and designation of critical habitat or 
relevant information obtained since the final listing.
    The primary threat to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is 
the

[[Page 74470]]

extensive urban development in the Coachella Valley (63 FR 53596). 
Urbanization has both direct and indirect effects on A. l. var. 
coachellae. Urbanization can destroy plants and suitable and occupied 
habitat on-site, and indirectly degrade suitable and occupied habitat 
by blocking sand transport downwind of the development. Other threats 
include habitat destruction from future wind energy projects, off-
highway vehicle (OHV) use, and spread of exotic plants, such as Saharan 
mustard (Brassica tournefortii) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus 
barbatus) (63 FR 53596).

Previous Federal Actions

    The following section summarizes the Federal actions that occurred 
since the final listing rule of this species as endangered was 
published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998. Please refer to 
the final listing rule (63 FR 53596) for a discussion of Federal 
actions that occurred prior to the species being federally-listed.
    At the time of listing we determined that designation of critical 
habitat would not provide any additional conservation benefits beyond 
those provided by listing the species and that the designation could 
lead to acts of collection or vandalism (63 FR 53596). On November 15, 
2001, the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native 
Plant Society filed a lawsuit against Secretary Gale Norton and the 
Service alleging that the Service violated the Act and the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by determining that designating 
critical habitat for eight plant species listed as endangered or 
threatened, including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, was not 
prudent (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Norton, No. 01 CV 
2101). A second lawsuit also asserting the same challenge was filed on 
November 21, 2001, by the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation 
(Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton, No. 01 CV 2145).
    The Court convened an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on March 
19, 2002, in which the Center for Biological Diversity, California 
Native Plant Society, and the Building Industry Legal Defense 
Foundation participated. At the conference, the parties agreed that (1) 
the critical habitat determinations for the eight plant species at 
issue would be remanded to the Service for reconsideration of its 
previous ``not prudent'' determinations and (2) that the two cases 
should be consolidated into a single case. The parties did not come to 
agreement on an appropriate timeline for issuance of proposed and final 
determinations of critical habitat on the remand during the conference, 
but did agree to brief the Court regarding the appropriate schedule for 
reconsideration of the not prudent determination and to be bound by the 
Court's determination. Following the conference, on April 8, 2002, the 
court granted a motion to intervene filed by the American Sand 
Association, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, the American 
Motorcycle Association, Inc.--District 37, the San Diego Off-Road 
Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (collectively, 
``intervenors''). The motion limited the intervenors'' participation to 
resolution of an appropriate timeline for reconsideration of the 
critical habitat determination.
    On July 1, 2002, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider its 
not prudent determination and publish a proposed critical habitat 
designation, if prudent, for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae on 
or before November 30, 2004, and to publish a final critical habitat 
designation on or before November 30, 2005.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic 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'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must 
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are 
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas 
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines 
(2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other 
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside 
the designation is unimportant to Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae. 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. We specifically anticipate that 
federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of 
designation will not control the direction and substance of future 
recovery plans, habitat conservation

[[Page 74471]]

plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that are 
essential to the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae. This includes information from our own documents, including 
the final rule listing the taxon as endangered (63 FR 53596), recent 
biological surveys, reports, aerial photos, and other documentation. We 
also used the habitat model developed by the Coachella Valley Mountain 
Conservancy (CVMC) for the proposed Coachella Valley Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (CVMC 2004), as a starting point for 
identification of essential habitat and compared it to data from other 
plant surveys.
    We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
habitat requirements of this species. We used published historical 
surveys for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and ecological 
descriptions of the Sonoran Desert (Abrams 1944, Munz and Keck 1959, 
Shreve and Wiggins 1964, Turner and Brown 1982, Holland 1986) to 
describe the range of environmental conditions in which the plant 
existed prior to current landscape changes that have resulted in the 
loss of the species' habitats. We used data in reports submitted during 
section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) 
recovery permits to evaluate the habitat model developed for the plant 
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, Service unpublished 
Geographic Information System (GIS) data). We also used agency and 
academic reports to describe the sand transport systems (Lancaster et 
al. 1993, Griffiths et al. 2002) and used reports about related 
varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus to describe its ecology and 
phenology (Beatley 1974, Forseth et al. 1984, and Pavlik 1985).

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) 
that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may 
require special management considerations and protection. These 
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population 
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of 
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The primary constituent elements required for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat are derived from the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species as described below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth Within the Eolian (Wind-
Blown) Sand Transport System

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a limited distribution. 
The majority of populations are found in the Coachella Valley area, 
mostly in and around Snow Creek, Whitewater River, Mission and Morongo 
Creeks, Willow Hole, Big Dune, and Coachella Valley Preserve areas 
(Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data 2001a). There are also 
several historic and recent records southeast of the Coachella Valley 
in the Chuckwalla Valley, along approximately a 5-mile portion of 
Highway 177 northeast of Desert Center (Bureau of Land Management, 
unpublished data 2001b).
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae populations in the 
Coachella Valley are strongly affiliated with active, stabilized, and 
shielded sandy substrates (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, 
White 2004). This taxon is primarily found on loose eolian (wind 
transported) or alluvial (water transported) sands that are located on 
dunes or flats, and along disturbed margins of sandy washes. The 
highest densities of A. l. var. coachellae have been found in locations 
containing large areas of eolian sand, including Snow Creek (Sanders 
and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996), Big Dune, and Willow Hole area 
(Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data 2001a). Within active and 
stabilized sand fields and dunes, A. l. var. coachellae tends to occur 
in coarser sands in the margins of dunes, but not in most active 
windswept sand areas (White 2004).
    Active dunes are generally characterized as barren expanses of 
moving sand where perennial shrub species are sparse. These dunes may 
intergrade with stabilized or partially stabilized dunes, which have 
similar sand accumulations and formations, but are stabilized by 
evergreen or deciduous shrubs, scattered low annuals, and perennial 
grasses.
    Active sand fields are similar to active dunes, but are 
characterized as smaller sand accumulations that are not of sufficient 
depth to form dune formations. These may be characterized as hummocks 
forming behind individual shrubs or clumps of vegetation.
    Stabilized sand fields are similar to active sand fields, but 
contain sand accumulations that are stabilized by vegetation or are 
armored. Armoring is the process where the wind picks up and moves 
small sand grains, and leaves behind larger sand grains forming an 
``armor'' that prevents wind from moving additional smaller particles 
trapped below (Sharp and Saunders 1978). The stabilized sand fields in 
the latter case are temporary, becoming active when the armor is 
disturbed over large areas, or new blow sand is deposited from upwind 
fluvial depositional areas.
    A. l. var. coachellae are also found in shielded sand dunes and 
fields. These areas have similar sand formations as compared to active 
and stabilized sand dunes and fields, except that sand source and 
transport systems that would normally replenish these areas have been 
interrupted or shielded by human development.
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in localized 
patches of eolian sand or in active washes that are, in some cases, 
fairly distant from large dunes or sand field areas (White 2004). Some 
of these localized patches of eolian sands are characterized as 
ephemeral sand accumulations lacking dune formation. This type of 
habitat generally occurs at the western end of the Coachella Valley 
where wind velocities are highest (Sharp and Saunders 1978).
    The sandy substrates that provide suitable habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae are extremely dynamic in terms of spatial 
mobility and tendency to change back and forth from active to 
stabilized (Lancaster 1995). This has significant consequences for A. 
l. var. coachellae because their population densities vary with 
different types of sandy substrates. For instance, the greatest 
densities of plants have been recorded on dune and hummock habitats, 
such as Big Dune, Snow Creek and Willow Hole, whereas smaller densities 
of plants have been recorded on stabilized sand fields (Bureau of Land 
Management, unpublished GIS data 2001a). Conserving a wide variety of 
sandy substrate types is important for the

[[Page 74472]]

conservation of A. l. var. coachellae because of the dynamics of the 
eolian sand transport processes.
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae fruiting bodies are 
inflated, an apparent adaptation for being dispersed by wind. 
Protecting wind transport corridors between A. l. var. coachellae 
populations from obstruction is also important for facilitating 
adequate gene flow and maintaining areas that may serve as ephemeral 
habitat.

