[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58954-58998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24047]



[[Page 58953]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 184

September 22, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical 
Habitat; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 58954]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0019; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AV91


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical 
Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered status for Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also 
designating approximately 587 acres (237 hectares) of land as critical 
habitat for the species in Riverside County, California.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical 
habitat are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and 
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. Comments and materials received, as well 
as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 
92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics 
directly relevant to the listing and designation of critical habitat 
for Casey's June beetle under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 
genus Dinacoma and approximately 90 other genera constitute the New 
World members of the subfamily Melolonthinae (i.e., May beetles, June 
beetles, and chafers) of the scarab beetle family (Scarabaeidae) (Smith 
and Evans 2005). Despite past references to potentially new species or 
subspecies of Dinacoma (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 173-174; La Rue pers. 
comm., 2006), Casey's June beetle, Dinacoma caseyi Blaisdell, and D. 
marginata (Casey) Casey remain the only described taxonomic entities in 
the genus (Evans and Smith 2009, p. 44). For additional information on 
the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Casey's June beetle, and the 
history of this rulemaking, refer to the August 8, 2006, 90-day finding 
(71 FR 44960), the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), the 
July 9, 2009, proposed listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR 32857), 
and the March 31, 2010, document making available the draft economic 
analysis (DEA) (75 FR 16046) published in the Federal Register. These 
documents are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.

New Species Information

    In our proposed listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR 32857; 
July 9, 2009), we requested comments on any new species information. 
One peer reviewer suggested we clarify the fact that female Casey's 
June beetles are known to be flightless, because our wording in one 
sentence was not clear in that regard. Information submitted by peer 
reviewers and an expert in scarab beetles (Hawks, University of 
California, Riverside, pers. comm. 2010) also disagreed with the 
appropriateness of primary constituent element (PCE) 2. We have made 
the appropriate changes to this final listing and critical habitat 
rule.

New Species Occupancy and Habitat Information

    Multiple commenters and one peer reviewer further suggested that 
the species may occupy areas outside proposed critical habitat. To 
determine if areas outside of the proposed critical habitat designation 
harbor the Casey's June beetle, we funded a survey of likely habitat 
within the species' known historical range and beyond. While the survey 
focused on areas north of Palm Springs (i.e., immediately south of the 
Chino Cone) and south to Palm Desert, we have yet to receive a final 
report from the surveyor (i.e., David Hawks). Nonetheless, preliminary 
survey information received to date primarily supports our 
determination of the species' current range and population 
distribution, and modification of PCEs to include disturbed soils and 
predominantly, but not exclusively, native vegetation (i.e., not the 
two specific ``intact'' vegetation types listed in the proposed rule) 
(Hawks pers. comm., 2010; see below discussion).
    Hawks (pers. comm. 2010, 2011a and b) located two occupied Casey's 
June beetle sites outside of proposed critical habitat, in natural 
remnants of the Palm Canyon Wash channel surrounded by golf course 
landscaping just east of the easternmost section of wash proposed as 
critical habitat, in the vicinity of Golf Club Drive. These wash 
habitat remnants total 17 acres (ac) (7 hectares (ha)), and are 
downstream from the confluence of Palm Canyon Wash and Tahquiz Creek, 
where additional streamflow occurs following a storm event. Although it 
is possible these habitat remnants could contribute to species 
recovery, their ability to support occupancy long-term is questionable 
because these areas are subject to scouring flood events, which would 
remove available habitat and displace and most likely extirpate any 
individuals occupying the sites. In addition, the frequency of scouring 
flood events likely to extirpate resident individuals is expected to 
increase with climate change (see E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species section below). 
Therefore, at this time, we have determined that these wash habitat 
remnants do not meet the definition of critical habitat. However, we 
will continue to gather information regarding the potential for this 
wash habitat area to contribute to species recovery.
    Hawks' comprehensive survey (pers. comm. 2010) included potential 
Casey's June beetle habitat remnants identified throughout the City of 
Palm Springs, including many vacant lots within the developed areas of 
the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) 
documented numerous female emergence holes and observed many female 
beetles during his surveys, confirming occupancy of Coachella fine sand 
series (CpA), and Myoma fine sands (MaB) soil types. Hawks (pers. comm. 
2010) stated he never found emergence holes in the Carsitas cobbly sand 
series (ChC) soil type. However, he believes ChC soil may be occupied 
if it is an inclusion surrounded by Carsitas gravelly sand series (CdC) 
soil, and if it is not part of the landscape defining the edge of the 
floodplain, such as along South Palm Canyon Drive to the west. Based on 
this information from Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) we determined that ChC 
soils not 100 percent surrounded by CdC and Riverwash (RA) soils do not 
meet the definition of critical habitat (see Summary of Changes From 
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, Physical or Biological 
Features, and

[[Page 58955]]

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections below).
    Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) positive survey results generally 
supported our estimation of Casey's June beetle population distribution 
within proposed critical habitat, with the exception of newly 
discovered occupied wash habitat remnants described above that 
represent a slight northeastern distribution extension, and the lack of 
occupancy in some southern areas that were determined not to meet the 
definition of critical habitat and therefore were not designated (see 
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, 
Physical or Biological Features, and Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat sections below). In a subsequent communication, Hawks (pers. 
comm. 2011a) described his survey results from the southern population 
distribution area: ``Adults of both sexes of [Casey's June beetle] as 
well as emergence holes were observed in the wash and in [adjacent] 
floodplain areas west of the wash between Bogert Trail and Acanto 
Drive. Adults of both sexes as well as emergence holes were observed in 
the wash and in floodplain areas west of the wash from Acanto and south 
for a few hundred meters. South of this area, [Casey's June beetle] 
emergence holes were observed in late June 2010 (after the adult 
emergence period) in both the wash and the floodplain habitat adjacent 
to the wash as far south as the fence and almost to the small dam and 
this is as far south as we surveyed. Emergence holes were less common 
towards the southern extent of this area, and, especially in the wash, 
they were not apparent in the close vicinity of the dam (within about 
[328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m))]). The wash [close to the dam] is 
narrow and much more disturbed (apparently by turbulent water flow), 
gravelly, and rocky in this area, and is perhaps unsuitable as [Casey's 
June beetle] habitat.'' This new information confirms occupancy of the 
southernmost wash and upland designated critical habitat areas where 
beetles had not previously been reported (as described in Barrows 1998, 
p. 1), and increases the highest elevation for a Casey's June beetle 
observation (southernmost wash area) to approximately 580 ft (177 m).
    New survey information shed light on the occupancy and suitability 
status of lands proposed for critical habitat designation at the 
southern extreme of the population distribution. Light trap surveys of 
southern portions of the species' population distribution were 
conducted by Jim Cornett (2010, pp. 10-11) in upland habitat, from 
South Palm Canyon Drive south into Indian Canyons Preserve. Although 
Cornet (2010, p. 14) did not trap any male Casey's June beetles or 
observe any females, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a) observations do not 
support Cornett's conclusion that uplands contiguous with the wash 
south of Acanto Drive are not occupied. Traps on the eastern edge of 
Cornett's ``Area 3'' (Cornett 2010, p. 10), where he sampled in April, 
were within approximately 660 ft (200 m) of locations where Hawks 
reported Casey's June beetle occupancy in May. Cornett did not survey 
for females or emergence holes in 2010. Conversely, the results of 
Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011b) and Cornett's (2010, pp. 10 and 14) surveys 
in western areas adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive were all negative. 
Furthermore, Hawks (pers. comm. 2011b) reported unsuitable habitat 
conditions for this western area, similar to those described by Hovore 
(1997a, p. 3) and evident on current aerial imagery. Therefore, we 
believe habitat in this southwestern portion associated with South Palm 
Canyon Drive is not occupied and not likely occupiable. However, as 
noted in the preceding paragraph, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a and b) new 
information does indicate occupancy in the southernmost mapped 
contiguous CdC and RA soil areas.
    New habitat information resulted in changes to our habitat area 
estimates. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) discovery of 17 ac (7 ha) of 
occupied Casey's June beetle habitat outside of proposed critical 
habitat in Palm Canyon Wash increased our estimates of extant and 
historic occupied habitat. However, based on the currently available 
information, we have determined that this newly discovered occupied 
habitat does not meet the definition of critical habitat (see above 
discussion). Multiple tribal commenters further suggested the species 
may no longer occupy areas within the southern portion of the proposed 
critical habitat unit, and that these habitat areas were no longer 
suitable for Casey's June beetle occupancy (see Comments 5 and 8 below 
in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section). Survey 
information from 2010 supports this hypothesis for areas in the 
southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit associated 
with South Palm Canyon Drive (see above discussion). The determination 
that the southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit 
associated with South Palm Canyon Drive is no longer occupied or 
contains suitable habitat decreased the total area estimate of 
remaining suitable habitat (despite the addition of the two newly 
discovered occupied sites in a natural remnant of the Palm Canyon Wash 
channel discussed above). As a result of this new information, we have 
made appropriate changes to this final rule.

New Information on Casey's June Beetle Diet and Movement

    We found one new study on the diet of another endangered June 
beetle, and some new information on June beetle movement distances. 
Hill and O'Malley (2009, p. 1) found that the frass pellets (pelletized 
fecal matter) of larvae of the Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla 
barbata) contained a variety of plant species and fungi material 
demonstrating that they are not specialist host plant feeders but are 
microhabitat specialists. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) observations at 
Smoke Tree Ranch indicate Casey's June beetle may be similar when he 
stated that, ``We did not observe females at Smoke Tree [Ranch], but 
many hundreds of emergence holes associated with native vegetation [and 
nonnative vegetation such as] irrigated tamarisk, fan palms, oleander, 
and olive. We still are not sure what plants of any sort mean to 
[Casey's June beetle] grubs. * * * '' These results support our 
hypothesis that Casey's June beetles do not require particular species 
of host plants for feeding. However, native plant species likely are 
important habitat components in other ways not fully understood at this 
time, because native plant species are an integral component of the 
ecosystem in which Casey's June beetle evolved. We incorporated this 
information into the Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June 
Beetle section below.
    The observation of a male Casey's June beetle at a street light in 
a suburban neighborhood approximately 750 ft (230 m) from the nearest 
suitable habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 6; Google Earth historical imagery 
1996 and 2002) indicates that movement of males among occupied areas 
occurs over at least that distance, and it is likely that potential 
movement is much farther. The maximum male dispersal distance recorded 
for male Mount Hermon June beetles, a related species that also has 
flightless females, is 923 ft (281 m) (Arnold, Entomological Consulting 
Services, Ltd., pers. comm. 2011). Arnold (pers. comm. 2011) noted this 
datum was from a mark-release-recapture study limited to his study 
site, and therefore it is ``entirely possible'' adult male June beetles 
are capable of making longer distance movements. This information 
supports the conclusion articulated in our Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat section below that all lands meeting the definition of 
critical habitat are likely

[[Page 58956]]

occupied at the population level and fall within the distribution of a 
single population. Please see Summary of Comments and Recommendations 
section below for further discussion of comments and information 
received.

Previous Federal Actions

    In our July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), we determined 
that listing Casey's June beetle as an endangered species was warranted 
but precluded. Because of the lack of funding for the large number of 
candidate species we were unable to propose and finalize the listing 
for Casey's June beetle at that time. In Fiscal Year 2007, we had more 
than 120 species with a listing priority number (LPN) of 2, based on 
our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each 
candidate species (48 FR 43098). Although funding to work on a proposed 
listing determination was not available at the time of the 12-month 
finding, we subsequently received funding for development of proposed 
and final listing with critical habitat rules. On July 9, 2009 (74 FR 
32857), we published in the Federal Register a proposal to list Casey's 
June beetle as endangered and to designate critical habitat. In this 
final rule, we determine endangered status for Casey's June beetle and 
designate critical habitat.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the 
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly, or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

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

    Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles that has 
naturally restricted ranges (LaRue, University of California, 
Riverside, pers. comm. 2006). Casey's June beetle is adapted to 
specialized habitat and soil types found in the Palm Canyon Wash area 
of Palm Springs, California. We do not know the exact historical 
population footprint of Casey's June beetle due to the generality and 
paucity of location descriptions from early collection records (see 
discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR 44962; August 8, 2006)). 
However, museum specimen records indicate the historical range can be 
described as the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains from 
the City of Palm Springs south to the community of Indian Wells. This 
historical range, while far greater than the current known population 
distribution, is nonetheless relatively restricted compared to most 
species.
    We used soils data correlated with occupancy data to estimate the 
historical suitable habitat distribution of Casey's June beetle. Our 
review of the soil and occupancy data showed that over 97 percent of 
habitat likely to have been included in Casey's June beetle historical 
population distributions has been converted to development or rendered 
unsuitable by the impacts of adjacent development. Of the approximately 
605 ac (245 ha) of remaining extant suitable habitat, approximately 70 
percent remains relatively unprotected by existing regulations (see D. 
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section below). 
Approximately 50 percent of the unprotected habitat areas are tribal 
reservation lands and 30 percent are in private ownership. The 
remaining approximately 20 percent is owned by local entities (City of 
Palm Springs and County Flood Control) for roads, flood control, and 
water facilities. Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal reservation 
land consists of approximately 11 ac (4 ha) in tribal trust, and 152 ac 
(62 ha) in fee-title and allotted lands. The majority of tribal 
reservation lands are at risk of development, as are any undeveloped 
portions of the relatively unprotected lands owned by local governments 
and private landowners.
    The population of the City of Palm Springs increased from 42,805 to 
47,251 between 2000 and 2008, an increase of 10 percent (CDF 2008, 
Table 1, Table E-1). The City is predicted to grow by 25 percent 
between 2000 and 2020 (SCAG 2004, Table 2004GF). The current growth 
rate has increased development pressure on properties zoned for 
residential and commercial use, uses which would encroach upon Casey's 
June beetle habitat.
Development
    We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from 
2003 to 2007 to determine the habitat impacts of completed and pending 
projects as cited in the petition to list Casey's June beetle (Wright 
et al. 2004, pp. 8-9) and referenced in the July 5, 2007, 12-month 
finding (72 FR 36635). We were unable to identify all projects cited in 
the petition, as the petitioners did not provide specific geographic 
descriptions, and the extent of area of proposed development projects 
cited did not exactly match calculations in our most recent analysis. 
However, based on site visits and digital aerial photographs, we 
identified at least seven projects that removed or impacted occupied 
and likely occupied habitat within the distribution described above in 
the 5 years between 2003 and 2007. Habitat disturbance activities such 
as development can result in direct mortality of larvae and adults.
    The Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail adjacent to Palm 
Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands) impacted approximately 39 ac (16 
ha) of occupied habitat in 2005. Expected mitigation measures described 
by Dudek and Associates (2001, p. 24) for impacts to Casey's June 
beetle habitat were an in-lieu payment of $600 per ac ($240 per ha) 
(total of $21,960) to the City of Palm Springs or a habitat 
conservation entity designated by the City for loss of approximately 37 
ac (15 ha) of ``creosote bush scrub habitat'' (no specified use of 
these funds), and re-creation of 9 ac (4 ha) of lost ``desert wash 
scrub habitat'' (no specified cost). To our knowledge, no appropriate 
habitat has yet been conserved or restored for Casey's June beetle to 
offset the Monte Sereno project impacts.
    In 2006, the City of Palm Springs issued a mitigated negative 
declaration for Smoke Tree Ranch Cottages (City of Palm Springs 2006, 
p. 2) (``Casitas'' development cited in the 90-day finding (71 FR 
44960; August 8, 2006)), finding ``no significant impact'' to Casey's 
June beetle. However, at least 7 ac (3 ha) of occupied habitat were 
developed (Cornett 2004, pp. 18-27). The Smoke Tree Commons shopping 
center impacted approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of habitat for Casey's June 
beetle. The project's environmental impact report (EIR) stated that the 
City of Palm Springs was responsible for enforcing and monitoring 
Casey's June beetle mitigation measures prior to issuing a grading 
permit to the developer, including recording a conservation easement 
and developing a management plan for Casey's June beetle on

[[Page 58957]]

conserved habitat (Pacific Municipal Consultants 2005, p. 9). A 
conservation easement was established; however, a management plan was 
not drafted prior to issuance of the grading permit, and monitoring and 
management activities for Casey's June beetle are not assured (Ewing, 
City of Palm Springs, pers. comm. 2007).
    The other four identified projects that removed or impacted 
occupied and likely occupied habitat are: (1) The 2-ac (1-ha) Desert 
Water Agency wells and pipeline project in the Smoke Tree Ranch 
development; (2) the 34-ac (14-ha) Alta project north of Acanto Drive 
and west of Palm Canyon Wash on tribal reservation lands; (3) the 24-ac 
(10-ha) Estancias subdivision north of Acanto Drive; and (4) the 3-ac 
(1-ha) Palm Canyon project at South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon 
Drive.
    These seven projects resulted in the loss of, or impacts to, 
approximately 126 ac (51 ha) of occupied and likely occupied Casey's 
June beetle habitat from 2003 to 2008. An additional 5 ac (2 ha) of 
Casey's June beetle habitat has been impacted by small projects (for 
example, single home lots and pipeline development). Hovore (2003, p. 
4) hypothesized that the destruction and isolation of occupied habitat 
caused by the Monte Sereno and Alta projects in 2003 ``* * * overall 
may reduce the known range and extant population of [Casey's June 
beetle] by about one third.'' Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) noted that 
although Hovore was always conscientious and reported any Casey's June 
beetle observation, not all biologists do so, and in at least one case 
a biologist apparently omitted Casey's June beetle observations from 
their environmental impact report for a proposed golf course project in 
the early 1990s. Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) did not identify the exact 
location he referenced, although his description that it is found in 
``the vicinity of the mouth of Palm Canyon, adjacent to Palm Springs, 
Riverside County, California,'' and approximate construction dates of 
golf course projects based on digital aerial photography indicate the 
referenced project is the current Indian Canyons Golf Resort, located 
between Smoke Tree Ranch and the Monte Sereno project north of Bogart 
Trail and adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands).
    We conducted an analysis for the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635) 
that used available digital aerial photographs taken at various 
intervals from 1991 to 2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-2) and 2006 
field surveys (Anderson 2006, pp. 1-36), which determined that Casey's 
June beetle experienced an approximate 25 percent reduction in 
contiguous occupied habitat from 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 
ha) in 2006. Based on new biological surveys and information provided 
to us since 2006, we now know an area larger than 770 ac (312 ha) was 
occupied by Casey's June beetle in 1991. With this new information and 
2008 digital aerial photographs, we determined that there was 
approximately 1,018 ac (412 ha) of occupied habitat in 1991. Therefore, 
our new analysis showed that Casey's June beetle has experienced an 
approximately 22 percent reduction in occupied habitat from 1,018 ac 
(412 ha) in 1991 to 794 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our updated calculations 
accounted for these additional acres and revealed that habitat was lost 
at a rate of 1.6 percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 
percent per year from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year 
from 2003 to 2005, and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 
2008 (dates based on available photographs). Although habitat loss 
since 2005 has slowed (likely due to the economic downturn), after our 
2008 analysis was completed (post-12 month finding; 72 FR 36635, July 
5, 2007) we discovered approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of habitat where two 
adjacent development pads were cleared on the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indian's reservation south of Acanto Drive, removing the PCEs 
from the majority of the parcel (per available satellite imagery). The 
loss of this graded area is of particular concern because it comprises 
approximately one-fourth of a formerly contiguous occupied upland 
habitat area adjacent to an area of the wash.
    Since publication in the Federal Register of the July 5, 2007, 12-
month finding (72 FR 36635), the City of Palm Springs completed the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review 
process for the 80- to 100-ac (32 to 40 ha) Eagle Canyon residential 
development project planned on tribal reservation lands (Davis, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007; Park, Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007). The project is in 
the area containing CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon Drive near 
Bogart Trail and Acanto Drive (tentative tract number 30047) (City of 
Palm Springs 2008, p. 14). We believe this area is not likely to be 
occupied by Casey's June beetle or occupiable in the future based on 
historical and recent disturbances (Hovore 1997a, p. 3; Google Earth 
imagery 2011) (see New Species Information section above), and because 
recent surveys conducted within and adjacent to the Eagle Canyon 
project area (Osborne 2008a, p. 3, Cornett 2010 p. 10 and 14; Hawks 
pers. comm. 2011b) where occupancy was previously documented (Hovore 
1995, pp. 4-5) were negative.
    Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey's June 
beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy following severe flood 
events (Hovore 2003, p.11; Cornett 2004, p. 14). Of the total 794 ac 
(321 ha) of estimated remaining habitat in 2008, only 523 ac (212 ha) 
was upland habitat. Upland habitat refers to any upland terrace area 
that is outside of the wash and does not occur on Riverwash (RA) soils. 
According to data from the Coachella Valley General Plan (Riverside 
County 2005), all remaining upland habitat on tribal land north of 
Acanto Drive is projected to be developed at a density of two homes per 
ac (0.5 per ha) by the year 2020, even though some parcels designated 
as parks and recreation in the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 = 
``1145'') have already been developed with three homes per ac (7.5 per 
ha). Undeveloped habitat on tribal reservation land south of Acanto 
Drive has the same initial land use designation as adjacent land north 
of Acanto Drive (LU93 = ``3100'') (Riverside County 2005, pp. 94-120) 
in the East Bogart Trail area, except that it is outside the city limit 
of Palm Springs (code GP2020 = ``58''). Code GP2020 = ``58'' signifies 
tribal land or open space in the General Plan; lands with this code 
have been developed at a density as high as 3 homes per ac (more than 7 
homes per ha). Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) indicate 
that more than 48 percent of the approximately 523 ac (212 ha) of 
upland Casey's June beetle habitat that we estimated to be extant in 
2008 could be impacted by development.
    Further indicating that development in Casey's June beetle habitat 
is likely, the Director of Planning Services for the City of Palm 
Springs stated in a communication to economists writing the DEA (Ewing 
pers. comm. 2009) that ``* * * much of the [proposed critical habitat] 
is within the urban boundaries of the city and along a major 
thoroughfare (and former state highway). These lands are of significant 
economic value to the community and have already been the subject of 
entitlement applications, processing, and approval.''
    Development is the greatest threat to habitat in upland CdC soils 
that are believed to support Casey's June beetle; however, development 
threats are not limited to upland terrace habitat. For example, entire 
sections of Palm Canyon