Areas Containing the Fluvial and Eolian Processes That Generate 
Suitable Habitat

    Sandy habitat in the Coachella Valley is highly dynamic and is 
controlled by two main factors: (1) The supply of sand-size sediment 
released by the fluvial system (water-transported), and (2) the rate of 
eolian (wind-blown) transport (Griffiths et al. 2002). The latter is 
affected primarily by wind fetch (the length of unobstructed area 
exposed to the wind), and less by wind speed and duration, availability 
and size of sand in channel bottoms, presence of natural and artificial 
windbreaks, and the density and size of natural vegetation in channels 
and among sand dunes.
    Most of the suitable sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley are 
generated from several drainage basins in the San Bernardino, Little 
San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains and Indio Hills (Griffiths et 
al. 2002, Lancaster 1997). Sediment is washed from hill slopes and 
channels in the headwaters and is transported downstream in stream 
channels during infrequent flood events (Griffiths et al. 2002). 
Fluvial transport is the dominant mechanism that moves sediment into 
fluvial depositional areas in the Coachella Valley (Griffiths et al. 
2002). Some sediment is stored on terraces within the channels, whereas 
during larger flood events, sediment is stored on the bajada (large, 
coalescing alluvial fans) surface as floodplain deposits or is 
transported through the bajada in channelized washes and deposited over 
broad depositional areas. The largest depositional area in the 
Coachella Valley is in the western end of the Whitewater River, 
northwest of the City of Palm Springs (Griffiths et al. 2002). For 
sufficient fine-grained sands to reach the eolian system in the valley 
floor and become suitable Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
habitat, it is necessary to protect major fluvial channels that 
transport source sand from the surrounding drainage basins as well as 
bajadas and depositional areas. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) identifies the protection of the 
above-mentioned essential ecological processes, including sand source/
transport systems as a species conservation goal.
    The narrow San Gorgonio Pass is between the two highest peaks in 
southern California, San Gorgonio Mountain (11,510 ft., 3,508 m) to the 
north and San Jacinto Mountain (10,837 ft., 3,303 m) to the south. 
Westerly winds funneling through San Gorgonio Pass are the dominant 
mechanism by which eolian sands are transported from bajadas and 
fluvial depositional areas to eolian deposits in the Coachella Valley 
(Sharp and Saunders 1978, Griffiths et al. 2002). Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae is associated with various types of sandy 
habitats that are formed by these eolian deposits (Sanders and Thomas 
Olsen Associates 1996, White 2004). In order to maintain adequate 
replenishment of eolian sands into eolian depositional areas, it is 
important that sand-transport corridors between fluvial and eolian 
depositional areas remain unobstructed for wind passage. The strong 
wind energy in this region can also erode sands from wash margins and 
suitable A. l. var. coachellae habitat, thereby shifting A. l. var. 
coachellae habitat into other areas, and thereby allowing the taxon to 
disperse and colonize new habitat. As a result, it is also necessary to 
protect sufficient areas that allow for these dynamic eolian sands to 
shift in their distribution.
    Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify primary 
constituent elements essential to the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae, together with the proposed designation of 
critical habitat that is essential to the conservation of the species. 
In identifying primary constituent elements, we used the best available 
scientific and commercial data available. The physical ranges described 
below in the primary constituent elements may not capture all of the 
variability that is inherent in the natural systems that support A. l. 
var. coachellae. The primary constituent elements determined essential 
to the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae are the following:
    1. Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in the 
San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and 
Indio Hills. The unconsolidated sands stored in these rivers and 
tributaries are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, but represent 
the original source of the loose sand that form the sand dunes and 
flats that are occupied by this plant.
    2. Unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San 
Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio 
Hills. The unconsolidated sands deposited on these alluvial fans are 
sporadically occupied by A. l. var. coachellae; and, importantly, are 
transported by wind and water to form the fluvial and eolian sand dunes 
and flats that are occupied in greater numbers by this plant;
    3. Suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from 
rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, 
Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills;
    4. Suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated 
sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, Little San 
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills to the fluvial 
and eolian depositional areas, including areas west of Edom Hill/Willow 
Hole reserve, areas west of Coachella Valley Preserve, and the 
Whitewater Floodplain area that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
    5. Eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or 
fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/
Whitewater River eolian sand transport system, Mission Creek/Morongo 
Wash eolian sand transport system, and the Thousand Palms eolian sand 
transport system that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that we 
have determined contain primary constituent elements and may be in need 
of special management or protection for the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae. These areas have the primary constituent 
elements described above. We have also identified and are seeking 
comment on whether to include a number of unoccupied areas which serve 
as a source of the sand identified as a primary constituent element for 
the species.
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is one of the species 
suggested for coverage by the proposed Coachella Valley MSHCP. A 
spatially explicit habitat model for the plant in the Coachella Valley 
spanning from Cabezon to Thousand Palms was created to assist in the 
design of preserves and to evaluate the potential benefits of the MSHCP 
on Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley Mountain 
Conservancy (CVMC) 2004). We are using this habitat model to assist us 
in identifying specific areas essential to the conservation of the 
taxon.

[[Page 74473]]

    The model was developed from occurrence data for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management, unpublished 
data 2001a). Environmental variables associated with the occurrence 
locations were identified and maps containing those variables were 
combined with GIS land use and habitat information to create the model. 
Eight types of habitats were used in the model: (1) Margins of active 
dunes, (2) active shielded desert dunes, (3) stabilized desert dunes, 
(4) stabilized sand fields, (5) stabilized shielded sand fields, (6) 
ephemeral sand fields, (7) active sand fields, and (8) mesquite 
hummocks. The habitat types used to create the model represented 
conditions that result from the dynamic process of sand movement in the 
Coachella Valley floor. The active dunes and sand fields form where 
sand movement from fluvial systems cross the eolian sand transport 
corridor where it is relatively unobstructed. Mesquite hummocks are 
areas where large clumps of low-growing mesquite may form hummocks 
within sand dunes. The hummocks are created by the mesquite, which 
reduces the wind velocity occurring across the ground, thus causing 
sediment to fall from the wind and collect near the plant. Large sand 
depositions onto the valley floor are episodic (Griffiths et al. 2002). 
In between flood events that deposit large amounts of sand available 
for transportation onto the valley floor, strong winds are constantly 
moving sand forward and leaving patches of gravel or cobble in the 
middle of sand fields. Holland (1986) defined this mosaic of sandy 
patches as an ``ephemeral sand field.'' The Coachella Valley floor now 
contains several development projects in front of or on top of sand 
sources or transport corridors that have shielded some sandy areas from 
being replenished with new eolian sands (CVMC 2004). Stabilized sand 
fields and dunes are sandy areas where sand movement is limited due to 
natural obstruction of wind from shrubs, herbs, and grasses (Holland 
1986).
    Because the model has not been refined with any field data since it 
was developed (CVMC 2004), we reviewed the validity of the 
environmental variables used to create the model with occurrence data 
and information about the plant's ecology. We found records for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in all of the natural 
communities used to create the model. The proposed critical habitat 
includes a mosaic of these habitat types, as well as intervening areas 
of ephemeral habitat to allow for the transport of wind-dispersed seed 
pods and eolian sands between locations containing large areas of 
habitat.
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae seeds germinate in response 
to winter rains (White 2004). Also in response to these winter rains, 
seasonally dormant root crowns (the point at which the root and stem of 
a plant meet) sprout new shoots. The date of first flowering may be as 
early as December and can continue into May, though the majority of 
flowering specimens have been collected in March and especially in 
April (White 2004). The first date of fruit may be as early as 
February, but fruit peaks in April and May as determined by seasonal 
collections. At maturity, the pods dry and fall to the ground, where 
they are then dispersed by wind. As summer progresses, the vegetation 
dies above the root mass, with an unknown proportion of plants 
persisting into the following summer and fall as dormant root crowns 
(White 2004). A. l. var. coachellae populations can survive drought 
periods as dormant seeds (seed bank), and as a consequence, the numbers 
of above-ground plants at any given time is only a limited temporal 
indication of population size (White 2004). It is not known how long A. 
l. var. coachellae seeds may remain viable, but studies on another 
Astragalus lentiginosus variety (var. micans) demonstrate that buried 
seeds may remain viable for at least eight years (Pavlik and Barbour 
1986). Therefore, we also considered areas as essential where suitable 
habitat did not contain above-ground individuals, but may contain seed 
banks and dormant root crowns necessary for the survival and recovery 
of A. l. var. coachellae.
    As stated earlier, the sand transport systems are very important 
for sustaining the various types of sandy habitats required by 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in the Coachella Valley. The 
eolian sands in the valleys originate in the drainage basins in the 
surrounding mountains. Major precipitation and flooding episodes erode 
sediment from the hillslopes and carry it downstream through the 
fluvial systems. Fine-grained sediments are deposited in either bajadas 
(alluvial fans) or depositional areas that form the supply of sand for 
the eolian sand transport system. We have identified but have not at 
this time proposed for designation as critical habitat major channels 
(> 15.24 m (50 ft) in width) in the fluvial systems from mountain 
watersheds surrounding the Coachella Valley into the valley floors. The 
width of the channels selected for identification as possible critical 
habitat include only major channels and not all minor tributaries in 
the drainages. The identified but not proposed areas also include 
bajadas and depositional areas where channels deposit sands for the 
eolian sand-transport system.
    Habitat eligible for designation was mapped using GIS and refined 
using topographical and aerial map coverages. To accomplish this, we 
first identified and mapped areas of suitable habitat supporting 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae that contained the primary 
constituent elements and belonged to one of three major sand transport 
systems (San Gorgonio and Whitewater River system, Mission creek/
Morongo Wash system, and the Indio Hills/Thousand Palms system) in the 
Coachella Valley; these systems support a majority of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae's population. We determined eligible 
habitat as consisting of large contiguous areas of suitable habitat as 
well as small intervening areas of unsuitable habitat for maintenance 
of sand movement between areas of suitable habitat. Some outlying areas 
of suitable habitat were not included because they were either too 
distant from other large areas of suitable habitat or were isolated by 
development. We also decided that suitable habitat outside of the 
preferred alternative reserve design for the draft Coachella Valley 
MSHCP was not necessary to this designation since adequate areas for 
conservation are generally being proposed within the MSHCP's reserve 
system.
    Next, based on studies on the geomorphological processes of 
sediment movement in the Coachella Valley by Lancaster (1993) and 
Griffith et al. (2002), we identified and mapped drainage basins that 
provide sediment for the three major sand transport systems in the 
Coachella Valley. Based on Griffith et al. (2002), the drainages in 
eastern San Bernardino, western Little San Bernardino Mountains, 
northern San Jacinto Mountains, and Indio Hills, that contribute 
sediment to the Coachella Valley include the San Gorgonio River, 
Whitewater River, Snow Canyon, San Jacinto 1 and 2, Stubbes Canyon, 
Cottonwood Canyon, Garnet Wash, Mission Creek, Dry Morongo, lower 
Little Morongo Creek, lower Big Morongo south of Morongo Valley, and 
drainages in the southern flank of Indio Hills west of Thousand Palms 
Canyon. While Griffiths et al. (2002) identified whole drainage areas 
of the above-mentioned washes that contribute sediment to depositional 
areas on the floor of the Coachella Valley, we only included the stream 
channels themselves. Thus, we were

[[Page 74474]]

able to substantially decrease the amount of land identified for 
possible addition to the critical habitat designation. We are also 
considering major rivers and tributaries draining the surrounding 
mountains and hills, bajadas, and depositional areas in the floodplains 
where the fluvial channels deposit sediment. The combined extent of 
these areas are shown on the maps accompanying this proposal as 
``unoccupied habitat:sand source''.
    One of the Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) 
objectives for conserving A. l. var. coachellae in their draft 
Coachella Valley MSHCP is to protect ecological processes, including 
sand source/transport systems and biological corridors and linkages 
among conserved populations for seed dispersal and shifts in species 
distribution over time (CVMC 2004). The draft MSHCP included areas 
containing these ecological processes and biological corridors in their 
preferred alternative reserve design. Essential areas proposed for 
critical habitat include the same areas mentioned above as well as 
several other drainages that are beyond the draft MSHCP planning area 
boundary.
    After creating a GIS coverage of the essential areas, we legally 
described the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, areas 
proposed for exclusion, and the unoccupied habitat identified for 
possible inclusion using a 100-meter grid to establish Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 27.
    Whenever possible, areas not containing the primary constituent 
elements, such as developed areas, were not included in the boundaries 
of proposed critical habitat. However, we did not map critical habitat 
in enough detail to exclude all developed areas, or other areas 
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements essential for the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. Areas within 
the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking 
lots, railroad tracks, canals, and other paved areas, are excluded from 
the designation by text, but these exclusions do not show on the maps 
because their scale is too small.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to have primary constituent elements may require special 
management considerations or protections. As we undertake the process 
of designating critical habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands 
defined by those physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species for inclusion in the designation pursuant 
to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands defined by 
those features to assess whether they may require special management 
considerations or protection. Threats to those primary constituent 
elements are caused by the direct and indirect effects of urban 
development, golf course construction, exotic plant species, energy 
projects, and OHV impacts.
    On private lands, urban and golf course developments destroy plants 
and occupied habitat directly. Large housing and golf course 
developments may also affect the localized wind and flooding regimes by 
reducing wind movement by the structures and landscaping and by 
changing the flooding and drainage patterns. Occupied habitats 
downstream and downwind of these developments, dependent upon the 
continuous supply of loose unconsolidated sands for their long-term 
existence, may be degraded by the alteration, blockage, and reduction 
in their supply of sand. Threats to the species may occur from urban 
developments that are not designed to reduce direct impacts to 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and do not allow sand transport 
to occupied habitats downstream and downwind from these projects.
    On both private and public lands, invasive exotic plant species, 
such as Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Mediterranean grass 
(Schismus barbatus), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), out compete 
and displace Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and stabilize 
loose sediments and thus reduce transport of sediment to downwind 
habitats occupied by this species. Dense populations of Saharan mustard 
have recently invaded the Snow Creek area, which stabilizes the soils 
and thus reduces eolian sand transport to downwind depositional areas. 
The dense numbers of mustard may also compete with A. l. var. 
coachellae for limited resources, such as water. Russian thistle is 
also thought to stabilize soils as well as compete with A. l. var. 
coachellae for limited resources. Mediterranean grasses have been a 
problem in the Coachella Valley because they grow on loose sandy soils, 
which eventually causes stabilization of the soil and a degradation of 
suitable habitat, as well as possibly out competing A. l. var. 
coachellae for limited resources. The survival of A. l. var. coachellae 
is threatened by these invasive species.
    On both private and public lands, unauthorized OHV use may destroy 
plans and occupied habitats directly. The A. l. var. coachellae is 
threatened by lack of law enforcement patrols which could reduce 
unauthorized OHV use on private lands occupied by this plant and to 
direct OHV use to areas approved for this recreation activity.
    On public lands, the construction and operation of sand and gravel 
mining, dams, and percolation ponds can directly impact plants and 
occupied habitat and decrease the amount of fluvial transported 
sediments to deposition areas downstream occupied habitats. For 
example, the percolation ponds constructed on Bureau of Land Management 
areas resulted in the direct loss of plants and occupied habitat and 
may have altered the transport of sand to downstream occupied habitats. 
Threats to the species are the lack of project design and operation of 
sand and gravel mining, dams, and percolation ponds to reduce direct 
impacts to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and that reduce sand 
transport to occupied habitats downstream and downwind from these 
facilities.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We determined that approximately 20559 ac (8320 ha) of eligible 
occupied habitat exists for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in 
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California (Table 1). We are 
proposing a designation of 3583 ac (1450 ha) in three units as critical 
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae (Table 2). Eligible occupied habitat 
in Riverside County is being excluded from the proposed critical 
habitat designation (See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
for a detailed discussion below.). The proposed critical habitat 
designation described below constitutes our best assessment of the 
areas occupied by A. l. var. coachellae with primary constituent 
elements that may require special management or protection. The three 
units proposed for designation as critical habitat are: (1) Whitewater 
River System, (2) Mission Creek and Morongo Wash System, and (3) 
Thousand Palms System.