[[Page 58958]]

Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry Trail have been converted 
to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 2007, p. 3). LaRue (pers. 
comm. 2006) emphasized the magnitude of development threats to Dinacoma 
spp. population survival: ``Most Dinacoma [spp.] have experienced range 
reduction because of unprecedented habitat destruction and modification 
for recreational, residential and urban development resulting in 
serious distributional fragmentation throughout [their] former already 
naturally limited ranges. Consequently, several populations [of the 
genus Dinacoma] have been extirpated, especially those that once 
existed in Los Angeles County (for example, Glendale, Eaton Canyon).'' 
Therefore, habitat modification for recreational, residential, and 
urban development reduces an already limited range for Casey's June 
beetle and poses a substantial threat to this species'' survival, both 
now and in the foreseeable future.
Soil Disturbance
    In addition to the threat of habitat loss, soil disturbance 
activities may degrade habitat quality and can cause direct Casey's 
June beetle mortality (also see E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species below). Analysis of 
2008 aerial photography in Palm Canyon Wash indicates numerous land-
disturbance activities affecting occupied wash habitat managed by the 
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 
(Riverside County FCWCD). In the vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge 
and Araby Drive, there are road maintenance and flood control 
activities, as well as unregulated off-road vehicle (ORV) disturbance 
(based on examination of Google Earth imagery, both current and 
historical). Cornett (2004, p. 12) noted similar ORV impacts during 
Casey's June beetle surveys on a nearby site adjacent to Whitewater 
Wash and the Palm Springs Airport. ORV use impacts desert soils and 
associated biota by increasing erosion (Snyder et al. 1976, pp. 29-30; 
Rowlands 1980, p. 169), reducing both plant and vertebrate diversity 
(Bury et al. 1977, Table 4, Figure 6; Rowlands 1980, pp. 63-74; Lathrop 
1983, pp. 153-166; Cornett 2004, p. 15), and changing soil density 
through compaction, which may also influence soil water retention 
capacity (Adams et al. 1982, pp. 167-175; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, 
pp. 144-145; Webb 1983, pp. 51-79). Indirect evidence suggests that 
land disturbance impacts the species' burrows and larvae that occur in 
the soil and the flightless females when they rest at the top of the 
burrows (Cornett 2004, p. 15). Any activities that cause direct adult 
mortality, compact or disturb soils when adult beetles are active, or 
affect soils to a depth where immature stages or resting adults are 
found may affect the species' persistence in those areas or dispersal 
to adjacent areas. Waste dumping at habitat edges, as discovered 
through review of digital aerial photography of proposed critical 
habitat areas and described in the Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations section (see Comment 12) below, or frequent use for 
horseback riding by local riding clubs (as described by Hawks pers. 
comm. 2011b) can also cause direct mortality of adult females and may 
have detrimental effects on habitat. Therefore, land disturbance 
activities likely pose a threat to the species' survival; however, the 
magnitude of impacts is unknown.
Habitat Fragmentation
    Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly 
fragmented by development in recent years (see above discussion 
regarding development). Continued fragmentation of already limited, 
remnant habitat compromises the ability of various species to disperse 
and establish new, or augment declining, populations (Collinge 2000, 
pp. 2211-2226; Freemark 2002, pp. 58-83; Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 
182-194) and can isolate segments of a population (Picket and White 
1986, pp. 189-192). Elimination of dispersal areas and isolation of 
population segments increase chances of extirpation by stochastic 
events (Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Collinge 2000, pp. 2211-2226). 
This process, as it applies to Casey's June beetle, is evident in the 
development history of the City of Palm Springs and the distribution of 
Casey's June beetle populations (Cornett 2004, pp. 11, 14). Casey's 
June beetle is especially impacted by smaller-scale habitat 
fragmentation because females are flightless and unable to move between 
fragmented patches (Hovore 1995, p. 7). Although male beetles can move 
between habitat patches, thereby maintaining genetic mixing on a 
population scale, fragmented patches that no longer support any female 
Casey's June beetles may be attractive to male beetles and act as 
population sinks. The risk of local extinction is widely noted to 
increase as the fraction of occupied habitat patches, occupied patch 
area, and density of occupied patches decrease (Forman and Godron, 
1986, pp. 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; 
Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).
    Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated that population movement would be 
``slow and indirect,'' and suggested the population structure for 
Casey's June beetle in any given area could be described as ``clusters 
of individuals around areas of repeated female emergence.'' This would, 
in Hovore's (2003, p. 4) assessment, make the species ``susceptible to 
extirpation resulting from land use changes that would remove or alter 
surface features'' that isolate colonies into non-contiguous habitat 
fragments. Although fragmentation of habitat occupied by females within 
a population still allows mixing of genes by males visiting multiple 
habitat fragments (habitat is not fragmented with regard to male 
movement), it would preclude recolonization of an area if all 
flightless females were eliminated from that fragment. Fragmentation of 
suitable habitat into smaller patches increases the risk of colony loss 
and decreases the probability of the species' survival.
Current Conservation Measures
Indian Canyons Master Plan
    We reviewed the Indian Canyons Master Plan (Master Plan; ACBCI 
2007) and the zoning designations in it to determine what type of 
protective measures it provides Casey's June beetle and its habitat. 
Upon review of the Master Plan we noted that the planning area 
encompasses all Casey's June beetle habitat south of Acanto Drive 
(including some trust, fee, and allotted lands). The majority of this 
habitat falls within allotted lands owned by tribal members (ACBCI 
2007, p. 17). According to acquisition priorities articulated in the 
Master Plan, some parcels identified as Casey's June beetle habitat 
(south of the east-west aligned portion of South Palm Canyon Drive) 
represent the highest priority for acquisition because they contain 
valuable cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and have the highest 
potential for future development plans that are incompatible with 
resource protection goals (ACBCI 2007 pp. 27 and 29). Allotted lands 
identified as Casey's June beetle habitat within Palm Canyon Wash 
between Acanto Drive and the east-west aligned portion of South Palm 
Canyon Drive fall within the Master Plan Low Density Residential (2 
single family dwellings per acre (0.4 ha)) land use category (ACBCI 
2007 pp. 35 and 37). In summary, the Master Plan provides some 
protection of some Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal land, but does 
not assure protection.
    The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a 
draft habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the

[[Page 58959]]

Service, which has undergone public review in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112; October 12, 2007). The 
Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they removed 
Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the draft 
Tribal HCP; however, they indicated they will ``continue to informally 
coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on 
the Reservation.'' The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service 
to allow ``the Service to take the lead in addressing how to 
effectively conserve and protect this species'' (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). 
Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a) 
permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft 
HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural resources within 
the Tribe's jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We 
will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts to 
conserve Casey's June beetle.
    Our analysis indicates that although some tribal environmental 
policies do exist (ACBCI 2000; ACBCI 2007) that provide some 
conservation benefit for the species and its habitat, they do not 
adequately protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat. Therefore, we 
do not believe that existing tribal regulatory documents ensure 
conservation of Casey's June beetle. The Service will continue to work 
with the Tribe to obtain any other information that illustrates how 
tribal actions or policies would help conserve Casey's June beetle 
habitat and protect the species. Currently, we do not have information 
documenting how occupied or potentially occupied habitat for Casey's 
June beetle is protected from development and other impacts on all 
tribal reservation lands.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella 
Valley MSHCP)
    Some non-Federal lands within the purported historical range of 
Casey's June beetle are proposed for management under the Coachella 
Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley 
MSHCP). The Service issued a single incidental take permit (Service 
file: TE-104604-0 (Service 2008)) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 
to 19 permittees under the Coachella Valley MSHCP for a period of 75 
years on October 1, 2008. Although Casey's June beetle was initially 
considered for coverage under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the 
10(a)(1)(B) permit did not include Casey's June beetle as a covered 
species. Because it is not a covered species, the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP does not provide specific measures for the protection or 
conservation of the species and its habitat, nor does the incidental 
take permit authorize take of the species. We are working with 
individual permittees within the species' range to address the species' 
needs in their planned projects. We are engaged in discussions with the 
City of Palm Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and the California 
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to avoid, minimize, and offset 
impacts to the species appropriately. However, actions taking place 
after the effective date of this final rule would require any take 
associated with their activities be exempted from the prohibitions of 
section 9 of the Act through section 7 consultation (where appropriate) 
or permitted under an amendment to the Coachella Valley MSHCP or a 
separate HCP focused on the Casey's June beetle. No such amendment or 
permit is currently in place.
Summary of Factor A
    Within the historical distribution of Casey's June beetle, we 
estimate that over 97 percent of habitat likely to have been occupied 
by Casey's June beetle has been converted to development or rendered 
unsuitable due to impacts of adjacent development. Loss of occupied 
habitat has continued since the early 1990s. Twenty-eight percent (287 
ac (116 ha)) of the 1,018 ac (412 ha) of contiguous suitable habitat 
for Casey's June beetle identified as extant (based on 1991 aerial 
photographs) has been lost to development. From 2003 to 2005, the loss 
of occupied Casey's June beetle habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8 
percent per year. Although habitat loss since 2005 has slowed (likely 
due to the economic downturn), development and habitat impact trends 
are continuing (see above discussion of Eagle Canyon project approved 
by the City of Palm Springs), and we anticipate additional upland 
habitat for the beetle may be impacted or lost in the foreseeable 
future. Based on recent information and calculations, we estimate the 
amount of undeveloped habitat currently occupied by the species is 
approximately 605 ac (245 ha) (including all non-contiguous habitat 
containing any soil types used by the species). Based on current 
projected development and habitat impacts, the loss of historically 
occupied locations, the limited distribution of Casey's June beetle, 
existing and future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and 
land use changes associated with urbanization, we find that the threats 
associated with the present and threatened destruction, modification, 
and curtailment of Casey's June beetle habitat are significant. These 
threats are currently ongoing and will continue into the foreseeable 
future.

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

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

C. Disease or Predation

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

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection 
for Casey's June beetle include: (1) Federal laws and regulations; (2) 
State laws and regulations; and (3) local land use processes and 
ordinances (for example, tribal environmental policies). However, these 
regulatory mechanisms are not preventing continued habitat modification 
and fragmentation. There are no regulatory mechanisms that specifically 
or indirectly address the management or conservation of habitat for 
Casey's June beetle. However, there are regulatory mechanisms that 
could provide incidental benefit to Casey's June beetle. The following 
section discusses these mechanisms.
Federal Laws
    All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) of 1970 for 
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 
1500-1518) state that, in their environmental impact statements, 
agencies shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the 
various project alternatives (including the proposed action), any 
adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any 
irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR 
part 1502). NEPA itself is a disclosure law that provides an 
opportunity for the public to submit comments on the particular project 
and propose other conservation measures that may directly benefit 
listed species; however, it does not require subsequent

[[Page 58960]]

minimization or mitigation measures by the Federal agency involved. Any 
such measures are typically voluntary in nature and are not required by 
the statute. Activities are subject to NEPA regardless of ownership if 
there is a Federal nexus, such as under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and tribal lands held in trust by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary mechanism in the United 
States for surface water quality protection. It establishes the basic 
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the 
United States. It employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory 
tools to reduce direct water quality impacts, finance water treatment 
facilities, and manage polluted run-off. The CWA made it unlawful to 
discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable water unless 
a permit was obtained. The EPA's National Pollutant Discharges 
Eliminations System permit program controls discharges. The EPA 
determines water quality standards for each State, and the CWA requires 
States to either adopt this level or determine another with 
documentation (EPA 2000, p. 31682). Under section 404, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill material 
into waters of the United States, which include navigable and isolated 
waters, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). In general, 
the term ``wetland'' refers to areas meeting the Corps' criteria of 
hydric soils, hydrology (either sufficient annual flooding or water on 
the soil surface), and hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically 
adapted for growing in wetlands). Any action with the potential to 
impact waters of the United States must be reviewed under the CWA. 
These reviews require consideration of impacts to water quality and 
recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts. Most wash 
habitat suitable for Casey's June beetle could meet the definition of 
waters of the United States; thus some impacts to this sensitive taxon 
and its habitat within the wash could potentially fall under Corps' 
jurisdiction and be averted. However, the CWA has not proven sufficient 
to alleviate threats to Casey's June beetle and its habitat to date.
State Laws
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure 
of potential environmental impacts resulting from public or private 
projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies in 
California. The CEQA guidelines require a finding of significance if a 
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range 
of an endangered, rare or threatened species' (CEQA Guideline 15065). 
As a candidate species for Federal listing, Casey's June beetle is 
considered rare under CEQA Guideline 15380. The lead agency can either 
require mitigation for unavoidable significant effects or decide that 
overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline 
21002). Although such overrides are rare, the possibility remains that 
projects that cause significant environmental damage, such as taking of 
endangered species or destruction of their habitat, will be approved. 
Therefore, protection of listed species through CEQA is dependent upon 
the discretion of the agency involved. Furthermore, because the 
availability of occupied and suitable Casey's June beetle habitat is 
extremely limited, regulatory protections such as CEQA that do not 
prohibit mortality or habitat loss, nor require acquisition of 
available habitat to mitigate such losses, would not be sufficient to 
reduce threats or prevent the species' extinction.
    The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protections 
for many species of plants, animals, and some invertebrate species. 
However, insect species, such as Casey's June beetle, are not afforded 
protection under CESA. Therefore, this existing regulatory mechanism 
does not provide for the protection of Casey's June beetle or its 
habitat.
Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms
    Based on occurrence of soil types and species collection records, 
historically (pre-European settlement), Casey's June beetle potentially 
occupied 5,834 ac (2,361 ha) (18 percent) of tribal land. Lands within 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' reservation encompass 274 
ac (111 ha), or approximately 45 percent of the estimated extant 
Casey's June beetle habitat. All post-1996 development of occupied 
habitat, with the exception of the Smoke Tree Commons and Cottages 
projects, has occurred on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' 
reservation land. The remaining undeveloped suitable upland habitat on 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' reservation land is 
relatively flat and adjacent to, or surrounded by, recent development 
(Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3), and some of these lands are approved 
for development by the City of Palm Springs and will likely be 
developed (see the discussion of the Eagle Canyon project under A. The 
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the 
Species' Habitat or Range section above).
    In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's Field 
Supervisor dated October 10, 2006, the Tribe stated they had ``* * * 
enacted a Tribal Environmental Policy Act to, among other things, 
ensure protection of natural resources and the environment. See Tribal 
Ordinance No. 28 at I.B., (2000).'' The referenced Tribal Environmental 
Policy Act (Tribal Act) (ACBCI 2000) states that the Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) is the lead for preparing environmental 
review documents, and that tribal policy is to protect the natural 
environment, including ``all living things.'' According to the Tribal 
Act (ACBCI 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will consult with any Federal, State, 
and local agencies that have special expertise with respect to 
environmental impacts. In a second letter dated April 29, 2010, the 
Tribe further stated they have chosen not to delegate land use 
authority to a local agent (such as the City of Palm Springs) in the 
area of the reservation south of Acanto Drive. Instead, the Tribe 
stated they directly regulate land use in this area through the Indian 
Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning designation.
    Several projects implemented on tribal reservation lands since the 
enactment of the Tribal Act have impacted Casey's June beetle habitat. 
Casey's June beetle occupancy of the Bogert Trail site in the vicinity 
of South Palm Canyon Drive on tribal land (Duff 1990, pp. 2-3, 4; 
Hovore 1997b, p. 4; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Hovore 2003, p. 4; 
Cornett 2004, p. 3) has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by 
development since our receipt of the petition to list the Casey's June 
beetle in 2004 (see A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range above). 
The Alta and Monte Sereno development projects eliminated most of the 
species' upland habitat estimated to have been occupied in 2003 outside 
of Smoke Tree Ranch. Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that grading for the 
Alta project near South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in May 2003 
reduced the known extant Casey's June beetle population size by ``about 
one-third.''
    No Federal, State, or local agencies that have special expertise 
with respect to environmental impacts to Casey's June beetle were 
consulted and no review documents were prepared by the Tribe prior to 
the recent development of the Alta and Monte Sereno projects in 
occupied Casey's June beetle habitat. Therefore, our conclusion is that 
the

[[Page 58961]]

Tribal Act does not effectively protect the species'' habitat. The 
Chief Planning and Development Officer for the Tribe (Davis, pers. 
comm. 2007) affirmed that the Tribal Act does not apply to all tribal 
reservation lands; for example, the currently planned Alturas 
development project (see A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range above) is 
not covered, because it is ``fee land.'' Although State environmental 
review documents (CEQA Environmental Impact Reports) were prepared by 
private consultants and reviewed by the City of Palm Springs for the 
Eagle Creek development project, the Tribe did not participate in the 
review or comment with regard to Casey's June beetle (Davis, pers. 
comm. 2007). Summary of Factor D
    Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect Casey's 
June beetle or its habitat. Occupied habitat continues to be lost to 
development projects, such as those in the Bogert Trail area, which 
were constructed without any Casey's June beetle mitigation. Because 
existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate protection for 
this species or its habitat throughout its range, we believe this 
presents a significant threat to the survival of Casey's June beetle, 
both now and in the foreseeable future.