[[Page 74475]]



 Table 1.--Areas Determined To Be Essential for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-
            vetch) and the Areas Proposed for Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat Designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Area proposed for exclusion from the
        Critical habitat unit         Area determined to be essential (Ac/        proposed critical habitat
                                                       Ha)                           designation (Ac/Ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whitewater River System..........  9,625 ac............................  6,704 ac.
                                      (3,895 ha)..........................  (2,713 ha).
2. Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System  5,834 ac............................  5,229 ac.
                                      (2,361 ha)..........................  (2,116 ha).
3. Thousand Palms System............  5,101 ac............................  5,043 ac.
                                      (2,064 ha)..........................  (2,041 ha)
                                     ---------------------------------------
    Total...........................  20,559 ac...........................  16,976 ac.
                                      (8,320 ha)..........................  (6,870 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) by County and Land Ownership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  State lands
      Critical habitat unit             County                BLM                 FWS             commission            Private              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whitewater River System......  Riverside, San      2,537 ac..........  0 ac..............  32 ac.............  452 ac............  2,921 ac.
                                   Bernardino.        (986 ha)..........  (0 ha)............  (13 ha)...........  (183 ha)..........  (1,182 ha).
2. Mission Creek and Morongo      Riverside, San      415 ac............  0 ac..............  0 ac..............  190 ac............  605 ac.
 Wash System.                      Bernardino.        (168 ha)..........  (0 ha)............  (0 ha)............  (77 ha)...........  (245 ha).
3. Thousand Palms System........  Riverside.........  24 ac.............  32 ac.............  1 ac..............  0 ac..............  57 ac.
                                                      (10 ha)...........  (12 ha)...........  (1 ha)............  (0 ha)............  (23 ha).
                                 ---------------------
    Total.......................  ..................  2,876 ac..........  32 ac.............  33 ac.............  643 ac............  3,583 ac.
                                                      (1,164 ha)........  (12 ha)...........  (14 ha)...........  (260 ha)..........  (1,450 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why their 
primary constituent elements may be in need of special management or 
protection, below.

Unit 1: Whitewater River Unit, Riverside County, California

    Unit 1 is 2921 ac (1182 ha) in size and includes the physical and 
biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae and require special management 
considerations. The Whitewater Unit is comprised of Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and State Commission lands between just east of 
Cabezon, California in the San Gorgonio Pass to Palm Drive, south of 
Interstate Highway 10. This Unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it is part of a complete sand transport system for 
the Whitewater River System that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae. 
Fluvial sediments from these drainages are transported downstream in 
flood events into either the San Gorgonio or Whitewater River and are 
then deposited in the Whitewater River fluvial deposition zones on both 
sides of Indian Avenue. Strong westerly and northwesterly winds 
funneling through the San Gorgonio Pass transport eolian sands from 
these fluvial depositional zones along the Whitewater River sand 
transport corridor. Expansion of the Coachella Valley downwind results 
in a rapid decrease of wind energy toward Indio (Sharp and Saunders 
1978), which results in deposition of eolian sands. Historically, the 
eolian depositional area was east of Palm Springs in an area called the 
Big Dune. Recent development has reduced or eliminated the natural 
transport of eolian sands into Big Dune and as a consequence much of 
these sands are now deposited on the windward side of this development 
south of Interstate 10. This sand transport system contains records of 
several large populations of A. l. var. coachellae in the Snow Creek 
area and Whitewater River floodplain. Because of the ephemeral nature 
of the sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley and given that there is 
little known about which sandy habitats are most suitable for the 
taxon, protecting the wide variety of sandy substrates in this unit is 
important for ensuring the long-term persistence and recovery of A. l. 
var. coachellae. We considered these other parts of the sand transport 
system as essential, but excluded them from this proposed rule because 
they are within the Coachella Valley MSHCP preferred alternative 
reserve design on lands that are being conserved by Permittees to the 
MSHCP (see Discussion in Relationship of Critical Habitat to the 
pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP).
    Unit 1 contains all of the primary constituent elements described 
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including areas that 
receive sands from source/transport areas, which include the following: 
Unconsolidated sands that originate from rivers and tributaries in the 
San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number 1); unconsolidated 
sands that originate from sand deposited on the alluvial fans and 
floodplains of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number 
2); suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from 
rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans and floodplains of the San 
Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number 3); suitable wind 
regimes to transport unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial 
fans and floodplains of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to 
the eolian depositional areas (PCE number 4); and eolian sands on 
active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or fields, and sandy 
alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/Whitewater River 
eolian sand transport system (PCE number 5).
    The primary constituent elements found in Unit 1 may be in need of 
special management or protection

[[Page 74476]]

because the reduction or loss of the transport of eolian sand, which 
maintains suitable habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
and the invasion of exotic weeds. There are already obstructions to 
sand transport within this unit, such as the percolation ponds located 
in the Whitewater River. The Whitewater River fluvial depositional area 
has been reduced by nearly 50 percent by the percolation ponds along 
the south edge of the river (Griffiths et al. 2002). The percolation 
ponds trap fluvial sediment that would become available for the eolian 
transport system. Special management may be required to alter the 
position of these percolation ponds so that more fluvial sediment is 
allowed to pass down the river channel into the depositional area 
(Griffiths et al. 2002). This unit is also threatened by obstructions 
in major channels (i.e., sand mining operations) that transport fluvial 
sediment downstream to fluvial depositional areas. This unit is also 
threatened by the effects of invasive weeds, such as Brassica 
tournefortii (Saharan mustard) and Shismus barbatus (Mediterranean 
grass) to A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53596, October 6, 1998). Saharan 
mustard and Mediterranean grasses are extremely dense in the western 
portion of this unit, particularly around the Snow Creek area, and 
there are concerns that this dense population of weeds may out compete 
A. l. var. coachellae for limited resources.

Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash Unit, Riverside County, 
California

    Unit 2 is 605 ac (245 ha) in size and includes the full physical 
and biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae and supports habitats that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and require special management considerations. The Mission 
Creek and Morongo Wash Unit is BLM lands north of Interstate Highway 10 
between Palm Drive and Date Palm Drive, south of 20th Avenue. This Unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it is part of a 
complete sand transport system for the Mission Creek/Morongo Wash 
System that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae. Fluvial sediment from 
these drainages is transported downstream into the Mission Creek-
Morongo Wash fluvial deposition zones between the west splay of Mission 
Creek and the east splay of Morongo Creek north of Interstate 10 and 
south of the Banning (San Andreas) Fault (Griffiths et al. 2002). 
Strong westerly and northwesterly winds funneling through the San 
Gorgonio Pass transport eolian sands from these fluvial depositional 
zones across the sand transport corridor and into the aggradation areas 
in the Edom Hill/Willow Hole Reserve area. We considered these other 
parts of the sand transport system as essential, but excluded them from 
this proposed rule because they are within the Coachella Valley MSHCP 
preferred alternative reserve design on lands that are being conserved 
by Permittees to the MSHCP (see Discussion in Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to the pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
    This unit provides habitat for several A. l. var. coachellae 
populations, such as a large population of nearly 1,000 plants recorded 
in 1982 (CVAG unpublished data 2004). This unit also contains the Edom 
Hill/Willow Hole Reserve area that protect significant habitat for A. 
l. var. coachellae.
    Unit 2 contains all of the primary constituent elements described 
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including areas that 
receive sands from source/transport areas, which include the following: 
Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in the San 
Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains (PCE number 1); 
unconsolidated sands deposited on alluvial fans of the San Bernardino 
and Little San Bernardino (PCE number 2); suitable flooding regimes to 
transport unconsolidated sands from rivers and tributaries to the 
alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains 
which are then transported to eolian depositional areas (PCE number 3); 
suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands 
deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and Little San 
Bernardino Mountains to the fluvial and eolian depositional areas (PCE 
number 4); and eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand 
dunes or fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the Mission 
Creek/Morongo Wash eolian sand transport system (PCE number 5).
    The primary constituent elements found in Unit 2 may be in need of 
special management or protection because Unit 2 is threatened by the 
loss of the transport of eolian sand to maintain suitable habitat for 
the plant. Exotic weeds are also invading areas of suitable habitat and 
are a threat to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. For further 
information on the threats to this species in Unit 2 see the final 
listing rule for A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53596, October 6, 1998).

Unit 3: Thousand Palms Unit, Riverside County, California

    Unit 3 consists of 57 ac (23 ha) in size and includes some physical 
and biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae and supports habitats that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and require special management considerations. The Thousand 
Palms Unit is comprised of BLM lands in the Coachella Valley preserve 
along Ramon Road. This Unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it is part of a complete sand transport system for the 
Coachella Valley Preserve that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae. 
Fluvial sediment from the surrounding mountain drainages is transported 
downstream into the alluvial fans south of Indio Hills. Strong westerly 
and northwesterly winds transport eolian sands from these fluvial 
depositional zones across the sand transport corridor and into the 
aggradation areas in the Coachella Valley Preserve. We considered these 
other parts of the sand transport system as essential, but excluded 
them from this proposed rule because they are within the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP preferred alternative reserve design on lands that are 
being conserved by Permittees to the MSHCP (see Discussion in 
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the pending Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
    The Coachella Valley Preserve was originally established to 
conserve the endangered fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) and includes 
Federal, State of California, and private lands. The Coachella Valley 
Preserve is managed to conserve sand-dependent species and the long-
term viability of these lands for A. l. var. coachellae is dependent 
upon maintaining a functional sand transport system. Conserving a 
complete sand transport system increases the likelihood that fresh 
eolian and fluvial sands will be brought into areas of suitable habitat 
and create a variety of sandy habitats that support A. l. var. 
coachellae, such as sandy washes, dunes, and flats. Moreover, this unit 
is essential because it is located in the easternmost portion of A. l. 
var. coachellae's range in the Coachella Valley. Maintaining the 
historical range with a distribution that is hydrologically independent 
and physically isolated from the other units will reduce the potential 
vulnerability and increase the ability of this species to recover from 
environmental fluctuations and catastrophic events that may occur

[[Page 74477]]

elsewhere within the range of this species. This unit is also part of a 
sand transport system that supports several large populations of A. l. 
var. coachellae, including two records in 1995 of approximately 300 
plants (CVAG unpublished data 2004).
    Unit 3 contains two of the primary constituent elements described 
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including suitable 
flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from rivers and 
tributaries to the alluvial fans of the Indio Hills which are then 
transported to the eolian depositional areas (PCE number 3); and sandy 
alluvial sites in washes within the Thousand Palms eolian sand 
transport system (PCE number 5).
    The primary constituent elements found within Unit 3 may be in need 
of special management or protection because of potential threats to 
fluvial transport of sediment and the eolian sand transport corridor in 
the Thousand Palms area.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We are 
currently reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification 
in relation to the conservation of the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, 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 proposed or 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 us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the 
agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed 
action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are 
advisory. If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, 
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the 
action agency ensures that the permitted actions do not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent 
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and 
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and 
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a 
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae or its critical habitat will require section 7 
consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit 
from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the Army Corps under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from 
the Service, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., 
Federal Highway Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency 
funding), will also continue to be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and private lands that are 
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 
consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat to the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would often result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned when the area of the proposed action is occupied by the 
species concerned.
    Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Activities that result in sediment from being transported 
downstream in stream channels, such as sand and gravel pits in stream 
channels;
    (2) Activities that divert, dam, or affect water flow;
    (3) Activities that block wind transport of eolian sands, such as 
development, planting of tamarisk rows;

[[Page 74478]]

    (4) Activities that foster invasion of exotic weeds (e. g., roads, 
landscaping, soil disturbance) and fragmentation of habitat.
    All three critical habitat units are known to be occupied by 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management, 
unpublished data 2001a). Federal agencies already consult with us on 
activities in areas currently occupied by the taxon or if the taxon may 
be affected by the action to ensure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the A. l. var. coachellae.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, 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. An area may be excluded from 
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical 
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species.
    In our critical habitat designations, we use provisions outlined in 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that we are 
considering to propose as critical habitat as well as for those areas 
that are formally proposed for designation as critical habitat. Lands 
we have excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) include those covered by 
the following types of plans if they provide assurances that the 
conservation measures they outline will be implemented and effective: 
(1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species, (2) draft HCPs that 
cover the species and have undergone public review and comment (i.e., 
pending HCPs), (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover the species, 
(4) State conservation plans that cover the species, and (5) National 
Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive Conservation Plans. A summary of 
the exclusions proposed in this rule follow in Table 3.

Table 3.--Approximate Essential Habitat, Excluded Essential Habitat, and
  Proposed Critical Habitat (Acres (ac); Hectares (ha)) for Astragalus
 lentiginosus var. coachellae in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
                               California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total essential habitat identified for       20,559 ac.
 Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.    (8,320 ha).
Essential habitat excluded from the          16,976 ac.
 proposed critical habitat designation       (6,870 ha).
 pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act:
 Draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species
 Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Total essential habitat proposed as          3,583 ac.
 critical habitat.                           (1,450 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Pending Habitat Conservation Plans 
and Exclusions Under 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts, when designating critical 
habitat. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits 
for the take of listed wildlife species incidental to otherwise lawful 
activities. Development of an HCP is a prerequisite for the issuance of 
an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 
An incidental take permit application must be supported by an HCP that 
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement 
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted 
incidental take.
    HCPs vary in size and may provide for incidental take coverage and 
conservation management for one or many federally listed species. 
Additionally, more than one applicant may participate in the 
development and implementation of an HCP. Some areas occupied by 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae involve a very complex HCP that 
addresses multiple species, covers large areas, and is important to 
many participating permittees. Large regional HCPs expand upon the 
basic requirements set forth in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act because 
they reflect a voluntary, cooperative approach to large-scale habitat 
and species conservation planning. Many of the large regional HCPs in 
southern California have been, or are being, developed to provide for 
the conservation of numerous federally-listed species and unlisted 
sensitive species and the habitat that provides for their biological 
needs. These HCPs are designed to proactively implement conservation 
actions to address future projects that are anticipated to occur within 
the planning area of the HCP. However, given the broad scope of these 
regional HCPs, not all projects envisioned to potentially occur may 
actually take place.
    In the case of an approved regional HCP and accompanying IA (e.g., 
those sponsored by cities, counties, or other local jurisdictions) that 
provide for incidental take coverage for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae, a primary goal of these regional plans is to provide for 
the protection and management of habitat essential for the species' 
conservation while directing development to other areas. The regional 
HCP development process provides an opportunity for more intensive data 
collection and analysis regarding particular habitat areas occupied by 
A. l. var. coachellae. The process also enables us to conduct detailed 
evaluations of the importance of such lands to the long-term survival 
of the species in the context of constructing a system of interlinked 
habitat blocks that provide for its biological needs.
    In developing critical habitat designations, the Service has 
analyzed habitat conservation planning efforts to determine if the 
benefits of excluding them from critical habitat outweigh the benefits 
of including them in designated critical habitat. In reviewing HCPs, 
the Service has assessed the potential impacts of critical habitat 
designation on lands covered by HCPs on future partnerships, the status 
of HCP efforts and progress made in developing and implementing such 
plans, and their relationship to the conservation of species. In 
certain circumstances, the Service has determined that an HCP not yet 
completed may be considered for exclusion from critical habitat 
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For example, the 
Service determined that exclusion of the draft Western Riverside 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) from critical 
habitat designation for vernal pool species was appropriate given the 
sustained progress and support for the plan of the participating 
jurisdictions (68 FR 46684, August 6, 2003).