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

    The Casey's June beetle population may be impacted by other natural 
or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as changing environmental 
conditions resulting from climate change, increased intensity and 
frequency of scouring events in wash habitat, and indirect effects 
associated with adjacent development. However, there are no species-
specific, scientific, published models describing or predicting the 
magnitude of these threats, and this should be the subject of future 
research.
Stream Channelization
    Past and ongoing development adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash, 
channelization of the wash to protect development, and development of 
associated flood-control levees are all likely to increase Casey's June 
beetle mortality during flood events. Urban development adjacent to 
natural creek beds or washes concentrates stream flow by constraining 
channel width, thereby increasing the speed of water flowing past a 
given location (Poff et al. 1997, p. 772). Therefore, scouring events 
that cause species mortality are likely to occur more frequently today 
than they did prior to development. Scouring events may temporarily 
eliminate Casey's June beetles within Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p. 
9; Cornett 2004, p. 14). After scouring or long-term inundation events, 
depopulated wash habitats would be slowly repopulated by females from 
neighboring occupied, higher elevation habitat. However, if scouring 
events increase in frequency, there may be insufficient time for 
females to emigrate from higher elevation refugia between scouring flow 
events. We do not know how far or how fast females can emigrate from 
upland refugia; however, we expect that travel across land would be 
relatively slow and occur over short distances compared to males that 
can fly. Should these recolonization events fail, Casey's June beetles 
may become extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash, which comprises a 
significant portion of the known occupied habitat area. We believe the 
increased frequency of scouring events due to indirect effects of 
development adjacent to the Wash poses at least a moderate threat to 
Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
    Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors, 
such as increased windspeed and temperatures (that dry alluvial soils 
and disperse female pheromones), and increased catastrophic flood 
events (Noss et al. 2001, p. 42; LaRue pers. comm. 2006). As discussed 
above, increased intensity and frequency of flooding and scouring 
events from habitat modification in Palm Canyon Wash is of particular 
concern for Casey's June beetle. However, this increased flooding and 
scouring may also result from changes in climatic conditions. The 
global frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased since 
1960, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric 
water vapor, and it is ``very likely'' (90 percent confidence) that 
heavy precipitation will generally become even more frequent over most 
land areas (IPCC 2007, pp. 2 and 8-9). A review of literature and 
historic climate data specific to the area of Casey's June beetle 
(Anderson 2007, pp. 1-6) indicated temperature, precipitation, peak 
stream flow (NWIS 2008), and other weather patterns since 1950, are 
consistent with global patterns described and predicted by the IPCC 
(2007 p. 2, pp. 8-9, and 15). General Circulation Models predict a 1 to 
3 [deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.5 to 1.7 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C)) rise in 
temperature and at least a 25 percent increase in precipitation by 
2050, to as much as a 50 percent increase in precipitation as early as 
2030 for California (Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399; Field et al. 
1999, pp. 5-10), and increasing intensity of flood and drought events 
(Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399; Dessens 1995, pp. 1241-1244). 
Downscaled average climate model predictions for Casey's June beetle 
habitat calculated using Climate Wizard (Maurer et al. 2007; medium A1 
scenario for 2050) predict an increase in temperature of 5 [deg]F (2.8 
[deg]C) and a 5 percent increase in annual precipitation. Increased 
temperatures, combined with concentration of total annual precipitation 
into more extreme storm events with associated high wind speeds should 
cause soil drying, as a result of increased evaporation and runoff, 
regardless of an increase in total annual precipitation (Field et al. 
1999; pp. 9 and 20). Therefore, per Field et al. (1999, pp. 9 and 20) 
and the above Climate Wizard predictions, drought frequency, soil 
dryness, and the frequency of flash flood scouring events over 
saturated winter soils are expected to increase in the future. 
Alternating drought and flash flood events may exacerbate threats 
already facing the species as a result of its small population size and 
threats to its habitat.
    The Application of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability 
Index (NatureServe 2010) ranked Casey's June beetle as extremely 
vulnerable (abundance and range extent within geographical area 
assessed extremely likely to substantially decrease or disappear by 
2050) based primarily on climate model predictions, dependence on a 
moisture regime, vulnerability to disturbance regime change, restricted 
mobility, historical reduction of occupied habitat, and its narrow 
endemic status (Anderson 2010, p. 1). Therefore, the best available 
science indicates ongoing changing environmental conditions resulting 
from climate change effects pose a significant threat to Casey's June 
beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Artificial Light
    Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey's June 
beetles traveling up to 328 ft (100 m) to artificial light sources 
(Osborne, Osborne Biological Consulting, pers. comm. 2008a). Such 
artificial light sources as black lights or mercury vapor lights may 
draw males in a line-of-sight radius from existing habitat (Hovore 
2003, p. 3). As males fly in search of female pheromone plumes (Domek 
et al. 1990, pp. 271-276), they may become distracted by light sources 
that attract

[[Page 58962]]

them to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where 
they are preyed upon, or to local swimming pools, that are also an 
unnatural source of light even if it is only reflected, where they end 
up in pool skimmers and often drown. Swimming pools are one common 
source for male Casey's June beetle specimens (Barrows 1998, p. 1; 
Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 5) and may serve as a 
genetic sink for this species. If large numbers of male Casey's June 
beetles are lost as a result of these indirect effects of development, 
there could be reduced genetic diversity in males available for mating. 
Male beetles located at habitat patch edges closer to light sources 
would be more susceptible to distraction than those located at the 
center of patches. The loss of large numbers of these male Casey's June 
beetles would diminish the overall genetic diversity of the population. 
We believe that loss of male beetles due to unnatural light sources 
attracting beetles into development adjacent to upland habitat poses at 
least a moderate threat to Casey's June beetle, both now and in the 
foreseeable future.
Soil Disturbing Activities
    Foot, vehicle, and horse traffic and other soil disturbing 
activities from adjacent developed areas are likely to cause direct 
mortality of adults because adult female Casey's June beetles are 
flightless. It is also likely that vehicle traffic could compress or 
compact soils to a depth deep enough to kill Casey's June beetle 
larvae. Discing, grading, soil removal, and soil filling all have the 
potential to harm individuals below the soil surface. These activities 
are a common occurrence, as evidenced by eyewitness accounts (Anderson 
2006, pp. 17, 20, 22; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b) and aerial imagery from 
multiple years.
Small Population Size and Restricted Range
    As stated above, Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles 
that have naturally restricted ranges, and it is adapted to specialized 
habitat and soil types within the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto 
Mountains from the City of Palm Springs south to the community of 
Indian Wells. Casey's June beetle occupies only a portion of this area, 
and the majority of the occupied area is threatened by development, 
habitat fragmentation, or other anthropogenic or natural factors. In 
addition to having a restricted range and small population size, the 
species also has limited dispersal capabilities (Hovore 2003, p. 3). 
These conditions most likely increase the degree of threat due to 
chance events, such as floods or drought, that are beyond the natural 
variability of the ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912). The risk of local 
extinction is widely noted to increase as the fraction of occupied 
habitat patches, occupied patch area, and density of occupied patches 
decrease (Forman and Godron, 1986, pp. 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; 
Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).
Summary of Factor E
    Casey's June beetle is negatively affected by increased intensity 
and frequency of catastrophic flood events; environmental effects 
resulting from changing climatic patterns; loss of individuals due to 
foot, vehicle, horse traffic and other soil disturbing activities; and 
loss of individuals due to attraction to light sources. We conclude 
from available information that climate change is likely to reduce 
Casey's June beetle population densities by increasing scouring events 
and decreasing water retention in the soil. Additional development 
within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat will likely increase 
traffic into habitat areas and include external lighting and swimming 
pools, all of which may result in additional losses and will continue 
to adversely affect the existing population. Therefore, we find that 
other natural or manmade factors in total pose a significant threat to 
the continued existence of Casey's June beetle, both now and in the 
foreseeable future.

Determination

    Section 3 of the Act, defines the term ``endangered species'' to 
mean any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The term ``threatened species'' is 
defined as any species which is likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range.
    We carefully assessed the best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Casey's 
June beetle. We also consulted with recognized Casey's June beetle 
experts on the species' status and trends. Although quantification of 
population numbers has not been possible, given the cryptic nature of 
this species and limited historical survey data, this species' highly 
restricted geographic range relative to its historical distribution (as 
evidenced by documented loss of occupied habitat; see above 
discussion), ongoing habitat impacts and losses, and slow female 
dispersal rate make it particularly susceptible to extinction from 
random events such as flood scouring or isolation through habitat 
fragmentation.
    As described in detail above, projections for human population 
growth extend out to 2030 in Palm Springs (SCAG 2004). Such projections 
frame our analysis as they help us understand what factors can 
reasonably be anticipated to meaningfully affect the species'' future 
conservation status. We updated our original analysis by Anderson and 
Love (2007, pp. 1-2) to determine rates of habitat loss in southern 
Palm Springs from 1991 to 2008. During that time, Casey's June beetle 
experienced an approximate 22 percent reduction in contiguous, 
undeveloped habitat from 1,001 ac (405 ha) in 1991 to 794 ac (321 ha) 
in 2008. Habitat loss was greatest in the 2003 to 2005 time period, and 
impacts have continued to occur. Habitat has been lost at a rate of 1.6 
percent per year from 1991 to 1996, 0.6 percent per year from 1996 to 
2003, 3.8 percent per year from 2003 to 2005, and 0.7 percent per year 
from 2005 to 2008. These habitat loss estimates do not include the area 
west of South Palm Canyon Drive that we determined is not likely 
suitable habitat (see New Species Information section above and Summary 
of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule section below).
    In summary, the most significant threat to Casey's June beetle, as 
described in the Factor A discussion, is loss of its habitat. This 
species faces immediate and continuing threats from development of 
habitat and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Additionally, a 
variety of other threat factors (which fall under Factor E) continue to 
negatively affect the species (including changes in environmental 
conditions resulting from climate change impacts, attraction to 
artificial light sources, swimming pools, and other sources of direct 
mortality). Furthermore, as described in the Factor D discussion, 
existing regulatory mechanisms provide insufficient protection of 
Casey's June beetle habitat, the loss of which is the most significant 
threat to the species. The threats described above for Casey's June 
beetle occur uniformly across its entire range, resulting in a negative 
impact on the species' distribution, abundance, and survivability. As 
discussed in the July 9, 2009, proposed rule (74 FR 32859), what we 
believe is a single remaining Casey's June beetle population 
(fragmented into several areas) may already have reached the point 
where it is not naturally sustainable.

[[Page 58963]]

    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information that has identified the species as having an extremely 
restricted range and uniformly facing ongoing and projected threats, we 
find that Casey's June beetle is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. The threats that Casey's June beetle face are currently 
occurring, and we see evidence that the threats have already negatively 
impacted the species, and that the species is endangered now. The 
threats to its continued existence are not commencing in the 
foreseeable future, which would result in a status determination of 
threatened. Consequently, we are listing Casey's June beetle as an 
endangered species under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include, but are not limited to, management and any other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by agencies 
such as the Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 
404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; leases 
on Tribal Trust lands that require Bureau of Indian Affairs approval; 
construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-
way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration. 
We are engaged in discussions with Caltrans (designated non-Federal 
representative for the Federal Highway Administration) to avoid, 
minimize, and offset impacts to Casey's June beetle as part of projects 
funded by that agency.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to 
attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in 
the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal 
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of 
the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife a permit must be issued for the following 
purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. We are engaged in discussions with the 
City of Palm Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and Caltrans to avoid, 
minimize, and offset impacts to the species resulting from activities 
undertaken by those entities under an amendment to the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP or a separate HCP focused on the Casey's June beetle, but no such 
amendment or permit is currently in place.

Critical Habitat Designation for Casey's June Beetle

Critical Habitat Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle 
in this section of the final rule.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or

[[Page 58964]]

critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse 
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and 
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed must 
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of a species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, 
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data 
available, those physical or biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and 
protected habitat), focusing in on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within the defined 
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 
soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical 
or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. According to regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we designate 
critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area presently 
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present 
range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. 
When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the 
conservation needs of the species require such additional areas, we 
will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied by the species 
but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, however, be 
essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the 
critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include any potential recovery 
planning for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
conservation plans developed by States and counties for this or similar 
species, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, 
or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal 
knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for 
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated 
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their 
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic 
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most 
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas 
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more 
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying 
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of 
severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et 
al. 2004, p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504). See discussion 
regarding climate change and impacts on Casey's June beetle and its 
habitat under E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the 
Continued Existence of the Species above.
    We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point 
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later 
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation 
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat 
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
Casey's

[[Page 58965]]

June beetle from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life 
history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed 
rule published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2009 (74 FR 32857).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Casey's June beetle is associated with native Sonoran (Coloradan) 
desert vegetation located on desert alluvial fans and bajadas (compound 
alluvial fans) at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella 
Valley, Riverside County, California. Sonoran desert habitat is 
characterized as scattered assemblages of broad-leaved microphyll 
shrubs with an open canopy (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, p. 114). The 
open canopy provides space for male beetles to fly in search of females 
and fulfill normal life-history activities. Disturbed and altered 
habitats harboring nonnative species that are dominated by native 
vegetation also support the species (see Summary of Changes From the 
2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule section below). This habitat also 
provides the micro-habitat space inhabited by Casey's June beetle. 
Individual shrubs provide refugia for the underground stage of the 
beetle's life history, protecting emergence holes from anthropogenic 
disturbance and enhancing survival of individuals.
    Habitats utilized by Casey's June beetles experience varying levels 
and types of anthropogenic disturbance. In general, the species uses 
soil surfaces to burrow and deposit eggs. After beetles emerge, 
emergence holes are easily detectable beneath shrub canopies where they 
are protected from human activity. Many emergence holes do occur in the 
open, but are apparently destroyed or disturbed by ``equestrians, 
vehicles, and other human activities'' (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Therefore, 
the habitat where subterranean larvae, and females waiting on the 
surface for mates, are protected from human impacts is clustered around 
trees and shrubs where there is intact crustal soil (Hovore 2003, p. 
3). These individual shrubs are refugia for the underground and 
reproductive stages of the beetle's life history, which protect them 
from anthropogenic disturbance. The emergence holes in undisturbed soil 
do not reflect the entire distribution of the emergence holes (the 
primary indicator of occupancy) because disturbance easily destroys 
evidence of the hole, but instead represent the remaining intact holes 
observable following a disturbance (Hovore 2003, p. 3; Hawks pers. 
comm. 2011b). Driscoll and Weir (2005, pp. 182-194) reported that 
flightless or subterranean beetle species that lived in disturbed, 
fragmented habitats were at greater risk of extirpation compared to 
those in intact, less-disturbed habitats. See the Food, Water, Air, 
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements 
section for more specific information on soil characteristics and 
nutritional requirements.
    In addition to anthropogenic disturbance, Casey's June beetle 
habitat undergoes natural disturbance. Palm Canyon Wash experiences 
intense flooding and scouring about once every 10 years (Cornett 2004, 
p.14), with turbulence that can excavate and unearth sand where the 
species may occur (Wright, independent biological consultant, pers. 
comm. 2003; NWIS 2008). These events are likely to extirpate Casey's 
June beetles from locations within the wash; however, these areas may 
subsequently be recolonized by beetles from surrounding upland areas or 
local refugia. It is hypothesized that the wash serves as a sink area 
(an area where the rate of immigration exceeds emigration and the 
population segment is dependent on immigration to maintain a 
nonnegative growth rate) for Casey's June beetle (Cornett 2004, p.14), 
but wash habitat may also serve as a source area when population 
densities are high between flooding events. If correct, these concepts 
indicate the need to conserve both upland and wash habitat to achieve 
conservation of the species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    Vegetation, soil, and climate contribute to the nutritional and 
physiological requirements of Casey's June beetle. It is hypothesized 
that beetle larvae feed on organic matter and detritus below ground 
(Hovore 2003, p. 2; LaRue pers. comm. 2004). Observations of adult 
Casey's June beetles feeding underground have not yet occurred (Hovore 
1995, p. 2); however, accumulation of leaves around shrubs contribute 
to surface litter and subsurface detritus. Additionally, annual plants 
and grasses growing in association with these desert scrubs also 
contribute to surface litter and likely provide an additional food 
source such as radiculum (plant rootlets) (Simpson 1968, p. 500; LaRue, 
pers. comm. 2004). Hill and O'Maly (2009, p. 1) found that the frass 
pellets of larvae of another endangered June beetle (Mount Hermon June 
Beetle) contained a variety of plant species and fungi material 
demonstrating that they are not specialist host plant feeders but are 
microhabitat specialists. Hawk's (2010, p. 2) observations at Smoke 
Tree Ranch indicate Casey's June beetle may be similar, ``We did not 
observe females at Smoke Tree [Ranch], but many hundreds of emergence 
holes associated with native vegetation, irrigated tamarisk, fan palms, 
oleander, and olive. We still are not sure what plants of any sort mean 
to [Casey's June beetle] grubs * * *.'' Therefore, the hypothesis that 
Casey's June beetles feed on organic matter and detritus below ground 
is supported by the best available scientific information.
    The Palm Springs area has slightly higher precipitation than 
surrounding areas in the eastern Coachella Valley, due to its proximity 
to the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains (LaRue pers. 
comm. 2006). This precipitation keeps the underlying soil damp, which 
is an important component for Casey's June beetle life history because 
they, like many other subterranean scarab beetles, prefer the interface 
between surface soil and damp subsoil (Hovore 1995, p. 6; LaRue pers. 
comm. 2008). The depth of the damp soil is generally between 4 inches 
(in) (10 centimeters (cm)) to 8 in (20 cm) (Hovore 1995, p. 5) and 
averages 72 to 78 [deg]F (22 to 26 [deg]C) (USDA 1980, p. 11). This 
depth coincides with the depth at which larvae are usually found (2 in 
(5 cm) to 8 in (20 cm)) (LaRue pers. comm. 2004). Individual scrub 
plant architecture has developed for maximum capture of precipitation, 
channeling water along stems to the central root system. Moisture in 
the soil layer prevents desiccation of larvae and eggs and maintains a 
constant temperature (LaRue pers. comm. 2008). Additionally, areas with 
higher soil moisture are associated with a higher density of vegetation 
and microorganisms, such as fungi and bacteria believed to provide a 
more diverse food source for beetle larvae (LaRue pers. comm. 2008).
    The Sonoran desert plant community endemic to the Palm Canyon Wash 
and adjacent terraces also serves to maintain habitat consistency. The 
Carsitas series soils have a water table located from 2 to 6 ft (0.6 to 
1.9 m) deep. Shrubs are important in water and nutrient cycling in 
desert ecosystems (Sala et al. 1989, pp. 501-505; McAuliffe 1994, pp. 
111-148). Desert shrubs have deeper root systems that bring water from 
lower levels up to higher levels, cycle nutrients through the soil, and 
mediate diurnal temperature variations. Midday temperatures are lower 
near the center of desert scrub patches than in areas outside the 
canopy (Weins 1985, pp. 174-176). The combination of moisture

[[Page 58966]]

cycling, diurnal temperature variation, and seasonal climate variation 
(Rosenburg 1974, pp. 66-74) may provide beetle larvae with a gradient 
of micro-environments to inhabit in the subsoil through the year, 
thereby allowing them to maintain optimal body temperature and humidity 
levels. Therefore, the precipitation within the Palm Canyon area, and 
its influence on the local plant community, may be a unique factor 
required for Casey's June beetle.
    Soils associated with known occurrences of Casey's June beetles are 
described by Hovore (2003, p. 2) as almost entirely of the Carsitas 
Series (CdC), typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly 
effervescent, moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky and non-
plastic, and deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes. These soils show light 
braiding and some organic deposition on alluvial terraces and where 
they occur within washes, although they generally do not receive 
scouring surface flows (Hovore 2003, p. 2). Additionally, Casey's June 
beetle is associated with RA and ChC soils (Anderson 2007, p.1), 
usually occurring in these soils when they are contiguous with CdC 
soil. The CdC type soils may also contain small inclusions of fine or 
coarse soils, such as MaB and CpA (USDA 1980, pp. 11-12, 16, and 23).
    Riverwash (RA) soil is also an important component of Casey's June 
beetle habitat because organic matter and vegetation is uprooted, 
redistributed, and buried in the wash during flood events. Debris 
deposited by these hydrological processes and periodic flooding are 
essential to maintain alluvial soils in Palm Canyon Wash and may serve 
as new or re-conditioned habitat.

Cover or Shelter

    The upland terraces and Palm Canyon Wash are the majority of 
remaining areas known to be inhabited by Casey's June beetle. The 
upland terraces offer the only known shelter from flooding and scouring 
events and ORV impacts, as vehicles tend to remain within the wash. 
Because the Palm Canyon Wash experiences periodic flooding and scouring 
that is likely to impact the species, upland terraces are essential to 
the conservation of Casey's June beetle for long-term maintenance of 
the population. Systematic surveys in wash areas contiguous with upland 
habitat indicate this area is also important to the long-term survival 
of the species (per above discussion, when population segment numbers 
have increased to the point where the emigration rate exceeds 
immigration and the habitat is a ``source''). Both the upland terraces 
and Palm Canyon Wash contain soil types and vegetation conducive to 
burrowing and support the nutritional and physiological processes 
essential for the species.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring That Are Protected From Disturbance

    Casey's June beetle breeding and dispersal mechanisms require 
specific habitat important to species'' reproduction. During breeding, 
adults of the species are most active at dusk. Females emit pheromones 
to attract males to burrows for the purposes of mating. Breeding 
success depends on males'' ability to detect pheromones and ability to 
maneuver to remain in contact with the pheromone plume (Domek et al. 
1990, pp. 271-276). The southern Palm Springs area is surrounded by 
mountains and ridges that protect the area from the high winds that are 
frequent in the Coachella Valley (Wright pers. comm. 2004), thus 
providing conditions that are conducive to successful male flight, and 
pheromone detection and tracking. Therefore, successful reproduction 
depends on shelter provided by the surrounding mountains and ridges.
    Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a and b) noted that RA soil in the Palm 
Canyon Wash above approximately 580 ft (177 m) in elevation (just below 
the dam) becomes too disturbed, likely by natural scouring, to support 
Casey's June beetle. These data indicate suitable habitat associated 
with the wash is likely limited to soils contiguous with the wash up to 
580 ft (177 m) in elevation (this includes some CdC soils contiguous 
with the wash at 580 ft (177 m) that extend up to approximately 620 ft 
(189 m) in elevation). These data also indicate relatively small 
patches of CdC soil that are only contiguous with more disturbed 
portions of the wash above 580 ft (177 m) in elevation in Palm Canyon 
are not likely to support Casey's June beetle occupancy because they 
appear isolated with regard to female immigration and are especially 
vulnerable to flood scouring. Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a) also noted that 
he had never observed emergence holes in ChC soil and expressed doubt 
that ChC soil not distributed as an inclusion in CdC soil provided 
habitat for Casey's June beetle.
    Dispersal of Casey's June beetle is also limited by the 
flightlessness of females. This adaptation significantly hinders this 
species' ability to disperse or recolonize an area. Because female 
Casey's June beetles are flightless, the species' breeding system and 
the ability of females to disperse over land (which is uncertain but 
much reduced compared to flight-capable males) is restricted 
geographically to a relatively small area. Females appear to emerge 
from burrows and remain on the surface nearby and then either re-enter 
these burrows or dig new burrows to lay eggs. If an isolated portion of 
the population were extirpated it would be difficult if not impossible 
for females to recolonize that area depending on the nature and extent 
of isolating factors (de Vries et al. 1996, pp. 332-342; Driscoll and 
Weir 2005, pp. 192-193) because flightless females disperse only by 
crawling and likely by water flow in wash areas (although it is unclear 
what the survival rate would be under water-flow dispersal). Because 
male Casey's June beetles cannot repopulate an area by themselves, and 
females are flightless, habitat fragmentation and isolation are 
significant threats to gene flow in this species. Therefore, 
connectivity of suitable habitats that provides for dispersal over 
multiple generations is essential to the conservation of the species.
    Minimally disturbed suitable habitat is also essential to Casey's 
June beetle. As stated above, the adults of this species burrow in 
alluvial soils to lay eggs and the larval stages are known to live out 
this life stage in alluvial soil as well. Surfaces such as highly 
manipulated nonnative ornamental landscaping do not serve the same 
function as native or minimally disturbed habitat. Although Casey's 
June beetles are documented to occur in abundance within the 
residential community of Smoke Tree Ranch (Cornett 2004, Table 1; Hawks 
pers. comm. 2010), it is likely that breeding and female movement is 
largely restricted to the relatively undisturbed natural areas within 
the Smoke Tree Ranch property, and species abundance is primarily the 
result of: (1) Minimal past disturbance within a regulated and gated 
community; (2) a relatively large, contiguous, occupied, minimally 
disturbed, upland habitat area dominated by native plants; and (3) 
supplemental soil moisture from landscape watering.

Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June Beetle

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Casey's June beetle within the geographical area 
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary 
constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be 
the specific

[[Page 58967]]

elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species' 
life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) specific to Casey's June beetle are:
    (1) Soils of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand and Riverwash (RA) 
series, or inclusions of Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) series soils, or 
inclusions of Myoma fine sands (MaB) or Coachella fine sands (CpA) 
within CdC soils, at or below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation, associated 
with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes to 
provide space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and 
food sources; and
    (2) Predominantly native desert vegetation, to provide shelter from 
traffic-related mortality and food for the species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain the features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and which may require special management considerations 
or protection. Special management of the physical or biological 
features is required in these areas to reduce threats to habitat. Major 
threats to Casey's June beetle habitat include: (1) Habitat 
disturbance; (2) habitat loss and fragmentation associated with 
development (such as grading, building roads and other infrastructure, 
and constructing commercial and residential structures); and (3) 
recreational activities (for example, ORV use and equestrian 
activities) as described in the Factor A and Factor E discussions in 
the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section above.
    Anderson and Love (2007) examined the rate of habitat loss since 
1996, and additional analyses identified continuing habitat loss over 
the last 2 years. Because Casey's June beetle is now restricted to a 
relatively small area compared to its known historical range, and 
habitat loss and fragmentation are threats to the long-term viability 
of Casey's June beetle, special management considerations or protection 
of the PCEs are needed to address development or urban expansion 
impacts. Urban expansion should be avoided within or adjacent to 
Casey's June beetle habitat and linkage corridors between habitat 
patches should be provided to address the protection necessary for this 
species at this time. Preserving habitat and corridors linking habitat 
patches have been shown, in general, to be vital for the conservation 
of many species, and it stands to reason this is true for a species 
such as Casey's June beetle that has flightless females.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. 
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat 
requirements of this species. In accordance with the Act and its 
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether 
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well 
as those occupied at the time of listing--is necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species.
    We designated critical habitat in areas we determined are within 
the species'' present range and contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species. When determining 
the possible distribution of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Casey's June beetle, we considered all possibly suitable 
habitat patches remaining within the species'' historical range, from 
the northeastern San Jacinto Mountain foothills, south to the City of 
Palm Desert. For Casey's June beetle, we limited critical habitat to 
the known present population distribution of the species (occupied 
habitat), because the only potentially suitable habitat patches outside 
that area occur primarily in small, fragmented, disjunct parcels, and 
many are highly disturbed. In this designation we have included both 
upland and wash habitats as well as connecting habitats which we 
determined are essential to the conservation of the species. Additional 
potential habitat outside the species'' known present range (unoccupied 
areas) is relatively remote in relation to the likely flight movement 
distances of male beetles or terrain through which female beetles are 
likely to travel from occupied areas. Based on the best scientific 
information currently available, including recent negative surveys (see 
New Species Information section above), it is unlikely that these 
disjunct habitat patches would be capable of supporting reintroduced 
populations or remain viable due to their isolated, fragmented, and 
sometimes disturbed nature.
    We consider all known occurrences of Casey's June beetle to 
constitute a single population based on currently available data. 
Because of the limitations of surveys to detect insect occupancy, the 
population level is the appropriate scale at which to determine 
occupancy of areas designated as critical habitat. We assume all known 
occupied areas are within the same population distribution based on the 
potential for male movement among sites that contain the physical or 
biological features (see New Species Information section above). We 
determined all existing CdC and RA soils, and inclusions (all 
relatively small) of ChC, MaB, or CpA soils within CdC soils, that are 
contiguous with soils containing Casey's June beetle observation 
locations are occupied. We made this determination because larval and 
adult male and female occupancy of CdC and RA soils, and the likelihood 
of adult female and male movement within all these PCE soils defines 
occupancy appropriately for this species with regard to the definition 
of critical habitat. Therefore, we have determined all areas we are 
designating as critical habitat are currently occupied.
    We used the following factors to delineate critical habitat: All 
areas (1) comprised of contiguous CdC or RA soils containing recent 
occurrence locations (1995 to present), or within the flight range of 
adult male Casey's June beetles from these recent locations; or (2) 
comprised of ChC, MaB, and CpA soils contiguous with these CdC or RA 
soils; and (3) that were not denuded, graded or landscaped; and (4) 
that are below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation; and (5) that were not 
otherwise determined to be unsuitable due to development-associated 
degradation (e.g., isolation, soil compaction). The designated critical 
habitat is designed to encompass the estimated Casey's June beetle 
population distribution and the soils and native vegetation needed for 
its long-term conservation. Changes to the PCEs from those described in 
the proposed rule (see Summary of Changes from the 2009 Proposed 
Critical Habitat Rule, below) did not affect our criteria, because 
areas containing the revised PCEs were already included in proposed 
critical habitat.
    We delineated the critical habitat boundaries using the following 
steps:
    (1) We mapped observations of Casey's June beetles from Bruyea 
(2006), Cornett (2004), Hovore (1997), Hovore (1995), Powell (2003), 
and Simonsen-Marchant (2000, 2001). These records were initially mapped 
over digital aerial photographs of the Palm Canyon area in the City of 
Palm Springs, California, acquired in June 2005 with a ground 
resolution of 3.28 ft (1 m). We believe these surveys are the best 
available data

[[Page 58968]]

on Casey's June beetle current distribution and provide a logical 
starting point for the delineation of critical habitat.
    (2) We incorporated digital soil data produced by the USDA Natural 
Resources Conservation Service for all soils in the Palm Canyon area 
(USDA 2000). These data delineated CdC, RA, ChC, MaB, and CpA soils. We 
included areas where CdC soils were within the likely flight range of 
adult male Casey's June beetles from recent occurrence locations (1995-
present). This mapping delineated the soils that are suitable for, and 
occupied by, the beetle.
    (3) After mapping the soils, we examined the elevations of all 
Casey's June beetle observations. We determined the highest elevation 
of an occurrence was 580 ft (177 m), and we extended the boundary 
elevation 40 ft (12 m) to account for gradients between soil types and 
to include CdC soils contiguous with portions of the wash that are 
known to be occupied. As a result, we are limiting designation of 
critical habitat to areas below the 620-ft (189-m) contour.
    (4) We utilized digital aerial photographs acquired in April 2008 
with a ground resolution of 6 in (15 cm) to closely examine remaining 
areas to ensure they captured the physical or biological features 
necessary to support Casey's June beetle life-history functions. 
Specifically, we removed areas that did not have appropriate soils 
(such as golf course greens) or that contained large denuded or graded 
areas to eliminate areas that likely do not and could not support 
Casey's June beetles.
    (5) We reviewed new scientific information regarding the species' 
southern population distribution limits and determined some areas were 
not likely to support occupancy now or in the foreseeable future and 
therefore did not meet the definition of critical habitat. Based on 
Hawk's (pers. comm. 2011a) observation that wash habitat soil 
suitability and occupancy ended at approximately 580 ft (177 m) in 
elevation, and did not extend south of the small dam in Palm Canyon, we 
determined that non-contiguous patches of CdC soils at the southern 
extreme of the area proposed as critical habitat are not likely within 
the current population distribution of the species, and are not likely 
to support occupancy in the future (see New Species Information and 
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring that are Protected from Disturbance sections above). We 
further determined that the western isolated fragments of formerly 
occupied habitat associated with South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert 
Trail in the southern portion of the species' distribution were no 
longer occupied, and were too isolated by development and disturbed to 
support occupancy in the future (see New Species Information section 
above). Therefore, these areas were removed.
    (6) Based on Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a) observation that no burrow 
holes have ever been observed in ChC soil (see New Species Information 
section above), we removed all patches of ChC soil not completely 
surrounded by CdC and RA soils.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, because 
such lands lack physical or biological features for Casey's June 
beetle. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this designated 
critical habitat are excluded by text in this final rule. Therefore, a 
Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action may affect the physical 
or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are designating as critical habitat lands that we consider to be 
occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient physical or 
biological features to support life-history processes essential to the 
conservation of Casey's June beetle.

Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule

    Based on comments received during the public comment periods (see 
Comments 2 and 4 in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section 
below), and new survey information, we added explanations in the New 
Species Information and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
sections above to better characterize our knowledge of the species' 
present range and the potential for occupied habitat outside the known 
present range.
    The most significant changes from the 2009 proposed critical 
habitat rule to this final rule include:
    (1) We determined two areas included in the proposed critical 
habitat designation do not contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, do not 
meet the definition of critical habitat (see Critical Habitat 
Background section above for the definition of critical habitat). We 
determined the easternmost proposed critical habitat polygon located on 
State Route 111 between Broadmoor Drive and Golf Club Drive did not 
contain areas mapped as Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand soil series (PCE 
1). Based on new information submitted by a commenter and examination 
of digital aerial photography, we also determined a portion of land in 
the vicinity of Araby Drive was composed of elevated fill dirt and, 
therefore, did not contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species (see Summary of Comments 
and Recommendations section, Comment 12, below). The edge of the 
elevated fill dirt correlated with the parcel map boundary. Based on 
recent survey and habitat information (see New Species Information and 
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range sections above) we determined that 
formerly occupied CdC and associated soils adjacent to and west of 
South Palm Canyon Drive are no longer likely to be occupied or to 
support occupancy in the future, and are therefore not essential for 
the conservation of the species. Therefore, these areas do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. We further determined that the 
southernmost non-contiguous patches of CdC soil in Palm Canyon and two 
areas of ChC soil (in Palm Canyon and near Araby Drive) not completely 
surrounded by CdC and RA soil do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat. See New Species Information and Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat sections above for further discussion. Removal of 
these lands that were determined not to meet the definition of critical 
habitat resulted in a total reduction of 179 ac (73 ha) from the areas 
proposed for critical habitat designation in 2009.
    (2) Per peer reviewer Comment 2 in the Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations section below (see also Comment 10), satellite image 
assessment, and field survey information provided by David Hawks (pers. 
comm. 2010), we modified PCE 2 to include other Sonoran vegetation 
types and disturbed habitat. In the proposed rule it specified 
``Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation and native 
desert wash vegetation that provide shelter and food for the species.'' 
In this rule, we specify PCE2 as, ``Predominantly native desert 
vegetation, to provide shelter from

[[Page 58969]]

traffic-related mortality and food for the species.'' This change to 
PCE 2 did not change areas identified as meeting the definition of 
critical habitat. The altered PCE more accurately characterized lands 
we had already determined met the definition of critical habitat.
    (3) In the 2009 proposed rule, we stated we were not considering or 
proposing for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act tribal lands 
owned or managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 
Following review of tribal comments and an evaluation of our 
partnership with the Tribe, we determined that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for tribal trust 
reservation lands (i.e., non-fee, non-allotted lands), and that 
exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the species. 
We believe that excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal 
trust reservation lands from this final critical habitat will preserve 
our partnership with the Tribes and foster future development of 
habitat management plans with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
and other tribes, thus positively affecting other listed species. 
Therefore, the Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude a 
total of approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of non-fee, non-allotted tribal 
lands owned or managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in 
this final critical habitat designation. For a complete discussion of 
the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Application of Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, below.
    Of the approximately 777 ac (314 ha) of land proposed for critical 
habitat designation in 2009, approximately 587 ac (237 ha) are included 
in this final critical habitat designation. Our decision to not 
designate all of the proposed critical habitat does not imply that 
these non-designated areas are unimportant to Casey's June beetle. 
Projects with a Federal nexus that occur in these areas, or other areas 
potentially occupied by Casey's June beetle, which may affect the 
beetle must still undergo section 7 consultation. Our decision to not 
designate critical habitat in these areas does not reduce the 
consultation requirement for Federal agencies participating in, 
funding, permitting, or carrying out activities in these areas.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating one unit as critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle. The critical habitat area described below constitutes our best 
assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat.
    The approximate area of designated critical habitat for Casey's 
June beetle is shown in Table 1 and totals 587 ac (237 ha), including 
152 ac (62 ha) of tribal allotment and fee land, 141 ac (57 ha) of 
local government land, and approximately 301 ac (122 ha) of private and 
quasi-public (flood control and water conservation district) land. Area 
estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat unit boundaries. 
Area values were computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to 
nearest whole number, and then summed.

                          Table 1--Designated Critical Habitat for Casey's June Beetle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Tribal
                                             Federal and      Local       allotment
                 Location                    state lands   government     and  fee     Private  ac    Total  ac
                                               ac (ha)       ac (ha)      lands  ac       (ha)          (ha)
                                                                            (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Springs..............................         0 (0)      141 (57)      152 (62)     301 (122)     587 (237)
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Area Final Critical Habitat.....         0 (0)      141 (57)      152 (62)     301 (122)    587 (237)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present a brief unit description, and reasons why the unit meets 
the definition of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle, below.

Palm Springs Unit

    The unit consists of 587 ac (237 ha) and is located in Riverside 
County, California, and extends from the confluence of Andreas Canyon 
Wash with Palm Canyon Wash northward along the toe of slope 
northeastward (downstream) along Palm Canyon Wash, crossing East Palm 
Canyon Drive to south and east of Gene Autry Trail. The unit includes 
Palm Canyon Wash and contiguous suitable soils from the entrance of 
Indian Canyons north to Calle Arriba, and one area south of and 
adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive (SR 111) west of Gene Autry Trail.
    The entire critical habitat unit is considered occupied by Casey's 
June beetle and contains the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species, including alluvial soils of the 
CdC, RA, ChC (if mapped as completely surrounded by CdC and RA soils), 
MaB, and CpA soil series at or below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation, 
associated with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent 
slopes (PCE 1), and predominantly native desert vegetation (PCE 2).
    Habitat in the unit is threatened by development, soil disturbance, 
fragmentation, effects of stream channelization, and effects of climate 
change. Specifically, urban expansion, in-fill development, and 
recreational activities continue to result in the loss and degradation 
of habitat. Therefore, the features essential to the conservation of 
the species in this unit require special management considerations or 
protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection section above).
    Approximately 25 percent of this unit (152 ac (62 ha)) is on Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reservation land. As described above 
(see Factor D), the Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter 
that they removed Casey's June beetle from the list of species 
addressed in the draft Tribal HCP; however, they indicated they will 
``continue to informally coordinate with the Service regarding this 
species where it occurs on the Reservation.'' The Tribe stated they are 
deferring to the Service to allow ``the Service to take the lead in 
addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this species'' 
(ACBCI 2008, p. 1). We continue to work with the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians to encourage management of Casey's June beetle 
habitat. We determined that at this time it is appropriate to exclude 
11 ac (4 ha) tribal trust reservation lands (i.e., non-fee and non-
allotted lands) from the critical habitat unit (see Tribal Reservation 
Lands under Exclusions section below).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened

[[Page 58970]]

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 
7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service 
on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat.
    Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would remain functional (or retain those physical or 
biological features that relate to the ability of the area to 
periodically support the species) to serve its intended conservation 
role for the species.
    Federal activities that may affect Casey's June beetle or its 
critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples 
of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are 
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a 
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve 
some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed 
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not 
require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to 
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species. Generally, the conservation role of Casey's June beetle's 
critical habitat unit is to support a viable, self-sustaining 
population of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Examples of activities that, when authorized, funded, or carried 
out by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore 
should result in consultation for Casey's June beetle include, but are 
not limited to, actions that would cause disturbance, loss, or 
fragmentation of critical habitat. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, development, grading, building roads and other 
infrastructure, constructing commercial and residential structures, and 
recreational activities (for example, ORV use and equestrian 
activities). These activities could permanently destroy critical 
habitat, compact soil, or alter soil moisture levels. Compacted or dry 
soils do not allow the species to burrow into, move, and feed in the 
soil as needed during the time they are underground. Please see Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species section above for a more detailed 
discussion of the impacts of these actions to the listed species.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and

[[Page 58971]]

    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands within the designation. 
Therefore, we are not exempting lands from this critical habitat 
designation for Casey's June beetle pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 
of the Act.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In addition, we look 
at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government 
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must 
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, 
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and 
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then 
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide.