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the Pending Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

    The draft MSHCP has been in development from the mid-1990s to 
present, pursuant to an application to the Service for a Section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit under the Act, under the

[[Page 74479]]

auspices of the following entities: Coachella Valley Association of 
Governments (CVAG); the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot 
Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and 
Rancho Mirage; County of Riverside; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
California Department of Fish and Game; Bureau of Land Management; U.S. 
Forest Service; and the National Park Service, who signed a Memorandum 
of Understanding (Planning Agreement) to govern the preparation of the 
MSHCP. Subsequently, California Department of Transportation, Coachella 
Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Riverside County 
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County 
Regional Parks and Open Space District, Riverside County Waste 
Management District, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and 
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy also decided to participate in 
preparation of the Plan. The parties later amended the Planning 
Agreement to also address the requirements of the Natural Community 
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and prepare a NCCP pursuant to 
California Fish and Game Code Section 2810. The MSHCP/NCCP area 
encompasses approximately 1.2 million ac (485,623 ha), of which 69,000 
ac (27,923 ha) is owned by an Indian Reservations and are not included 
in the MSHCP/NCCP, leaving a total of 1.1 million ac (445,154 ha) 
addressed by the MSHCP/NCCP in Riverside County.
    CVAG estimates there are 36,398 ac (14,730 ha) of habitat for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat in the MSHCP/NCCP area. 
The draft MSHCP/NCCP proposes to conserve 19,321 ac (7,819 ha) of 
modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat as part of the preferred 
alternative reserve design that includes large areas of suitable 
habitat and other important conservation areas, such as sand sources 
and sand transport corridors. Core habitat areas include: Snow Creek/
Windy Point Conservation Area; Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area; 
Willow Hole Conservation Area; and Thousand Palms Conservation Area. 
Other goals of this draft MSHCP/NCCP include: (1) Protecting other 
important conservation areas to allow for population fluctuation and 
promote genetic diversity; (2) protecting essential ecological 
processes, such as sand transport systems, necessary to maintain core 
habitat and other conserved areas; (3) maintaining biological corridors 
and linkages among all conserved populations to the maximum extent 
feasible; and (4) ensuring conservation of habitat quality through 
biological monitoring and adaptive management actions.
    The draft MSHCP/NCCP states that, although the percentage of 
modeled Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat that could be 
lost to development appears to be substantial, the actual reduction in 
habitat value is expected to be considerably less severe to the species 
than indicated by raw acreage numbers because: (1) Conserved habitat 
areas are large enough to maintain self-sustaining populations of A. l. 
var. coachellae and incorporate key habitat elements for the species; 
(2) potential adverse effects within conservation areas would not 
eliminate or significantly impact any core populations; (3) potential 
development would not adversely impact the essential ecological 
processes (e.g., sand source and transport system) needed to maintain 
currently viable habitat, and (4) lands in the MSHCP/NCCP reserve 
system would be managed and monitored (CVMC 2004).
    CVAG has demonstrated a sustained commitment to develop the MSHCP 
to comply with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the California 
Endangered Species Act, and the State's NCCP program. On November 5, 
2004, the Service published a Notice of Availability of a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 
for the MSHCP.
    Although not yet completed and implemented, CVAG has made 
significant progress in the development of its MSHCP to meet the 
requirements outlined in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In light of 
the Service's confidence that CVAG will reach a successful conclusion 
to its MSHCP development process, we are excluding lands within their 
preferred alternative reserve design from proposed critical habitat 
designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    As stated previously, the benefits of designating critical habitat 
on lands within the boundaries of approved HCPs are normally small. 
Where HCPs are in place that include coverage for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae, our experience has shown that the HCPs 
and their Implementing Agreements include management measures and 
protections designed to protect, restore, enhance, manage, and monitor 
habitat that benefit the long-term protection of the species. The 
principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that projects 
carried out, authorized, or funded by Federal agencies that may affect 
a listed species require the action agency to consult with the Service 
to ensure such activities do not destroy or adversely modify designated 
critical habitat. In the case of the CVAG, their MSHCP will be analyzed 
by the Service to determine the effects of the MSHCP on the species for 
which the participants are seeking incidental take permits. The MSHCP 
currently under review by the Service reflects revisions made to the 
plan based on comments and input from the Service and California 
Department of Fish and Game.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    Excluding lands within CVAG's MSHCP preferred alternative reserve 
design area from critical habitat designation will enhance our ability 
to work with them in the spirit of cooperation and partnership. A more 
detailed discussion concerning our rationale for excluding HCPs from 
critical habitat designation is outlined under the previous section. 
Further, the Service believes the analysis conducted to evaluate the 
benefits of excluding approved HCPs from critical habitat designation 
is applicable and appropriate to apply to CVAG's MSHCP.

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    In general, we find that the benefits of critical habitat 
designation on lands within pending HCPs that cover those species are 
small while the benefits of excluding such lands from designation of 
critical habitat are substantial. After weighing the small benefits of 
including lands within the MSHCP area against the much greater benefits 
derived from exclusion, we have excluded the preferred alternative 
reserve design in CVAG's MSHCP from proposed critical habitat. Areas 
within the MSHCP planning area that are still included as proposed 
critical habitat are lands owned by public agencies that are not 
signatories to the MSHCP (i.e., U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management); however, these agencies are contributing to the MSHCP's 
reserve design. We have requested public comments on the potential 
exclusion of Federal lands (e.g., Bureau of Land Management and the 
U.S. Forest Service) from critical habitat based on their participation 
in and contribution to the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae under the proposed Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan.

[[Page 74480]]

Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible Inclusion

    The Act has different standards for designation of critical habitat 
in occupied and unoccupied habitat. For areas occupied by the species, 
these are: (i) The specific areas on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection. For 
areas not occupied, a determination is required that the entire area is 
essential for the conservation of the species before it can be included 
in critical habitat. Congress has also cautioned the Service to be 
``exceedingly circumspect'' in designating unoccupied habitat.
    This presents a highly unusual situation with respect to critical 
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, in that the 
species depends on sand being continually replenished from outside the 
areas it occupies, yet Congress has directed us to be exceedingly 
circumspect in including unoccupied areas in critical habitat 
designations. We are accordingly identifying areas which serve as a 
source for this sand and requesting comment on whether they should be 
included in the designation. Aspects of the situation upon which we 
seek comment include whether all, only a portion, or none of the areas 
identified below are needed to ensure sufficient sand supplies to 
maintain occupied habitat in its current condition, whether the draft 
CVAG MSHCP will provide for sand flow sufficient to maintain the 
species, and whether there are threats to the sand source areas that 
would be addressed by designating them as critical habitat.
    The identified areas are:

Possible Addition to Unit 1

    Unit 1 is dependent on the largest sand transport system where 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae exists. This large sand 
transport system contains several mountain drainages in the San 
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains that are essential for providing 
sediment to several large populations of A. l. var. coachellae in the 
Snow Creek area and Whitewater River floodplain. Protecting the wide 
variety of physical and ecological features of this unit is important 
for ensuring the long-term persistence and recovery of A. l. var. 
coachellae.
    The Whitewater River System begins in the mountain drainages in 
eastern San Bernardino and northern San Jacinto Mountains, which 
includes the San Gorgonio River, Whitewater River, Snow Canyon, San 
Jacinto Canyons 1 and 2, Stubbes Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, and Garnet 
Wash (Griffiths et al. 2002). Major channels (>15.24 m (50 ft) in 
width) within each of these drainage areas were determined as being 
important to the conservation of the species. The San Gorgonio and 
Whitewater River systems constitute the primary sediment sources within 
the Whitewater/San Gorgonio River depositional area, contributing a 
total of about 76% (Griffiths et al. 2002). Snow Canyon, San Jacinto 
Canyons 1 and 2, Stubbes Canyon, and Garnet Wash contribute a total of 
about 19% of the sediment within the Whitewater/San Gorgonio River 
system (Griffiths et al. 2002). We are seeking public comment on the 
importance of these and smaller drainages to overall sediment transport 
to the Coachella Valley.