Tribal Reservation Lands

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's Memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); President's Memorandum of 
November 5, 2009, ``Tribal Consultation'' (74 FR 57881); Executive 
Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of 
the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, 
wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are more 
appropriately managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs 
than through Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. In 
most cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat provides 
very little additional conservation benefit to endangered or threatened 
species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as an 
unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance, and may 
negatively impact a positive government-to-government relationship 
between the Service and tribal governments essential to achieving a 
mutual goal of successfully managing ecosystems upon which endangered 
and threatened species depend. When conducting our analysis under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider our existing and future 
partnerships with tribes and existing conservation actions that tribes 
have implemented or are currently implementing. We also take into 
consideration conservation actions that are planned as a result of 
ongoing government-to-government consultations with tribes.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
    A Federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a 
tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, 
Executive Order, or Federal statute or administrative action as 
permanent tribal homelands, and where the Federal government holds 
title to the land in trust on behalf of a tribe. The Agua Caliente 
Indian Reservation consists of a checkerboard of parcels found 
primarily in the City of Palm Springs, and the Cities of Cathedral City 
and Rancho Mirage, and unincorporated Riverside County, California. 
Lands within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation boundary include 
Tribal trust land, allotted trust land, Tribe-owned fee land, privately 
owned (Tribal members and non-Indians) fee land, and public land. 
Individual sections of Agua Caliente Indian Reservation land are 
interspersed with public land owned or under the control of various 
Federal and State agencies, and privately owned land under the 
jurisdiction of the County and/or one of the three municipalities 
(ACBCI 2010b p. 1-1). Tribal trust reservation lands are those lands 
that are under the sovereign control of the Tribe. Through our ongoing 
coordination with the Tribe, we have established a partnership that has 
benefitted natural resource management on tribal lands. For our 4(b)(2) 
balancing analysis we considered our partnership with the Tribe and, 
therefore, analyzed the benefits of including and excluding those lands 
under the sovereign control of the Tribe (tribal trust reservation 
lands) that met the definition of critical habitat. Because Tribe-owned 
fee, private fee, or allotted lands are potentially subject to other 
jurisdictions and not under the sovereign control of the Tribe, we did 
not include these lands in our exclusion analysis.
    Based on the detailed analysis presented below, the Secretary is 
exercising his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude 
approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
tribal

[[Page 58972]]

trust reservation lands (i.e., non-fee, non-allotted land held in trust 
by the Federal government for the Tribe) from this final critical 
habitat designation for Casey's June beetle.
Benefits of Inclusion--Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
    The principle benefit of including an area in a critical habitat 
designation is the requirement for Federal agencies to ensure actions 
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat, 
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must also consult with us 
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from 
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects of a proposed 
project on critical habitat is separate and different from that of the 
effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The jeopardy 
analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the 
species, while the destruction or adverse modification analysis 
evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution 
to conservation. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two 
analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. This 
will, in many instances, lead to different results and different 
regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may 
provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would 
listing alone. However, for some species, and in some locations, the 
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat 
will often also result in effects to the species. All lands considered 
for exclusion are currently considered occupied by Casey's June beetle 
and will be subject to the consultation requirements of the Act in the 
future. Although a jeopardy and adverse modification analysis must 
satisfy two different standards, because any modifications to proposed 
actions resulting from a section 7 consultation to minimize or avoid 
impacts to Casey's June beetle will be habitat-based, it is not 
possible to differentiate any measures implemented solely to minimize 
impacts to the critical habitat from those implemented to minimize 
impacts to the beetle. Additionally, this species' highly restricted 
geographic range relative to its historical distribution (as evidenced 
by documented loss of occupied habitat), ongoing habitat impacts and 
losses, and slow female dispersal rate, increase the likelihood an 
action that adversely affects Casey's June beetle will jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Therefore, in the case of Casey's 
June beetle, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation 
are very similar to the benefits of listing, and in some respects would 
be indistinguishable from the benefits of listing.
    Public education is often cited as another possible benefit of 
including lands in critical habitat as it may help focus conservation 
efforts on areas of high value for certain species. Partnership efforts 
with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to conserve Casey's 
June beetle and other federally listed species addressed in their draft 
tribal HCP have resulted in heightened awareness about the species. 
However, we believe there is little, if any, educational benefit 
attributable to critical habitat beyond those achieved from listing of 
Casey's June beetle under the Act, and the Tribe's efforts to develop a 
HCP. The Service is conducting ongoing coordination with Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians and other southern California tribes. Service 
coordination includes attending meetings with tribal representatives to 
discuss ongoing projects, management plans, and other issues as they 
arise. We believe our continuing coordination with the Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians will further promote awareness of the species 
and its conservation needs, and will facilitate development of 
additional management plans (beyond those already in existence), as 
well as address Casey's June beetle conservation on tribal lands.
    We believe existing tribal regulations, the Indian Canyons Master 
Plan, and current management of Heritage Park will ensure any land use 
actions, including those funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal 
agencies, are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of all lands considered for exclusion. For example, in a 
letter dated April 29, 2010 (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3), the Tribe stated that, 
rather than delegating land use authority to a local agent such as the 
City of Palm Springs in the Planning Area (i.e., in Casey's June beetle 
habitat south of Acanto Drive), the Tribe will directly regulate land 
use in this area through its Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal 
zoning. The Tribe indicated they would use their existing regulatory 
structure and active role in regulating land use and development in 
this area to protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat (ACBCI 2010c, 
p. 3). Furthermore, all lands being excluded are included in Heritage 
Park (ACBCI 2007, p. 5), an area within Indian Canyons acquired with 
funds from the 1988 California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land 
Conservation Act (1988 Bond Act) (ACBCI 2007, p. 2). The 1988 Bond Act 
requires Heritage Park to be managed to preserve Indian heritage and 
native palms and other plants. The 1988 Bond Act further stipulated 
that: ``[a]fter that acquisition, the state shall convey title to all 
those lands to the United States in trust for the [Tribe] as part of 
the [Agua Caliente Indian Reservation] on the conditions that * * * the 
lands be open to the public, subject to reasonable restrictions * * * 
and the lands be used for protection of wildlife habitat and other 
resources.'' Any potential impacts to Casey's June beetle from future 
proposed activities on the tribal trust reservation lands will be 
addressed through the Indian Canyons Master Plan or through a section 7 
consultation using the jeopardy standard, and such activities would 
also be subject to the take prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. As a 
result we believe the regulatory benefits of critical habitat 
designation on tribal trust reservation land would largely be redundant 
with the combined benefits of listing and existing tribal regulations.
    The designation of Casey's June beetle critical habitat may 
strengthen or reinforce some Federal laws, such as NEPA or Clean Water 
Act. These laws analyze the potential for projects to significantly 
affect the environment. Critical habitat may signal the presence of 
sensitive habitat that could otherwise be missed in the review process 
for these other environmental law; however, the listing process, HCP 
planning efforts, and consultations (which included conferencing on 
effects to Casey's June beetle) that have already occurred will provide 
this benefit. Therefore, in this case we view this benefit as redundant 
with the benefit the species will receive from listing under the Act.
    In summary, we do not believe that designating critical habitat 
within Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation 
lands will provide additional benefits for Casey's June beetle. 
Projects on these lands with a Federal nexus (e.g., funded, approved, 
or carried out by Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Indian Health Services, or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) will 
require section 7 consultation with the Service (regardless of critical 
habitat designation) because the habitat is occupied (see New Species 
Information section above) by Casey's June beetle. Furthermore, a high 
level of protection is already provided to tribal trust reservation 
lands that meet the

[[Page 58973]]

definition of critical habitat by existing conservation, regulations, 
and management. The ongoing coordination between the Service and the 
Tribe has already raised the level of awareness about the species, and 
we believe our ongoing coordination with the Tribe will facilitate 
development of species-specific management actions for these lands to 
address the conservation of Casey's June beetle.
Benefits of Exclusion--Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
    Under Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, 
we recognize that we must carry out our responsibilities under the Act 
in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes 
and tribal sovereignty while striving to ensure that tribes do not bear 
a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as 
to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation. In 
accordance with the Presidential memorandums of April 29, 1994, and 
November 9, 2009, we believe that, to the maximum extent possible, 
tribes are the appropriate governmental entities to manage their lands 
and tribal trust resources, and that we are responsible for 
strengthening government-to-government relationships with tribes. 
Federal regulation through critical habitat designation will adversely 
affect the tribal working relationships we now have and which we are 
strengthening throughout the United States. Maintaining positive 
working relationships with tribes is key to implementing natural 
resource programs of mutual interest, including habitat conservation 
planning efforts. In light of the above-mentioned orders and for a 
variety of other reasons described in their comment letters and 
communications, critical habitat designation is typically viewed by 
tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance. In comments submitted during the public comment periods on 
this proposed rule, and in comments submitted on other proposed 
critical habitat rules (such as the 2009 proposed revised critical 
habitat designation for arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) (74 FR 
52611; October 13, 2009)), several tribes stated that designation of 
critical habitat would negatively impact government-to-government 
relations.
    In the case of the Casey's June beetle proposed critical habitat, 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians submitted comments 
indicating they are opposed to critical habitat designation and believe 
reservation lands should be excluded. The Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians cited Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, 
and the President's Memorandum on Tribal Consultation (74 FR 57881; 
November 9, 2009) in their comments to the Service and their 
interpretation of these Federal enactments as meaning ``no Federal 
agency, and especially not any agency of the Department of the 
Interior, such as the Service, will inflict regulatory, economic, or 
governmental burdens on tribes and their members when adequate 
alternatives exist, such as avoidance, cooperation on a government-to-
government basis, or reliance on tribal measures'' (ACBCI 2010c, p. 4). 
In their comments to the Service on the proposed rule, the Tribe 
indicated they would use their existing regulatory structure and active 
role in regulating land use and development in this area to protect 
Casey's June beetle and its habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). These 
communications clearly indicate that designation of tribal trust 
reservation lands as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle would 
impact future conservation partnership opportunities with the Tribe. 
Therefore, a critical habitat designation could potentially damage our 
relationship with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
    We believe significant benefits would be realized by forgoing 
designation of critical habitat on tribal trust reservation (i.e., non-
fee, non-allotted) lands managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians. These benefits include:
    (1) Continuing and strengthening of our effective relationship with 
the Tribe to promote conservation of Casey's June beetle and its 
habitat;
    (2) Allowing continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in 
working toward recovering this species, including conservation actions 
that might not otherwise occur; and
    (3) Encouraging other tribes to complete management plans in the 
future on other reservations for other federally listed and sensitive 
species and engage in meaningful collaboration and cooperation.
    Because the Tribe is the entity that enforces protective 
regulations on tribal trust reservation land, and we have a working 
relationship with them, we believe exclusion of these lands will yield 
a significant partnership benefit. There has been a substantial amount 
of government-to-government consultation between the Tribe and Service 
on developing the draft Tribal HCP and this rulemaking process for 
Casey's June beetle. Although the Tribe informed us in an October 28, 
2008, letter that they removed Casey's June beetle from the list of 
species addressed in the draft Tribal HCP, they indicated they will 
``continue to informally coordinate with the Service regarding this 
species where it occurs on the Reservation.'' The Tribe stated they are 
deferring to the Service to allow ``the Service to take the lead in 
addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this species'' 
(ACBCI 2008, p. 1). Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a 
section 10(a) permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to 
implement the draft HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural 
resources within the Tribe's jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 
2010b, p. ES-1). We will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe 
on efforts to conserve Casey's June beetle. Therefore, excluding these 
lands from critical habitat provides the significant benefit of 
maintaining and strengthening our existing conservation partnerships 
and the potential of fostering new tribal partnerships.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
    We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the 
benefits of exclusion of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal 
trust reservation lands as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. We 
believe past, present, and future coordination with the Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians has provided and will continue to provide 
sufficient education regarding Casey's June beetle habitat conservation 
needs on tribal trust lands, such that there would be no additional 
educational benefit from designation of critical habitat. Further, 
because any potential impacts to Casey's June beetle from future 
projects will be addressed through the Indian Canyons Master Plan or 
through a section 7 consultation with us under the jeopardy standard, 
we believe critical habitat designation on tribal trust reservation 
land would largely be redundant with the combined benefits of listing 
and existing tribal regulations and management. Therefore, the benefits 
of designating critical habitat on tribal trust reservation lands are 
not significant.
    On the other hand, the benefits of excluding Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands from critical habitat 
are significant. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will 
help preserve and strengthen the conservation partnership we have 
developed with the Tribe, reinforce those we are building with other 
tribes, and foster future partnerships and development of

[[Page 58974]]

management plans; whereas inclusion will negatively impact our 
relationships with the Tribe and other southern California tribes. We 
are committed to working with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians to further the conservation of Casey's June beetle and other 
endangered and threatened species. The Tribe will continue to use their 
existing regulatory structure and active role in regulating land use 
and development in this area to protect Casey's June beetle and its 
habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). The Tribe continues to provide for some 
indirect conservation of Casey's June beetle by implementing provisions 
of the draft HCP. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to 
our partnership and our government-to-government relationship with the 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the ongoing conservation 
management practices of the Tribe and our current and future 
conservation partnerships with other tribes, we determined the 
significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion in 
the critical habitat designation.
    In summary, we find that excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians tribal trust reservation lands from this final critical habitat 
will preserve our partnership and may foster future habitat management 
and species conservation plans with the Tribe and with other tribes now 
and in the future. These partnership benefits are significant and 
outweigh the insignificant additional regulatory and educational 
benefits of including these lands in final critical habitat for Casey's 
June beetle.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Tribal Lands
    We determined that the exclusion of 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust 
reservation lands from the designation of Casey's June beetle critical 
habitat will not result in extinction of the species. The jeopardy 
standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of 
conservation measures through the section 7 process due to Casey's June 
beetle occupancy and protection provided by the Indian Canyons Master 
Plan provide assurances that this species will not go extinct as a 
result of excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. 
Therefore, based on the above discussion the Secretary is exercising 
his discretion to exclude approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust 
reservation lands managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
from this final critical habitat designation.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) 
of the critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial 
Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2010A, pp. 1-75). The DEA, dated February 
22, 2010, was made available for public review from March 31, 2010, 
through April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046). Following the close of the 
comment period, a final analysis (dated June 1, 2010) of the potential 
economic effects of the designation was developed taking into 
consideration the public comments and any new information (IEc 2010b, 
pp. 1-84). Substantive comments and information received on the DEA are 
summarized in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section 
below.
    The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Casey's June 
beetle; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of 
whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact 
of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing 
scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical 
habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the 
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for 
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, 
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs 
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The 
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated 
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat 
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in 
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks at 
baseline impacts expected to occur due to listing and forecasts both 
baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur with the designation 
of critical habitat.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group 
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks and considers those costs 
that may occur in the 20 years following listing and the designation of 
critical habitat, which was determined to be the appropriate period for 
analysis because limited planning information was available for most 
activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year 
timeframe. The FEA quantifies economic impacts of Casey's June beetle 
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of 
activity: (1) Residential and commercial development, and (2) flood 
damage reduction. Baseline impacts include the potential economic 
impacts of all actions relating to the conservation of the Casey's June 
beetle, including costs associated with sections 7, 9, and 10 of the 
Act. Baseline impacts also include the economic impacts of protective 
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that 
aid habitat conservation in the area evaluated in the DEA. In other 
words, baseline impacts include those impacts associated with the 
listing of the species and not associated with critical habitat. 
Incremental impacts are those potential future economic impacts of 
conservation actions relating to the designation of critical habitat; 
these impacts would not be expected to occur without the designation of 
critical habitat.
    Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from 
listing and other conservation efforts for Casey's June beetle. 
Conservation efforts related to development activities constitute the 
majority of total baseline costs to areas proposed for critical habitat 
(approximately 86 percent). Impacts to flood control activities compose 
the remaining approximately 12 percent of impacts. Total future 
baseline impacts are estimated to be $19,242,100 in present value terms 
using a 7 percent discount rate over the next 20 years (2010 to 2029) 
in the areas proposed as critical habitat.
    Approximately 100 percent of incremental impacts attributed to the 
critical habitat designation are expected to be related to development 
activities. The FEA estimates total potential

[[Page 58975]]

incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over 
the next 20 years (2010 to 2029) to be $6,173,340 in present value 
terms using a 7 percent discount rate, equivalent to $582, 320 in 
annualized economic impact over the analysis timeframe. This value is 
based on an assumption of total avoidance of designated acres and thus 
represents the upper-bound potential cost for each project. As such, it 
likely overstates the expected absolute cost of future actions to 
protect critical habitat.
    The FEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional 
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects 
generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the 
commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures 
(such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on 
land use). The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are 
likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or 
regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA estimates lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the critical habitat designation might unduly burden a 
particular group or economic sector.
    Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs 
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the 
Secretary has determined not to exercise his discretion to exclude any 
areas from this designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle 
based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by 
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by 
downloading from the Internet at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a 
national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we 
have determined that the lands within the designation of critical 
habitat for Casey's June beetle are not owned or managed by the 
Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on 
national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising his 
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on 
impacts on national security.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public and contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule to list Casey's June beetle as endangered and 
designate critical habitat during two comment periods. The first 
comment period associated with the publication of the proposed rule (74 
FR 32857) opened on July 9, 2009, and closed on September 8, 2009. We 
also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation 
and associated draft economic analysis during a comment period that 
opened March 31, 2010, and closed on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046). We 
did not receive any requests for a public hearing, with the exception 
of one that specified it be conducted only in the event their property 
was not excluded from critical habitat (see response to Comment 18 
below). During the comment periods, we requested all interested parties 
submit comments or information related to the proposed revisions to 
critical habitat, including (but not limited to) the following: Unit 
boundaries; species occurrence information and distribution; land use 
designations that may affect critical habitat; potential economic 
effects of the proposed designation; benefits associated with critical 
habitat designation; areas proposed for designation and associated 
rationale for the non-inclusion or considered exclusion of these areas; 
and methods used to designate critical habitat.
    During the first comment period, we received 11 comments addressing 
the proposed listing and critical habitat designation: 5 from peer 
reviewers, 5 from public organizations or individuals, and one from a 
Native American tribe. During the second comment period, we received 14 
comments addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat 
designation and the DEA. Of these latter comments, 3 were from Native 
American tribes and tribal members, and 11 were from public 
organizations or individuals.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers and 
the public for substantive issues and new information regarding Casey's 
June beetle listing and critical habitat designation. All comments are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from six knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles pertinent to the species. We received 
responses from five peer reviewers who provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing and 
designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. The peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment 1: All five peer reviewers expressed general and specific 
support of our proposal to list Casey's June beetle and designate 
critical habitat. Support of the proposed rule includes the following:
    (a) The first peer reviewer stated that the peer reviewer's 
collection data support our estimated population distribution. The 
first peer reviewer further concluded: (1) The cooler, more moist, and 
wind-protected environment found in the southwestern corner of Palm 
Springs is a required component of suitable habitat; (2) Casey's June 
beetle daily and seasonal activity is dependent on specific temperature 
and wind conditions; and (3) a single night ``or more'' (unspecified) 
of negative survey results are not sufficient to demonstrate absence.
    (b) The second peer reviewer stated ``Given the natural history of 
the beetle and the accelerated fragmentation, modification, and loss of 
habitat, this species is in imminent danger of extirpation in part of 
its currently known range, and possibly extinction.'' The peer reviewer 
agreed that Factor A threats likely negatively affect all life stages 
of Casey's June beetle throughout the year, and generally agreed with 
our analyses for threat Factors B, C, and D. This reviewer further 
stated that even the slightest disturbance to relatively

[[Page 58976]]

small upland habitat areas is likely to have a significant and lasting 
effect on the patchily distributed sedentary females and larvae. The 
second peer reviewer also expressed the opinion that the central 
portion of Palm Canyon Wash is unlikely to support reproduction and 
larval development, and at best is used by males for movement. The peer 
reviewer believed it is prudent and biologically sound to treat all of 
the known occurrences of Casey's June beetle as a single population, 
and that the basic soil and vegetation types associated with Casey's 
June beetle are appropriate PCEs. Finally, the peer reviewer indicated 
that all Casey's June beetle habitat proposed as critical habitat 
currently under the jurisdiction of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians met the definition of critical habitat.
    (c) The third peer reviewer believed our case for listing was 
compelling. The reviewer expressed concern that Casey's June beetle 
listing appears overdue because the species is found in such a small 
area with rapidly shrinking available habitat, also noting that this 
species is arguably the most habitat-restricted scarab beetle in the 
United States. The reviewer agreed that the continued survival of the 
species cannot depend on occupancy at a single locality (such as Smoke 
Tree Ranch) because of the possibility of stochastic events eliminating 
local occupancy. This reviewer argued that because the continued 
survival of Casey's June beetle depends on persistence in multiple 
locations, remaining available habitat meets the definition of critical 
habitat.
    (d) The fourth peer reviewer agreed the present distribution of 
Casey's June beetle is well-known based on numerous formal and informal 
surveys conducted during the past several years by qualified 
biologists. The reviewer further stated that because of its present 
restricted distribution and imminent threats to remaining habitat, 
Casey's June beetle is one of the most imperiled species of insects, 
and probably the most endangered scarab beetle.
    (e) The fifth peer reviewer stated the current distribution of 
Casey's June beetle was well-documented in the proposed rule, as was 
its soil type association and land use trends within the species'' 
range. The reviewer noted that given Casey's June beetle's extremely 
limited area of occurrence and ongoing habitat loss, it clearly ranks 
as Critically Endangered under the current International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) criteria; 
therefore, Casey's June beetle's long-term persistence requires the 
highest level of protection possible under the law. The reviewer 
further noted our methods to determine what lands meet the definition 
of critical habitat seem robust enough to capture lands where 
probability of long-term persistence of the species is highest.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewers'' critical review. 
Because all peer reviewers generally agreed on the validity of our 
methods and determinations, we believe the proposed listing and 
critical habitat designation is well-supported. With regard to the 
specific recommendation to include Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians reservation lands in critical habitat, we received some new 
information indicating some areas proposed as critical habitat on the 
reservation do not meet the definition of critical habitat. We further 
considered the possible benefits of including and excluding Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'' tribal trust reservation lands that 
met the definition of critical habitat. Because benefits provided by 
critical habitat designation in this instance are very similar to the 
benefits of listing, and in some respects would be indistinguishable 
from benefits provided by listing and existing regulations (to minimize 
the benefits of inclusion), we find that excluding Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands from this final 
critical habitat will preserve our partnership with the Tribe and 
foster future development of habitat management plans with Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and other tribes. Furthermore, we 
determined that exclusion of tribal trust reservation lands would not 
result in the extinction of the species. Therefore, we are excluding 11 
ac (4 ha) of tribal trust reservation (i.e., non-fee, non-allotment) 
lands from this final critical habitat designation (see also Comment 7 
below).
    We agree with the third peer reviewer's statement that continued 
survival of the species cannot depend on occupancy at a single locality 
(such as Smoke Tree Ranch) because of the possibility of stochastic 
events eliminating local occupancy. We believe the species may be 
threatened by natural or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as 
climate change, increased intensity and frequency of scouring events in 
wash habitat, and small population size. However, we note that no 
species-specific, scientific, published models describing or predicting 
the magnitude of these threats have yet been conducted, and these 
threats should be the subject of future research (see below).
    Comment 2: Four peer reviewers supplied information or opinions 
regarding species'' biology, and some suggested associated edits or 
revisions to proposed critical habitat.
    (a) The first peer reviewer agreed that additional studies are 
needed to determine the effects of flooding on Casey's June beetle 
within its critical habitat. The reviewer also believes one of the 
greatest threats posed by developed areas adjacent to critical habitat 
is artificial lighting in habitat corridors during Casey's June beetle 
flight season because potentially large numbers of males are drawn away 
from females and die before they can mate. The peer reviewer stated 
that artificial light sources could lead to unnatural concentrations of 
Casey's June beetle occupancy that makes them more vulnerable to 
catastrophic events. The reviewer also stated that based on the known 
larval habits of other members of the tribe Melolonthini, Casey's June 
beetle larvae most likely feed on roots. The peer reviewer noted all 
surveys for Casey's June beetle have occurred in undeveloped upland 
habitats, and their observation of a small number of beetles along 
State Route 111 one night 30 years ago leads the peer reviewer to think 
there might still be small pockets of occupancy that persist within 
some of the more developed areas of Palm Springs west and south of 
State Route 111. They believe that knowing if and where these pockets 
exist would help biologists understand Casey's June beetle tolerance of 
landscaping and other land disturbance. The peer reviewer suggested 
future surveys should include storefronts, pools, and other established 
light sources within the urban landscape. The peer reviewer also 
suggested changing the wording of PCE 2 (74 FR 32874; July 9, 2009) 
because Casey's June beetle continues to occupy a few highly disturbed, 
weedy, and even previously graded or disked fields along State Route 
111. They asserted that desert scrub or wash vegetation is not a 
requirement for Casey's June beetle presence and survival. Finally, the 
peer reviewer expressed the opinion that given the extent of the known 
population, conservation of anything less than proposed critical 
habitat would likely result in eventual extinction of the species.
    (b) The second peer reviewer emphasized the most important single 
factor for continued species'' survival is that female beetles are 
flightless. Introduction of females would be the only way to 
reestablish the species in

[[Page 58977]]

isolated suitable areas where occupancy has been eliminated; therefore, 
locations where breeding females are currently found must be protected. 
The peer reviewer also stated persistence of the species at Smoke Tree 
Ranch (despite the annual death of many males due to lighting) 
indicates the number of males that survive has been sufficient to 
support continued reproduction; however, such a chronic drain on the 
number of males could eventually have long-term effects on species'' 
survival.
    (c) The third peer reviewer stated that potential Casey's June 
beetle habitat is best characterized as any open space still existing 
within its former known distributional boundaries. They further 
clarified that they believe the species' known distribution is defined 
by female flightlessness and factors of soil type which are historical 
biogeographic factors that may never be fully understood.
    (d) The fourth peer reviewer stated that because Casey's June 
beetle has experienced the loss of 97 percent of its original habitat, 
they recommend including additional isolated patches of suitable 
habitat outside the current known range in critical habitat where 
reintroduction could potentially maintain population size in the 
``medium term.'' They suggested including habitat patches located on 
upland sites above floodplain areas vulnerable to periodic washout in 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: Regarding the first peer reviewer's concern about 
artificial lighting, we understand that artificial lighting likely has 
some negative impact on Casey's June beetle and therefore, should be 
addressed though management actions to avoid take in occupied habitat 
(see E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species section above). Artificial lighting attracts 
only males in flight, often resulting in their death, but not 
necessarily impacting the abundance of female and immature individuals. 
Artificial lighting has no effect on the distribution of flightless 
females, and this life stage determines the spatial concentration of 
all other life stages. We agree that unnatural light sources attracting 
beetles into development adjacent to upland habitat poses at least a 
moderate threat to Casey's June beetle.
    We agree with the all the peer reviewers that the following issues 
should be research priorities for this species' recovery: (1) The 
impact of male mortality on population abundance and fitness; (2) 
species' occupancy patterns within Palm Canyon Wash; (3) the effects of 
periodic flooding on individual mortality and movement; (4) delineation 
and protection of breeding areas; and (5) larval diet. As discussed in 
the proposed rule, one expert particularly familiar with the biology 
and taxonomy of the genus Dinacoma stated Casey's June beetle ``* * * 
exhibits no specific host preferences and larvae likely consume any 
available organic resources--including stratified detritus--encountered 
within the alluvial habitat'' (LaRue pers. comm. 2006). Furthermore, 
Hill and O`Maly (2009, p. 1) recently found that the frass pellets of 
larvae of another endangered June beetle (Mount Hermon June Beetle, 
Polyphylla barbata) contained a variety of plant species and fungi 
material, demonstrating that they are not specialist feeders but are 
microhabitat specialists. Therefore, while they will be helpful in 
prioritizing research objectives, we do not believe any of the peer 
reviewers' comments on research priorities require revisions to text in 
the New Species Information section above.
    We agree with the first peer reviewer that more surveys should 
occur to validate our current knowledge of habitat occupancy. Most 
surveys that have occurred in the past have had variable methodologies 
and durations, and focused almost exclusively on attracting males in 
flight from an unknown distance to light traps. We will develop 
recommendations regarding where and how surveys should be done, and 
will likely require 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit holders to follow a 
survey protocol that maximizes the likelihood of male and female 
Casey's June beetle detection at occupied sites. We will also continue 
to facilitate and fund surveys outside of designated critical habitat 
(Service 2009, p. 3) and encourage biologists and the public to examine 
urban light sources and report any observations of male Casey's June 
beetles to us for analysis.
    We considered the first peer reviewer's recommendation to change 
proposed PCE 2 to not include desert scrub or wash vegetation to allow 
for incorporation of disturbed, weedy, and previously graded or disked 
fields. In order to confirm the validity of this recommendation, we 
reviewed satellite imagery of the sites where occupancy was recently 
documented that best fit the description of ``disturbed, weedy, and 
previously graded or disked fields'' and noted the presence or absence 
of desert scrub or wash vegetation. We also obtained field survey 
information regarding habitat conditions (Hawks pers. comm. 2010). We 
determined the peer reviewer had raised a valid point and edited PCE 2 
to include other Sonoran vegetation types and disturbed habitat (as 
long as they were not isolated by development and unlikely to return to 
their natural state). In the proposed rule we specified PCE 2 to 
include ``Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation 
and native desert wash vegetation * * *.'' In this final rule we use 
the more inclusive language of ``predominantly native desert 
vegetation.''
    Regarding the fourth peer reviewer's recommendation to include 
additional areas as critical habitat, we carefully considered all 
patches of apparently suitable habitat within the species' historical 
(versus current) range for proposal as critical habitat, even areas of 
suitable habitat where reintroduction of beetles would be necessary for 
them to be utilized (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section). We emphasized the importance of upland sites least likely to 
be subject to periodic flooding and explained their value as refugia 
(see Background section of proposed rule). However, the amount of 
remaining undeveloped land within the species' historical range that 
meets the definition of critical habitat is extremely limited. All 
areas designated as critical habitat are within likely flight distance 
of occupied habitat for male Casey's June beetles (considered occupied 
at the population level); as a result several relatively small non-
contiguous habitat areas without occupancy records were also designated 
as critical habitat. No unoccupied habitat patches outside the likely 
flight range of adult males were clearly large enough or otherwise 
suitable to support an independent population based on our current 
knowledge of the species; therefore, we did not determine that any of 
these areas met the definition of critical habitat.
    Comment 3: One peer reviewer emphasized they felt it is important 
for the Service to work closely with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians to develop a management and public education plan for the 
species and for habitat on tribal reservation lands. The reviewer also 
stated development and implementation of an overall management plan 
that simultaneously provides guidance for the restoration and 
enhancement of existing critical habitat and educates citizens about 
the importance of conserving Casey's June beetle is crucial to the 
species' survival. The peer reviewer asserted that a public education 
program must be developed along with habitat management guides and 
plans.
    Our Response: We agree that management and conservation planning 
and public outreach are important

[[Page 58978]]

aspects of endangered species recovery planning. As stated above, we 
believe our continuing coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians should provide sufficient future education, facilitate 
development of additional management plans (beyond those already in 
existence on the reservation), and help promote Casey's June beetle 
conservation on tribal reservation lands. In the Spotlight Species 
Action Plan (Service 2009, p. 2), we state that in order to reduce or 
eliminate threats to Casey's June beetle we will need to determine 
current occupancy (presence or absence) within portions of the 
population distribution (which was done in 2010, see New Species 
Occupancy and Habitat Information above), conserve occupied habitat, 
and gain scientific information required to inform recovery criteria. 
Actions recommended in the Spotlight Species Action Plan (Service 2009, 
p. 3) include developing agreements with landowners to conserve 
habitat. We will continue to work with all stakeholders, including the 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, to conserve habitat, conduct 
public outreach, and recover Casey's June beetle.
    Comment 4: One peer reviewer had specific text edit 
recommendations. They suggested changing the word ``considered'' under 
the Life History and Habitat section on page 32858 of the proposed rule 
to ``known to be,'' because it is a fact that the females are 
flightless, and the word ``family'' on page 32859, line 1 under Factor 
A, to ``genus'' (74 FR 32857; July 9, 2009).
    Our Response: We agree with the suggested text and taxonomic 
corrections and made edits to the New Species Information above and the 
Factor A discussion in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section, above.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We did 
not receive any comments from the State regarding the listing of 
Casey's June beetle or the designation of its critical habitat.

Public Comments

Comments From Tribes
    Comment 5: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) 
asserted there is not enough information known regarding the biology of 
the species or its distribution to justify listing. They argued it is 
not known what the species eats or how long it remains in the soil, and 
the species' distribution may be significantly greater than estimated 
in the proposed rule. They argued specifically that soils named in the 
PCEs are widely distributed throughout the Coachella Valley where more 
Casey's June beetles might be found and are not appropriate to use as 
PCEs. They further stated there has been no systematic effort to locate 
Casey's June beetle elsewhere in the Coachella Valley or desert areas 
further south, and that they know of a Casey's June beetle captured 
``well outside'' the proposed critical habitat and another report of 
what may be a Casey's June beetle from a site near the City of Yuma, 
Arizona. The Tribe concluded the Service needs to conduct or fund new 
surveys to determine the species' range before listing is justified.
    The Tribe claimed no recent surveys have detected the species south 
of Bogert Trail or west of South Palm Canyon Drive, and indicated they 
believe unoccupied land should, therefore, not be designated as 
critical habitat. The Tribe further indicated they believe the data on 
which the proposed rule was based should have been subject to peer 
review prior to publication of the draft rule.
    Finally, the Tribe stated that in drawing the conclusion that 
existing tribal regulatory structure is not adequate to protect Casey's 
June beetle, the Service did not consider the Tribe's active role in 
regulating land use and development. They cited the Indian Canyons 
Master Plan and tribal development zoning that apply to reservation 
lands south of Acanto Drive.
    Our Response: A species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section above). As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the 
Secretary shall determine whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the 
status of the species. Further, our Policy on Information Standards 
Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information 
Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure our decisions are based on the best scientific data 
available. We used primary and original sources of information as the 
basis for our recommendations. We acknowledge the Tribe's concern that 
little information is known about Casey's June beetle life habits. 
While lifespan and diet information will help inform species recovery 
actions, we believe the status of the species is clear without this 
knowledge. Species' decline and habitat loss, as well as the imminence 
of threats to species' habitat and survival for Casey's June beetle 
have been clearly demonstrated (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species section and Comment 1 above). Furthermore, the need for listing 
is determined ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available,'' even though biological information is 
typically incomplete for rare species in need of protection. Therefore, 
we believe our determination that Casey's June beetle is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range is supported by the best 
available scientific and commercial information.
    We respectfully disagree with the Tribe's comment that Casey's June 
beetle has a wider distribution than estimated. As required by section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Secretary shall determine whether any 
species is an endangered or a threatened species solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available to him after 
conducting a review of the status of the species. Two researchers have 
undertaken recent and relatively widespread assessments of Casey's June 
beetle occupancy and habitat distribution (Hovore 1997a, p. 1-3; 1997b, 
p. 1-3; 1997c, p. 2-17; Cornett 2004, p. 8). Both studies generally 
agree with our conclusions regarding the limited distribution of 
Casey's June beetle habitat, and both concluded the distribution was 
more restricted than we described in our proposed rule (Hovore 1997b, 
p. 1-3; 1997c, p. 2-17; Cornett 2004, p. 13). A species expert has 
examined specimens and populations of Dinacoma species found in 
locations as proximal as Joshua Tree National Park and the City of 
Hemet and described them as different species (LaRue pers. comm. 2006). 
We are also aware of a collection (one individual) by Cornett 
(Anderson, Service, pers. comm. 2009) that resembled Casey's June 
beetle from a site near the City of Yuma, Arizona. We have communicated 
with the collector, and they confirmed it resembles Casey's June 
beetle. However, they have not determined the taxonomic identity of 
this specimen, nor have they had taxonomic experts examine it 
(Anderson, pers. comm. 2009; Cornett, James Cornett Biological 
Consultants,