Possible Addition to Unit 2

    Unit 2 is dependent upon an important sand transport system which 
is largely intact and sandy habitats, including active and stabilized 
sand dunes and fields, and alluvial sand deposits in washes are 
generally not shielded or blocked by upstream development. The Mission 
Creek and Morongo Wash System begins in the mountain drainages in the 
eastern San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, including 
Mission Creek, Dry Morongo, lower Little Morongo Creek, lower Big 
Morongo south of Morongo Valley, and Long Canyon (Griffiths et al. 
2002). Major channels (>15.24 m (50 ft) in width) within each of these 
drainage areas, with the exception of Long Canyon, were delineated as 
being essential to the conservation of the species. The depositional 
area in Long Canyon has been significantly reduced due to development 
and was therefore not considered essential for sand transport. Mission 
Creek and Little Morongo Creek contribute a total of about 76% of the 
sediment within the Mission/Morongo depositional area (Griffiths et al. 
2002). Big Morongo Creek contributes about 11% of the sediment to the 
Mission/Morongo depositional area (Griffiths et al. 2002). We are 
seeking public comment on the importance of this smaller drainage to 
overall sediment transport to the Coachella Valley.

Possible Addition to Unit 3

    Unit 3 is dependent upon an important sand transport system which 
is largely intact and sandy habitats, including active and stabilized 
sand dunes and fields, and alluvial sand deposits in washes are 
generally not shielded or blocked by upstream development. The 
Coachella Valley Preserve System begins in the mountain drainages in 
the Indio Hills Indio Hills west of Thousand Palms Canyon. Major 
channels (> 15.24 m (50 ft) in width) within each of these drainage 
areas were delineated as being essential to the conservation of the 
species. We are seeking public comment on the importance of this 
smaller drainage to overall sediment transport to the Coachella Valley.

Relationship of Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible Inclusion to 
Morongo Indian Reservation

    Possible additions to Unit 1 include parts of the Morongo Indian 
Reservation located on stream and river channels in the San Gorgonio 
River basin containing unconsolidated sands that maintain downstream 
areas of suitable habitat that are occupied by Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather 
information regarding the designation of critical habitat and the 
effects thereof from all relevant sources, including Indian Pueblos and 
Tribes. In accordance with 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,'' and Executive Order 13175, we recognize 
the need to consult with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-
to-government basis when considering the designation of critical 
habitat in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of Tribal rights. Critical habitat 
shall not be designated in such areas unless it is determined essential 
to conserve a listed species. In designating critical habitat, we must 
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the 
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other 
lands. We are committed to working with the Morongo Band of Mission 
Indians on matters regarding critical habitat.

Economic Analysis

    An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat 
for this species is being prepared. We will announce the availability 
of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register as soon as it is 
completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At 
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for 
downloading from the Internet at http://Carlsbad.fws.gov, or by 
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and

[[Page 74481]]

Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).

Peer Review

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

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at 
least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will 
schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and 
announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal 
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first 
hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format 
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is 
the description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What 
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You 
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, 
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to 
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We 
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which 
will be available for public comment, to determine the economic 
consequences of designating the specific area as critical habitat. This 
economic analysis also will be used to determine compliance with 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and Executive Order 12630.
    Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized 
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are listed 
above in the section on Section 7 Consultation. The availability of the 
draft economic analysis will be announced in the Federal Register and 
in local newspapers so that it is available for public review and 
comments. The draft economic analysis can be obtained from the Internet 
at http://Carlsbad.fws.gov, or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).

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

    Our assessment of economic effect will be completed prior to final 
rulemaking based upon review of the draft economic analysis prepared 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This analysis is 
for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
does not reflect our position on the type of economic analysis required 
by New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 248 
F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 
and E.O. 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required 
factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft 
economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability of 
the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and reopen the 
public comment period for the proposed designation for an additional 60 
days. The Service will include with the notice of availability, as 
appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a 
certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities accompanied by the factual 
basis for that determination. The Service has concluded that deferring 
the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is 
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. Deferring 
the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that the Service makes a 
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (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. 
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is 
not a

[[Page 74482]]

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), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC 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 non-Federal entities who receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits or 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 would not apply; nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' 
means governments of cities, counties, town, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 
50,000 (U.S.C. title 5, part I, chapter 6, section 601[5]). The lands 
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae are owned by Federal, State, and local 
government entities. None of these government entities fit the 
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' As such, Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating 31,270 ac (12,656 ha) of lands in Riverside and San 
Bernardino Counties, California, as critical habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae in a takings implication assessment. The 
takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae does not pose significant takings implications. However, we 
have not yet completed the economic analysis for this proposed rule. 
Once the economic analysis is available, we will review and revise this 
preliminary assessment as warranted.

Federalism

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

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent 
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae.

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. This rule 
will 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

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. 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 in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).

[[Page 74483]]

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, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. No Indian Reservation lands 
are essential for the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae, however, there are unoccupied areas identified for possible 
inclusion on the Morongo Indian Reservation that support important 
stream channels providing unconsolidated sands that maintain suitable 
habitat for this taxon. Activities conducted or planned on those lands 
may adversely affect the conservation of the A. l. var. coachellae. 
Therefore, we are committed to working on partnerships with the Morongo 
Tribe on matters regarding critical habitat. Information relative to 
Tribal lands is included in the critical habitat unit descriptions and 
under Relationship of Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible 
Inclusion to Morongo Indian Reservation.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entry in the table for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae under ``FLOWERING PLANTS,'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Species
----------------------------------------------------------     Historic range             Family             Status         When     Critical   Special
          Scientific name                Common name                                                                       listed    habitat     rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Astragalus lentiginosus var.        Coachella Valley milk- U.S.A. (CA)..........  Fabaceae.............  E                     647   17.96(a)         NA
 coachellae.                         vetch.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a), by adding critical habitat for 
``Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' 
in the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in Sec.  17.12(h) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Fabaceae: Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella 
Valley milk-vetch)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside and San 
Bernardino counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for this 
species are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in 
the San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains 
and Indio Hills. The unconsolidated sands stored in these rivers and 
tributaries are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, but represent 
the original source of the loose sand that form the sand dunes and 
flats that are occupied by this plant.
    (ii) Unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San 
Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio 
Hills. The unconsolidated sands deposited on these alluvial fans are 
not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae; instead, these sands are 
transported by wind and water to form the fluvial and eolian sand dunes 
and flats that are occupied by this plant;
    (iii) Suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands 
from rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, 
Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills;
    (iv) Suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated 
sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, Little San 
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills to the fluvial 
and eolian depositional areas, including areas west of Edom Hill/Willow 
Hole reserve, areas west of Coachella Valley Preserve, and the 
Whitewater Floodplain area that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
    (v) Eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or 
fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/
Whitewater River eolian sand transport system, Mission Creek/Morongo 
Wash eolian sand transport system, and the Thousand Palms eolian sand 
transport system that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include man-made structures existing 
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of 
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts, 
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
    (4) The index maps of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
proposed critical habitat (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 74484]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.145


[[Page 74485]]