[[Page 58979]]

pers. comm. 2009a, 2009b). We do not believe this specimen will be 
identified as a Casey's June beetle because it was collected far from 
known collection locations, and in an area topographically different 
from areas known to support Casey's June beetle (see Food, Water, Air, 
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements and 
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring that are Protected from Disturbance sections above for 
further discussion). Most recently, David Hawks conducted a survey in 
2010 funded by the Service specifically focused on surveying suitable 
soils north (just south of the Chino Cone in the City of Palm Springs) 
and south (past Palm Desert as far as La Quinta) of the current known 
species distribution. Hawks did collect Casey's June beetles outside 
the current known range (see New Species Information section above for 
more information), but only within a patch of remnant wash channel just 
outside of proposed critical habitat and still within the City of Palm 
Springs (Hawks pers. comm. 2010).
    Regarding the Tribe's assertion that we used widely distributed 
soil types to inappropriately define critical habitat, we do not agree. 
To clarify, Casey's June beetle critical habitat is first defined by 
other environmental factors (such as soil moisture and wind conditions) 
unique to the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains (see 
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements section and our response to Comment 1 
above). We identify critical habitat by first defining the area of 
occupancy or potential occupancy (which is by default limited to those 
areas where the unique environmental factors mentioned above are 
found), then second by ``focusing in on the principal biological or 
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within the 
defined area'' (see Critical Habitat Background section above). PCEs 
are only one component of the definition of critical habitat (see 
Critical Habitat Background section above). Therefore, based on the 
best scientific information available regarding species' taxonomy and 
distribution, it is likely the species was not historically distributed 
beyond the eastern San Jacinto Mountain foothills outside of the City 
of Palm Springs. We will continue to recommend and facilitate surveys 
to refine our knowledge of the species' distribution, but we believe 
our current biological conclusions and the need to list Casey's June 
beetle as endangered under the Act are well supported by the best 
available scientific and commercial data.
    The Tribe's comment that no recent surveys have detected the 
species south of Bogert Trail or west of South Palm Canyon Drive is not 
supported by available occupancy data. Most recently, David Hawks 
(pers. comm. 2010; 2011a; 2011b) detected numerous adult male and 
female Casey's June beetles in Palm Canyon Wash south of Bogert Trail 
and south of Acanto Drive (south of Acanto Drive these observations 
were made incidentally without the aid of light traps), indicating this 
area is a current population density center (see New Species 
Information section above for more information). In 2004, Cornett 
(2004, p. 8) detected Casey's June beetle south of Bogert Trail, north 
of Acanto Drive, and midway between South Palm Canyon Drive and Palm 
Canyon Wash. In 2001, Simonsen-Marchant (2001, p. 6) detected Casey's 
June beetles south of Bogert Trail and north of Acanto Drive in upland 
habitat adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash; this area remains undeveloped. It 
is true no Casey's June beetles have been recently detected west of 
South Palm Canyon Drive, and the sparse remaining suitable soils are 
heavily degraded. Furthermore, two separate surveys in 2010 (Hawks, 
pers. comm. 2011; Cornett 2010, pp. 10 and 14) in areas adjacent to and 
west of South Palm Canyon Drive were negative (see New Species 
Information section above). Therefore, based on the best available data 
we believe the majority of lands proposed for designation south of 
Bogert Trail are occupied and meet the definition of critical habitat. 
However, lands adjacent to and west of South Palm Canyon Drive 
approximately west of Via Fortuna, and the southernmost non-contiguous 
patches of CdC soil within Palm Canyon, are not occupied nor appear to 
be occupiable and therefore do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat because they would not contribute to the conservation of the 
species (see Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat 
Rule, above).
    With regard to the Tribe's question of our peer review practices, 
the purpose of a proposed rule is to allow peer and public review of 
data and conclusions drawn from the data, so that we can make 
appropriate adjustments prior to publication of the final rule. It is 
our policy that peer review be conducted during the public comment 
period (Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, 
July 1, 1994, 59 FR 34270); we can not allow outside review of pre-
decisional internal draft proposed rules. Nevertheless, we do commonly, 
and did in this case, discuss the data we use and the biological 
implications of those data with species experts who collect it in a 
scientific context as needed prior to publication of the proposed rule. 
We believe we followed the best scientific practices in writing the 
proposed and final rules.
    Finally, regarding the Tribe's assertion that existing tribal 
regulatory structure is adequate to protect Casey's June beetle, we 
subsequently considered the Tribe's active role in regulating land use 
and development via the Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal 
development zoning (as articulated by the Master Plan) that apply to 
reservation lands south of Acanto Drive. We did not determine these 
documents were adequate to address the threats placing the species in 
danger of extinction and, therefore, meeting the definition of an 
endangered species (see A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range section 
above).
    Comment 6: The Tribe asserted that critical habitat should include 
only the minimum amount of habitat needed to avoid short-term jeopardy 
to the species. The Tribe further stated that designation of critical 
habitat on their reservation is not needed because they are required to 
conduct section 7 consultations for many activities that might 
potentially pose a threat to the species.
    Our Response: As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use 
the best scientific and commercial data available to designate critical 
habitat (see Critical Habitat Background and Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat above). Critical habitat is defined as the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time 
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection, and specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 
listed that are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means all methods and procedures necessary to bring 
any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary (the recovery standard, 
see Critical Habitat Background section above). Therefore, critical 
habitat is not defined as the minimum amount of habitat needed to avoid 
short-term jeopardy to the species. Whether or not section 7 
consultation is required is not a factor in determining those areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat. However, when we analyze 
the benefits of

[[Page 58980]]

including versus excluding an area as critical habitat, we do consider, 
among other relevant factors, whether the regulatory benefit of 
designation may be largely redundant with listing.
    Comment 7: The Tribe stated that if the Casey's June beetle is 
listed, the Service should at least find the benefits of excluding 
``the lands of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation'' outweigh the 
benefits of including them in critical habitat. The Tribe cited 
multiple regulatory and tribal sovereignty documents including 
Secretarial Order 3206 (June 5, 1997), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 
67249; November 9, 2000), and two other critical habitat rules where 
tribal land was excluded based on partnerships in support of their 
request for exclusion. The Tribe stated the ``relevant thrust'' of the 
cited Federal enactments is that no agency of the Department of the 
Interior will inflict regulatory, economic, or governmental burdens on 
tribes and their members when adequate alternatives exist.
    Our Response: We considered the Tribes' request that reservation 
lands be excluded from critical habitat based on partnership benefits 
and the existence of adequate alternatives to the regulatory, economic, 
and governmental burdens of designating Casey's June beetle critical 
habitat. The Act specifies that the Secretary may exclude an area from 
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical 
habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor (see Exclusions section above).
    We considered the possible benefits of including and excluding Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' tribal trust reservation lands that 
met the definition of critical habitat. For our exclusion analysis we 
considered our partnership with the Tribe and, therefore, analyzed the 
benefits of including and excluding those lands under the sovereign 
control of the Tribe (tribal trust reservation lands) that met the 
definition of critical habitat. Because Tribe-owned fee, private fee, 
or allotted lands are potentially subject to other jurisdictions and 
not under the sovereign control of the Tribe, we did not include these 
lands in our exclusion analysis (see Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians under Tribal Reservation Lands, above). We find that existing 
regulations and listing provide habitat protection of tribal trust 
reservation lands and are largely redundant with protections that would 
be provided by critical habitat designation (minimizing the benefits of 
inclusion), and we find that excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians tribal trust reservation lands from this final critical habitat 
will help preserve our partnership with the Tribe and foster future 
development of habitat management plans with Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians and other tribes (maximizing the benefits of 
exclusion). Furthermore, we determined that exclusion of tribal trust 
reservation lands would not result in the extinction of the species. 
Therefore, we are excluding 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust reservation 
(i.e., non-fee, non-allotment) lands from this final critical habitat 
designation. See Tribal Reservation Lands under Exclusions, above, for 
further discussion.
    Comment 8: Two members of the Tribe who own allotted land in 
proposed critical habitat south of Acanto Drive, north and adjacent to 
South Palm Canyon Drive commented that: (1) The reasoning that the soil 
type ``lends itself to potential habitat'' is not sufficient scientific 
evidence their land meets the definition of critical habitat and sounds 
speculative; (2) their properties are not occupied because surveys of 
one commenter's parcel were negative, and the second commenter's parcel 
is adjacent to the surveyed parcel; (3) the proposed designation would 
affect tribal reservation land in a disproportionate manner since over 
60 percent of the land identified is on the reservation; and (4) their 
land is too far from the wash to meet the definition of critical 
habitat. The commenters submitted a tract map and two letters from a 
consultant in support of their statements.
    Another apparent tribal allottee expressed similar concerns. The 
commenter made the following statements with regard to their property: 
(1) Surveys by James Cornett were negative; (2) in order to occupy on-
site habitat, Casey's June beetles would have to travel a distance 
greater than 1 mi (2 km) over several concrete dams and a concrete 
dike; (3) 75 percent is rock or hillside, and 10 to 15 percent of the 
remainder is imported material behind a 100-year flood wall; and (4) 
Riverside County FCWCD periodically removes several feet of material 
from behind the flood wall to maintain the wash depth. They concluded 
that for the above reasons their property should not be designated as 
Casey's June beetle critical habitat.
    Our Response: The commenters gave several reasons for why they 
believed their lands should not be designated as critical habitat. We 
address their reasons in this response in the order presented. We could 
not find the quoted language regarding soil type in our proposed rule 
to which objection was made. Nonetheless, we understand the comment did 
not agree with the soil type associations articulated in the PCEs. We 
believe language in the text of this rule clearly reflects the strong 
relationship of soil type (PCE 1) to habitat suitability (see Primary 
Constituent Elements for Casey's June Beetle, and Comment 1 above). 
Historical occupancy data (Hovore 1997, p. 4; Hovore 2003, p. 4), 2004 
survey data (Cornett 2004, p. 8), 2010 survey data (Hawks pers. comm. 
2010, 2011a and b), and soil maps indicate some properties south of 
Acanto Drive fall within currently occupied Casey's June beetle 
habitat. Furthermore, documented occupancy of a particular site is not 
required for land to meet the definition of critical habitat; however, 
if the particular site is within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, it must support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species (see Critical 
Habitat Background, above).
    We understand the first two commenters' concern that a relatively 
large amount of proposed critical habitat falls within the Tribe's 
reservation. It is not our intent to designate critical habitat in a 
disproportionate manner. Rather, the distribution of lands that meet 
the definition critical habitat on tribal land is a result of past 
biological and social factors we cannot change. However, based on new 
scientific information we determined these commenters' lands did not 
meet the definition of critical habitat, and therefore they are not 
included in this critical habitat designation for that reason (see New 
Species Information and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
sections above). We further excluded all tribal trust reservation land 
from critical habitat, thus reducing the amount of reservation 
designated as critical habitat (see Tribal Reservation Lands under 
Exclusions above). Therefore, we believe these commenters' concerns 
have been addressed to the extent appropriate.
    The third commenter stated their property is not occupied and is 
situated such that Casey's June beetle immigration is precluded. In 
order to assess the validity of these comments we would need to know 
the exact location of the commenter's property

[[Page 58981]]

and details of any surveys conducted. We were not able to determine the 
precise location of the commenter's property based on the information 
provided. Furthermore, the commenter did not provide survey 
documentation, nor a date surveys were conducted. Therefore, we were 
not able to assess the validity of the commenter's statements with 
regard to occupancy.
    The third commenter generally described their property as not 
containing the PCEs. All areas proposed as Casey's June beetle critical 
habitat were defined as the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species on which are found the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species (see Critical 
Habitat Background, above). Without knowing exactly where the property 
is located, we are not able to make a determination on the 
characteristics of the site. However, we based our designation partly 
on the soil type and landscape-level characteristics we determined are 
important for the beetle and consider all areas occupied by the species 
and to contain the PCEs. Any developed lands that do not contain the 
PCEs inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the 
maps of this designated critical habitat are excluded by text in this 
final rule (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section 
above).
Comments Related to Biological Information That Informed Our Listing or 
Critical Habitat Determinations
    Comment 9: Three commenters stated that Casey's June beetle is more 
widely distributed than the proposed rule described, based on 
observations of Casey's June beetles at their homes. The first 
commenter from the City of Palm Desert said they observed many Casey's 
June beetles during the early morning at their home during a 3-week 
period in June, dropping off the first week of July. The second 
commenter said they observed Casey's June beetle at their home in La 
Quinta several times during the late spring and early summer months of 
2009. The third commenter said they had observed Casey's June beetle 
``a few miles north of the reported [proposed critical habitat] 
boundary'' and at 393 West Mesquite Ave in the City of Palm Springs. 
They stated they hope this information helps protect the species 
because they believe it is important no species become extinct.
    Our Response: There are other species of June beetles in the Palm 
Desert and La Quinta areas that are related and similar in appearance 
to Casey's June beetle (Cornett 2004, pp. 4-5). As stated in the 
proposed rule, Casey's June beetles are crepuscular, meaning they are 
active at dusk, not in the early morning (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Although 
it is commonly called a ``June'' beetle, peak abundance for this 
species typically occurs in April and May, not during the summer months 
of June and July (Cornett 2004, pp. 4, 18-26). The timing of the first 
two commenters' observations indicates the beetles they observed were a 
species of common June beetle in the genus Phyllophagia (see Cornett 
2004, p. 4-5). Additionally, none of the commenters provided any 
substantiating information to support the comment they had observed 
Casey's June beetles, such as identifying characteristics of specimens, 
or experience on which their ability to identify Casey's June beetle 
was based. Casey's June beetle surveys were conducted in 2010, during 
the flight season in potential habitat in the areas described by the 
third commenter (vicinity of Tahquiz Creek in western foothills of the 
City of Palm Springs); however, no Casey's June beetles were detected 
(Hawks pers. comm. 2010). Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that 
beetles observed by the commenters were Casey's June beetles.
    Comment 10: Four commenters argued there is not enough information 
known regarding the biology of the species or its distribution to 
justify listing. They argued it is not known what the species eats or 
how long it remains in the soil, and the species' distribution may be 
significantly greater than estimated in the proposed listing and 
critical habitat rule. They collectively stated or implied there has 
been no systematic effort to locate Casey's June beetle elsewhere in 
the Coachella Valley or desert areas farther south, and such an effort 
is needed before listing would be warranted. The first two commenters 
specifically stated they know of a Casey's June beetle captured ``well 
outside'' the proposed critical habitat, and another report of what may 
be a Casey's June beetle from a site near the City of Yuma, Arizona.
    The second commenter made several statements questioning the 
scientific credibility of the proposed listing and critical habitat 
rule. The commenter argued: (1) Survey methodology requires further 
development and may be skewed because light traps require access to 
electricity; (2) the Service's assumption that all areas occupied by 
Casey's June beetle comprise a single population is not based on 
scientific data; (3) proposed PCE 2 (intact, native Sonoran desert 
scrub vegetation and native desert wash vegetation) is not valid 
(citing James Cornett's detection of the species in the Smoke Tree 
Ranch maintenance yard and the tennis court, and consistent species 
observations in a dry wash characterized as Sonoran creosote bush scrub 
and desert wash vegetation, portions of which were disturbed); and (4) 
preliminary results from spring 2010 surveys conducted by James Cornett 
confirm an association with ``non-native tamarisk'' (submitted an email 
communication from James Cornett). They concluded the species' 
biological and physical requirements are so poorly understood that 
proposed PCE 2 is not valid, and data contradict the assumption habitat 
disturbance threatens the species' continued survival; therefore, the 
proposed critical habitat designation is arbitrary and capricious. They 
further commented this ``fundamental legal flaw'' renders the proposed 
listing determination in violation of the Act's best available 
scientific evidence standard and is, therefore, also arbitrary and 
capricious.
    The third commenter stated listing was not warranted because it is 
not clear what actions would be required to recover the species, and 
because Casey's June beetle appears to be less susceptible to human 
interaction than is currently recognized. They specifically stated the 
species has been collected in higher numbers where habitat has greater 
exposure to human impacts.
    Our Response: The comment regarding the species'' known range and a 
need for surveys is the same as the Tribe's above (Comment 5), and the 
commenter's statement that Casey's June beetle listing and critical 
habitat designation are not supported by the best available scientific 
data is similar to the Tribe's comment as well. We believe our current 
biological conclusions and the need to list Casey's June beetle as 
endangered under the Act are well supported by the best available 
scientific and commercial data. Please see our response to Comment 5 
above for further discussion.
    Regarding the second commenter's specific statements numbered 
above: (1) Some past surveys may have been biased by trap placement 
proximal to electricity sources; however, some light traps are battery-
powered, and past trapping efforts represent the best available 
scientific data. (2) We agree it is possible all individuals in 
currently occupied habitat areas do not belong to a single population. 
Nevertheless, we believe we adequately acknowledged this uncertainty in 
the proposed rule by stating, ``We consider all known occurrences of 
Casey's June beetle to constitute a single population based on 
currently available data. However, additional studies are needed to 
confirm this assumption.'' Our consideration is

[[Page 58982]]

based on the flight and movement potential of male Casey's June 
beetles, as well as the fact that all currently occupied habitat areas 
were historically contiguous. Furthermore, it is not unusual for 
species'' population distributions to be ill-described prior to listing 
(see Euphydryas editha quino (Quino checkerspot butterfly) final 
revised critical habitat rule; 74 FR 28775, June 17, 2009). (3) We 
agree that the proposed PCEs were overly restrictive; therefore, we 
edited PCE 2 to include other Sonoran vegetation types and disturbed 
habitat. In the proposed revised rule we specified ``Intact, native 
Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation and native desert wash 
vegetation * * *.'' In this final revised rule we use the more 
inclusive language in PCE 2, i.e., ``predominantly native desert 
vegetation'') (see Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June Beetle 
and response to peer reviewer Comment 2 above). (4) The email from 
James Cornett describing his preliminary 2010 survey results presents 
inconclusive and incomplete data. Cornett listed beetle abundance data 
from 3 nights of collection using an unspecified number of traps of 
unspecified design placed ``near'' cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola) and 
tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). The first 2 nights he reported higher numbers 
of male Casey's June beetle attracted to traps located near Tamarix 
spp.; however, on the third night he collected almost twice as many 
individuals from traps located near Hymenoclea salsola. Cornett did not 
discuss any other possible habitat correlations with trap placement 
that could have affected his results. Furthermore, preliminary results 
from David Hawks'' 2010 (pers. comm.) surveys on Smoke Tree Ranch 
indicate no correlation of female Casey's June beetle emergence holes 
with any particular species or type of plant, not even native plants 
(see New Species Information and Primary Constituent Elements for 
Casey's June Beetle sections above). Hawks'' (pers. comm. 2010) study 
indicated soil type, moisture content, and other factors were more 
likely determinants of habitat than associated plant species or types.
    Therefore, based on information discussed in the response above, 
and reasons discussed in the response to Comment 5 above, we conclude 
there is no valid basis for the second commenter's statement that this 
critical habitat designation or listing determination are arbitrary and 
capricious.
    We considered the third commenter's statements that listing is not 
warranted because it is not clear what actions are required to recover 
the species, and the species appears to survive equally well in 
habitats exposed to disturbance. Until a species is recovered there is 
always some level of uncertainty regarding actions required to achieve 
recovery; furthermore actions required for recovery are not typically 
analyzed or described until a species is listed and a recovery outline 
or plan is developed. Articulated recovery actions are not a 
prerequisite for listing. On the disturbance issue, the data do not 
support that the species has been collected in higher abundance where 
human impacts are greatest. Some of the highest observed numbers and 
most consistent collections of male Casey's June beetles have been in 
the gated community of Smoke Tree Ranch, where the largest and most 
protected area of remaining occupied habitat is found. Therefore, we do 
not believe the best scientific and commercial data available support 
the commenter's statement that listing is not warranted.
    Comment 11: Three commenters argued specific areas proposed for 
critical habitat designation and considered occupied are not occupied 
and should not be included in the final critical habitat designation. 
The first commenter stated surveys conducted in 2009 indicate habitat 
south of Bogart Trail and west of South Palm Canyon Drive is not 
occupied, and stated this area should not be designated as critical 
habitat. The second commenter stated the proposed critical habitat 
south of State Route 111 near Gene Autry Trail as mapped appears to 
extend arbitrarily beyond what was mapped as occupied in the 2006 
Bruyea report. The third commenter stated multiple past surveys of 
their property (the easternmost polygon of proposed critical habitat), 
and a survey conducted in April of 2010, were all negative. The third 
commenter submitted a letter from James Cornett documenting negative 
survey results.
    Our Response: The commenters'' statements that areas proposed as 
critical habitat must be occupied to meet the definition of critical 
habitat appear to be based on the assumptions that negative surveys are 
definitive, the scale of occupancy described in a critical habitat rule 
is the same as that determined in the smallest-scale presence-absence 
project-based survey, and occupancy is a requirement for critical 
habitat designation. First, it is not uncommon for Casey's June beetle 
surveys, for which we have not yet developed a robust survey protocol, 
to not detect occupancy where it in fact exists. For example, Cornett's 
(2004, p. 8) surveys near Gene Autry Trail at the wash crossing and at 
another site near the State Route 111 intersection with Gene Autry 
Trail did not detect Casey's June beetle; however, Powell (2003, p. 4) 
had reported collecting 70 male Casey's June beetles in the first 15 
minutes and ``many afterwards'' one night at the wash crossing, while 
Bruyea (2006, pp. 10-11) reported traps ``consistently attracted 
[Casey's June beetle] during each of the four survey visits'' at the 
State Route 111 intersection site. Second, the scale of occupancy 
described in critical habitat rules is at the population distribution 
scale, not the individual, local scale sometimes determined by smaller-
scale presence-absence surveys. Because population distributions could 
expand and contract over time at the local scale depending on habitat 
conditions and other factors, individual-or ``colony-'' scale occupancy 
may not reflect the greater longer-term population distribution. We 
also note the first commenter did not provide any further information 
regarding the referenced survey, and we do not have any information 
corresponding with the described survey. Therefore, with regard to 
Casey's June beetle occupancy status, we believe the designation of 
critical habitat would be appropriate for those areas referred to by 
the commenters.
    We did, however, determine the third commenter's property does not 
contain the primary soil type specified in PCE 1 (CdC) required to meet 
the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, we determined this 
property did not meet the definition of critical habitat (see also 
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, above) 
and did not include it in this final critical habitat designation.
    Comment 12: One commenter asserted the maintained Palm Canyon Wash 
channel and levee system does not meet the definition of critical 
habitat because the reoccurrence of scouring and sediment deposition 
within the channel and levee system likely precludes any long-term 
development of viable Casey's June beetle PCEs. They stated that 
published annual peak stream flow information from the U.S. Geological 
Survey shows Palm Canyon Wash has experienced at least 16 peak flow 
events of over 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (28 cubic meters per 
second (cms)) since 1980, and these peak streamflows have occurred at a 
minimum of every 1 to 3 years.
    Two other commenters gave reasons why they believed their property 
did not meet the definition of critical habitat. The second commenter 
stated their property is surrounded on three sides by existing homes 
and was ``pretty