    (5) Unit 1: Whitewater River Unit, Riverside and San Bernardino 
Counties,
    California.
    (i) Map Unit 1: Whitewater River, Riverside County, California. 
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Whitewater, Desert Hot Springs, Palm 
Springs and Cathedral City, California, lands bounded by the following 
UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 526500, 3753000; 526900, 3753000; 526900, 
3752700; 526800, 3752700; 526800, 3752600; 525900, 3752600; 525900, 
3752900; 526500, 3752900; returning to 526500, 3753000; land bounded by 
527000, 3753000; 527700, 3753000; 527700, 3752600; 527400, 3752600; 
527400, 3752700; 527200, 3752700; 527200, 3752800; 527000, 3752800; 
returning to 527000, 3753000; land bounded by 533600, 3753000; 533700, 
3753000; 533700, 3752900; 533800, 3752900; 533800, 3751800; 533900, 
3751800; 533900, 3751700; 534000, 3751700; 534000, 3751600; 534100, 
3751600; 534100, 3751400; 534300, 3751400; 534300, 3751300; 534400, 
3751300; 534400, 3751200; 534500, 3751200; 534500, 3751100; 534700, 
3751100; 534700, 3751000; 535100, 3751000; 535100, 3751100; 535700, 
3751100; 535700, 3750400; 535400, 3750400; 535400, 3750500; 535300, 
3750500; 535300, 3750600; 535200, 3750600; 535200, 3750800; 534500, 
3750800; 534500, 3750700; 534400, 3750700; 534400, 3750500; 534100, 
3750500; 534100, 3750400; 533400, 3750400; 533400, 3750300; 533500, 
3750300; 533500, 3750000; 533600, 3750000; 533600, 3749900; 533500, 
3749900; 533500, 3749800; 533400, 3749800; 533400, 3749900; 533300, 
3749900; 533300, 3749800; 533100, 3749800; 533100, 3749900; 533000, 
3749900; 533000, 3750000; 532900, 3750000; 532900, 3750200; 532800, 
3750200; 532800, 3750400; 532400, 3750400; 532400, 3751400; 533000, 
3751400; 533000, 3751300; 533200, 3751300; 533200, 3751200; 533400, 
3751200; 533400, 3751400; 533600, 3751400; returning to 533600, 
3753000; land bounded by 525900, 3752300; 526200, 3752300; 526200, 
3752200; 526400, 3752200; 526400, 3752000; 526200, 3752000; 526200, 
3752100; 526100, 3752100; 526100, 3752200; 525900, 3752200; returning 
to 525900, 3752300; land bounded by 530600, 3751400; 530900, 3751400; 
530900, 3750900; 530700, 3750900; 530700, 3750700; 530500, 3750700; 
530500, 3750600; 530400, 3750600; 530400, 3750500; 530300, 3750500; 
530300, 3750600; 530000, 3750600; 530000, 3750500; 529900, 3750500; 
529900, 3750400; 529400, 3750400; 529400, 3750500; 529200, 3750500; 
529200, 3751000; 530400, 3751000; 530400, 3750900; 530600, 3750900; 
returning to 530600, 3751400; land bounded by 537200, 3751000; 538400, 
3751000; 538400, 3750900; 539000, 3750900; 539000, 3750700; 538200, 
3750700; 538200, 3750600; 537200, 3750600; returning to 537200, 
3751000; land bounded by 540500, 3750900; 541200, 3750900; 541200, 
3750800; 541400, 3750800; 541400, 3750900; 541500, 3750900; 541500, 
3750800; 541600, 3750800; 541600, 3750700; 541800, 3750700; 541800, 
3750500; 542200, 3750500; 542200, 3749600; 540600, 3749600; 540600, 
3748200; 541000, 3748200; 541000, 3748100; 542200, 3748100; 542200, 
3747600; 540800, 3747600; 540800, 3747500; 540500, 3747500; 540500, 
3748100; 539000, 3748100; 539000, 3747900; 538800, 3747900; 538800, 
3748000; 538700, 3748000; 538700, 3748100; 538600, 3748100; 538600, 
3748200; 538900, 3748200; 538900, 3749500; 539000, 3749500; 539000, 
3749800; 540100, 3749800; 540100, 3749700; 540500, 3749700; returning 
to 540500, 3750900; land bounded by 530800, 3750800; 530900, 3750800; 
530900, 3750700; 530800, 3750700; 530800, 3750800; land bounded by 
536500, 3749800; 537000, 3749800; 537000, 3749700; 537200, 3749700; 
537200, 3749600; 537300, 3749600; 537300, 3749500; 537400, 3749500; 
537400, 3749200; 537200, 3749200; 537200, 3749300; 537000, 3749300; 
537000, 3749400; 536900, 3749400; 536900, 3749500; 536700, 3749500; 
536700, 3749600; 536600, 3749600; 536600, 3749700; 536500, 3749700; 
returning to 536500, 3749800; land bounded by 545300, 3748500; 545500, 
3748500; 545500, 3748400; 545600, 3748400; 545600, 3748300; 545700, 
3748300; 545700, 3748200; 545800, 3748200; 545800, 3748000; 545300, 
3748000; returning to 545300, 3748500; and land bounded by 547100, 
3747100; 547400, 3747100; 547400, 3747000; 547600, 3747000; 547600, 
3746900; 547700, 3746900; 547700, 3746800; 547900, 3746800; 547900, 
3746700; 548000, 3746700; 548000, 3746600; 548200, 3746600; 548200, 
3746400; 547700, 3746400; 547700, 3746600; 547500, 3746600; 547500, 
3746800; 547100, 3746800; returning to 547100, 3747100.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1 (Map 2) follows:

[[Page 74486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.146

[insert Map 2: Whitewater River Unit]
[[Page 74487]]


    (6) Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash Unit, Riverside and San 
Bernardino Counties, California.
    (i) Map Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash, Riverside County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Seven Palms Valley and 
Cathedral City, California, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 546500, 3749800; 547000, 3749800; 547000, 3749300; 
546500, 3749300; returning to 546500, 3749800; and land bounded by 
548900, 3749800; 549700, 3749800; 549700, 3749600; 549600, 3749600; 
549600, 3749500; 549500, 3749500; 549500, 3748800; 549600, 3748800; 
549600, 3748600; 549700, 3748600; 549700, 3748400; 549800, 3748400; 
549800, 3748300; 549900, 3748300; 549900, 3748200; 550000, 3748200; 
550000, 3748100; 549700, 3748100; 549700, 3748300; 549600, 3748300; 
549600, 3748100; 549400, 3748100; 549400, 3748400; 549500, 3748400; 
549500, 3748500; 549300, 3748500; 549300, 3748800; 549400, 3748800; 
549400, 3748900; 548900, 3748900; returning to 548900, 3749800; land 
bounded by 548500, 3748600; 548800, 3748600; 548800, 3748300; 548500, 
3748300; returning to 548500, 3748600; land bounded by 548900, 3748600; 
549100, 3748600; 549100, 3748300; 548900, 3748300; returning to 548900, 
3748600; land bounded by 545300, 3748500; 545500, 3748500; 545500, 
3748400; 545600, 3748400; 545600, 3748300; 545700, 3748300; 545700, 
3748200; 545800, 3748200; 545800, 3748000; 545300, 3748000; returning 
to 545300, 3748500; land bounded by 550100, 3747800; 550300, 3747800; 
550300, 3747100; 550100, 3747100; returning to 550100, 3747800; and 
land bounded by 548100, 3748200; 548600, 3748200; 548600, 3747200; 
547500, 3747200; 547500, 3747300; 547400, 3747300; 547400, 3747400; 
547300, 3747400; 547300, 3747500; 547100, 3747500; 547100, 3747600; 
547000, 3747600; 547000, 3747700; 546900, 3747700; 546900, 3747900; 
547300, 3747900; 547300, 3747700; 547500, 3747700; 547500, 3747500; 
547800, 3747500; 547800, 3747600; 547700, 3747600; 547700, 3748100; 
548100, 3748100; returning to 548100, 3748200; excluding land bounded 
by 548000, 3747600; 548000, 3747400; 547800, 3747400; 547800, 3747300; 
548100, 3747300; 548100, 3747600; 548000, 3747600.
    (ii) Note: Unit 2 (Map 3) follows:

[[Page 74488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.147


[[Page 74489]]


    (7) Unit 3: Thousand Palms Unit, Riverside County, California.
    (i) Map Unit 3: Thousand Palms, Riverside County, California. From 
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Myoma, California, lands bounded by the 
following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 563600, 3741700; 564000, 
3741700; 564000, 3741400; 563900, 3741400; 563900, 3741500; 563700, 
3741500; 563700, 3741600; 563600, 3741600; returning to 563600, 
3741700; and land bounded by 562300, 3741500; 562800, 3741500; 562800, 
3741200; 562300, 3741200; returning to 562300, 3741500.
    (ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 4) follows:

[[Page 74490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.148


[[Page 74491]]


* * * * *

    Dated: November 30, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-26690 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C