[[Page 58983]]

well torn up'' 2 years ago when they were compelled to clean up a 
vegetation dump created by their neighbors. The third commenter 
objected to the proposed designation of their property in the vicinity 
of Araby Drive (``Araby Cove'') as critical habitat. The reasoning the 
third commenter articulated in support of their objection was: (1) 
Their property is elevated with fill dirt (and therefore does not 
contain the PCEs); (2) no experts have evaluated their property to 
establish soil suitability; and (3) they have been at their property 
for 5 years at dusk and evening and never observed any beetle species. 
The commenter suggested the Service could maintain the total area 
proposed as critical habitat by moving mapped proposed critical habitat 
off their property to include ``non-buildable,'' adjacent, undisturbed 
land. They stated that designating their residential lot and not any 
other neighboring properties with similar physical and biological 
features is illegal. The commenter submitted several photographs in 
support of their written comments.
    Our Response: We considered the first commenter's statement that 
the Palm Canyon Wash channel and levee system does not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. We also acknowledge that some portions 
of Palm Canyon Wash are not likely to support occupancy by females and 
immature life stages. While it makes sense that some level of scouring 
intensity would extirpate occupancy in some places, at relatively small 
scales within the Palm Canyon Wash channel, the correlation between 
flood intensity and mortality at a given life stage is unknown. Many 
collections of adult males have been made within and adjacent to Palm 
Canyon Wash, even where there is no adjacent upland habitat (such as 
Powell 2003, p. 4). The best available data also indicate that all 
areas of Palm Canyon Wash will always contain both PCEs. We believe any 
conclusions regarding peak stream flow effects on Casey's June beetle 
occupancy in Palm Canyon Wash are premature, and use of the channel and 
levee system by adult males also justifies inclusion of this area as 
designated critical habitat.
    Lands which are ``occupied'' in some capacity but do not contain 
the PCEs (for example areas where only movement of males in flight is 
possible) do not meet the definition of Casey's June beetle critical 
habitat; therefore, any levees or areas elevated by fill dirt 
inadvertently mapped as designated critical habitat would not be 
considered critical habitat. When determining the critical habitat 
boundaries, we made every effort to map precisely only the areas that 
contain the PCEs and provide for the conservation of Casey's June 
beetle. However, due to the mapping scale that we use to determine 
critical habitat boundaries, we cannot guarantee that every fraction of 
critical habitat contains the PCEs. Additionally, we made every attempt 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands underlying buildings, 
paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for Casey's June 
beetle. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed areas. Any developed structures (such as a 
developed levee) and the land under them inadvertently left inside 
critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this critical habitat 
designation are excluded by text in this rule and are not designated as 
critical habitat. Federal actions involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific actions may 
affect the PCEs in adjacent critical habitat (see Critical Habitat 
Background section above). Therefore, we believe designation of the 
Palm Canyon Wash channel and other lands as critical habitat, as mapped 
in this final rule, is warranted.
    We considered the third commenter's statements that they have never 
observed any beetle species on their property and that designating 
their residential lot and not any other neighboring properties with 
similar physical and biological features is illegal. We further 
considered their suggestion we could maintain the total area proposed 
as critical habitat by ``moving'' mapped critical habitat off their 
property to include adjacent, undisturbed land. The Act specifies we 
use the best commercial and scientific data available to determine what 
lands meet the definition of critical habitat (see Critical Habitat 
Background, above). We do not base our designation on a particular size 
area or property boundaries. For us to alter the mapped final critical 
habitat designation to remove their property as the commenter 
suggested, without sound scientific or commercial data to support our 
actions, would be arbitrary and capricious in our decision making. 
Therefore, we did not alter mapped final critical habitat to avoid the 
commenter's property based on any of these statements.
    Regarding the third commenter's statement that their property did 
not contain the PCEs, we examined digital aerial photography and did 
not include buildings and structures and surrounding areas that 
appeared to be constructed on raised fill dirt (their entire property) 
in this final critical habitat designation (see Summary of Changes from 
the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, above).
    Comment 13: One commenter argued that although their property (a 
patch of habitat near the intersection of Gene Autry Drive and State 
Route 111) is occupied, it should not be designated as Casey's June 
beetle critical habitat. They stated the Casey's June beetle population 
on their property is isolated and not viable because: (1) The habitat 
is not contiguous with other occupied habitats and is 0.5 miles (1 km) 
distant from the nearest occupied location; (2) females are flightless; 
(3) male beetle movement appears to be limited to less than 7 ft (2 m) 
above the ground and to ``short distances;'' (4) the property is 
bordered by a road and developed areas where artificial lights would 
attract and disorient male beetles resulting in mortality; (5) the 
property is disturbed and has compacted soils; and (6) the ``low'' 
numbers of Casey's June beetles collected on this property relative to 
typical collections in other habitats indicate a relatively small 
population size. They concluded their property does not meet the 
definition of critical habitat.
    The letter from James Cornett submitted by the commenter further 
stated, ``To successfully immigrate or emigrate from [this habitat] 
site, a beetle would need to fly higher than the species ever does, or 
fly in a straight line and head directly down highway 111 or Gene Autry 
Trail at the approximate level of rapidly moving motor vehicles 
(thereby risking substantial harm). The limited distribution of the 
species strongly suggests these latter scenarios rarely, if ever, 
happen.''
    Our Response: Beetle behaviors described in the best available 
scientific and commercial data do not support the commenter's 
statements. It is less than 1 mi (less than 2 km) to the nearest 
occupied habitat (Palm Canyon Wash) through undeveloped foothills below 
600 ft (180 m) in elevation, and approximately 0.5 mi (1 km) through 
residential development to the north or the west. No available 
scientific information we reviewed indicates any beetle species must 
fly in a straight line down roads. In fact, Casey's June beetles could 
take an equally direct route of equal distance to occupied wash habitat 
through residential homes from any number of points on the property 
other than the road intersection indicated by Cornett. While it is true 
the male beetle's attraction to lights is known to cause some mortality 
(e.g., drowning in

[[Page 58984]]

pools and attraction to light-based bug traps), there is no data 
indicating all individuals attracted to lights in residential areas 
die. If males are disoriented the lights may also cause them to move in 
a wandering, indirect fashion through a development. No data were 
provided to support the assertion they never fly above 7 ft (2 m), nor 
were any data presented that indicated how far or in how much of a 
straight line male Casey's June beetles are likely to fly. Therefore, 
as long as females on site are not eradicated, there is potential for 
population survival and genetic exchange with individuals in other 
occupied habitats.
    We considered the commenter's statement that habitat on their 
property is too degraded and isolated to support a viable Casey's June 
beetle population. We acknowledge habitat suitability may have been 
compromised; however disturbance, nonnative plant invasion, and soil 
compaction are all habitat features that may require management to 
maintain PCEs. Furthermore, in a habitat assessment conducted by Hovore 
(1997c, p. 4), he described this area as ``of sufficient size to 
sustain viable populations despite having [SR] 111 pass along [its] 
margin.'' Inspection of historical Google Earth imagery from 1996 
indicates the amount of undeveloped land in this area has not changed 
significantly since Hovore's assessment. Therefore even with some 
undesirable habitat features, this property meets the definition of 
critical habitat.
    We further considered James Cornett's statement submitted by the 
commenter that the limited distribution of the species strongly 
suggests flight of male Casey's June beetles more than 0.5 miles (1 km) 
or above 7 ft (2 m) rarely, if ever, occurs. An equally plausible 
explanation for the species' limited distribution is direct mortality 
of females during habitat disturbance and loss, coupled with adaptation 
of the species to limiting habitat factors such as wind exposure and 
soil moisture content that we do not yet fully understand. Therefore, 
we do not agree the limited species' distribution suggests a limited 
movement capability of male Casey's June beetles.
    Comment 14: One commenter stated they fully support listing Casey's 
June beetle as endangered for reasons identified in the original 
petition (threatened by loss and degradation of habitat, mortality due 
to artificial lighting and vehicular traffic, fragmentation of habitat, 
chance catastrophic events such as flooding, small population size, and 
inadequate regulatory protection) and the subsequent information 
provided in the proposed listing rule. The commenter also stated they 
support the designation of critical habitat for this species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's review of our proposed 
rule. Please see Comment 1 and our response for further discussion of 
the scientific validity of this final rule.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated they were concerned the proposed 
critical habitat is ``limited * * * to the present range of the 
species'' and did not include any unoccupied habitat that may be 
necessary for recovery of the species. They stated critical habitat 
must include areas required for species recovery, not just survival. 
They argued that past attempts by the Service to disregard the critical 
habitat recovery standard under the Act have repeatedly been found 
unlawful (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 
378 F.3d 1059, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 
& Wildlife Serv., 245 F.3d 434, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2001) and N.M. Cattle 
Growers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1283 & n.2 (10th 
Cir. 2001)). The commenter cited the Ninth Circuit Court, ``[i]f the 
[Service] follows its own regulation, then it is obligated to be 
indifferent to, if not to ignore, the recovery goal of critical 
habitat'' and such an interpretation ``would drastically narrow the 
scope of protection commanded by Congress under the Endangered Species 
Act'' (Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1070). The commenter concluded that 
the Service should consider designation of additional areas of 
unoccupied habitat that may be necessary to provide sufficient habitat 
to support recovery of Casey's June beetle.
    Our Response: We considered the commenter's argument that our 
proposed critical habitat designation may have been too limited in 
scope. As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available in determining the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain 
the features essential to the conservation of species which may require 
special management considerations or protection, as well as when 
determining if any specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the 
species. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the 
Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure our decisions are based on the best scientific data 
available. We used primary and original sources of information as the 
basis for our recommendations. We only designate areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species when the Secretary determines 
that a designation limited to a species' present range would be 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). We carefully considered all patches of apparently suitable 
habitat within the species' historical (versus current) range for 
proposal as critical habitat, even where reintroduction could 
potentially occur (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section). As defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we believe we have 
designated all specific areas that the best available scientific data 
indicate meet the definition of critical habitat. We do not believe 
there is sufficient scientific data to indicate specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species are essential for 
conservation of the species. Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that 
except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical 
habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be 
occupied by the endangered or threatened species. As we learn more 
about the biology of this species and its habitat requirements we may 
identify additional habitat areas necessary for conservation of the 
species. Please see Comment 2 and response above for further discussion 
of this issue.
Comments Relating to Potential Exclusions From Critical Habitat 
Designation
    Comment 16: One commenter requested exclusion of Palm Canyon Wash 
and two ``isolated'' proposed critical habitat areas within the 
approved Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 41, Stage 3 project 
alignment located east of Palm Canyon Wash and south of Palm Canyon 
Drive based on economic hardship and public health and safety. They 
stated inclusion of the maintained flood control system within the 
final critical habitat designation would trigger a lengthy section 7 
consultation process and likely prevent timely construction and 
maintenance essential to safeguard the physical and economic well-being 
of the city of Palm Springs and its citizens. The commenter believes 
that potential direct and indirect impacts of critical habitat 
designation include but are not limited to: (1) Increased costs 
associated with

[[Page 58985]]

species surveys and the section 7 consultation process; (2) increased 
risk that the flood control system may fail to provide the full measure 
of its crucial public health and safety benefits due to a lengthy 
section 7 consultation process and any requirements imposed through 
that process to minimize effects of the action; (3) increased costs 
(such as increased flood insurance rates) imposed on the local 
community through the National Flood Insurance Program as a result of 
not meeting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements; 
(4) potential damages to the communities that may result if critical 
maintenance activities are delayed; and (5) ``additional mitigation 
costs and potential conflicts associated with flood control 
facilities.'' Specifically, they stated the Palm Springs Master 
Drainage Plan Line 41, Stage 3 project alignment will provide 100-year 
flood protection to existing downstream development currently located 
within a FEMA-mapped Special Flood Hazard Area.
    The commenter argued that exclusion of the wash would not result in 
extinction of the species because the species is frequently extirpated 
from the wash by scouring events. The commenter also stated exclusion 
of the two isolated areas proposed as critical habitat would not result 
in extinction of the species because continued occupancy and 
reproduction on-site is not viable long-term. They argued that 
occupancy in these two sites depends on flightless females for 
reproduction, and claimed the sites are isolated from Palm Canyon Wash 
by existing contiguous development and steep rocky hillsides. They 
further stated that a past Casey's June beetle survey indicated that 
species' density in these areas may be low (cited Bruyea 2006), and 
beetles occupying this area may be a remnant colony of past conditions 
when dense urban development did not separate it from Palm Canyon Wash. 
The commenter concluded that occupancy would eventually be lost and 
recolonization from Palm Canyon Wash would be unlikely.
    Our Response: We considered the commenter's statement that Palm 
Canyon Wash and areas within the approved Palm Springs Master Drainage 
Plan Line 41, Stage 3 project alignment should be excluded from 
critical habitat designation based on economic hardship and public 
health and safety. Any emergency or critical infrastructure projects 
undertaken to protect public health and safety can be appropriately and 
quickly addressed through emergency consultations. Furthermore, the DEA 
and subsequent FEA attributed the majority of flood control activity 
costs to the listing of the species as endangered (baseline impacts), 
not to designation of critical habitat (incremental impacts). We will 
work with the responsible agencies to facilitate and expedite any 
consultations regarding projects that may affect public health and 
safety. Therefore, we do not believe exclusion of Palm Canyon Wash and 
areas within the approved Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 41, 
Stage 3 project alignment from critical habitat designation is 
justified.
    Regarding the commenter's conclusion that recolonization is 
unlikely following eventual loss of occupancy in some areas designated 
as critical habitat, we may determine that artificial recolonization 
and management will be required to achieve species' recovery. See also 
our response to Comment 2 above regarding Casey's June beetle 
occupancy.
    Comment 17: One commenter stated they believe the designation of 
critical habitat for Casey's June beetle in Palm Springs is not 
appropriate because it does not ``conform'' to the Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley MSHCP).
    A second commenter objected to designation of the same property as 
critical habitat for Casey's June beetle ``or any other species.'' They 
stated this property is planned for development as a senior continued 
care retirement community for the gay and lesbian community in the city 
of Palm Springs. They further asserted it is the last available 
``[tribal] fee site'' in the city of Palm Springs large enough for the 
planned development project, and is ideally located for senior citizens 
because it is close to medical care, grocery stores, and public 
transportation. They stated they should get special consideration 
because gays and lesbians have ``been declared a suspect and protected 
class of state citizens by the California State Court.''
    Our Response: We reexamined the soil maps with regard to the 
property identified by these commenters, and have determined the 
primary soil type specified in PCE 1 (CdC) required for critical 
habitat is not mapped on this property. Therefore, we determined this 
property does not meet the definition of critical habitat (see also 
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, and 
response to Comment 11 above) and did not designate it as critical 
habitat. While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, because we 
determined that these lands do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat, we did not further consider the commenters' request for 
exclusion of this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Comment 18: One commenter argued portions of Smoke Tree Ranch 
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation. The 
commenter stated they spent over 2 years negotiating a Casey's June 
beetle Candidate Conservation Agreement (``CCA'') with the Service. 
They argued that, although the CCA was not finalized, they remain 
committed to implementing the terms of the CCA and have proceeded to 
implement it. They further stated the Service, the Center for 
Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and the commenter spent 2 years 
evaluating Smoke Tree Ranch habitat, and areas identified as valuable 
habitat have been placed under a conservation easement monitored by the 
Center for Natural Lands Management. The commenter provided a copy of 
the conservation easement deed in support of their statement. The 
commenter argued they are the only landowner who has, to date, entered 
into binding agreements to protect beetle habitat, and the portions of 
their land not covered by a conservation easement should be considered 
for exclusion. The commenter proposed to continue their conservation 
partnership with the Service to finalize the CCA if the species is not 
listed or, should the species be listed, to explore additional habitat 
conservation within the easement, or provide for adaptive management. 
They cited exclusion precedents they believe supported their request 
that critical habitat designation should be limited to areas covered by 
the conservation easement, and the remainder of Smoke Tree Ranch 
property should be excluded from critical habitat.
    The commenter further argued the Service's proposal to designate 
most of Smoke Tree Ranch, including all homes and property of 
residents, does not reflect the best scientific data available and 
ignores the definition of the species' PCEs. The commenter suggested 
designation of private homes and other developed areas as critical 
habitat is unprecedented. They expressed concern that although the 
proposed rule text purports to exclude ``lands covered by developed 
areas, such as buildings, pavement, and other structures' from the 
critical habitat, it includes areas around homes and structures and 
only applies to existing structures. They further concluded the ``mere 
threat of Service regulation of improvement or modification of an 
existing home or structure undermines public support for the [Act] and 
distracts the scarce resources of the Service from real and important 
conservation challenges.''

[[Page 58986]]

They stated even if the Service elects not to exercise regulatory 
authority over the activities of private homeowners at Smoke Tree 
Ranch, the designation of critical habitat will create a powerful legal 
weapon for the use of third parties. They stated Smoke Tree Ranch has 
also recorded deed restrictions on all of the property that restrict 
development and retain native desert habitat as the prominent property 
feature. The commenter submitted a ``form'' of deed restrictions 
(superseded) and an excerpt of current Smoke Tree Ranch covenants, 
conditions, and restrictions in support of their statements.
    Our Response: We considered the commenter's statements regarding 
potential impacts resulting from the critical habitat designation and 
their request for exclusion of lands within Smoke Tree Ranch not 
covered by the conservation easement. We recognize and appreciate the 
efforts made by Smoke Tree Ranch, Inc., to assist in the conservation 
of Casey's June beetle, and look forward to continuing to work with 
these partners to assure that long-term conservation and management is 
assured for the species. However, after considering the relevant 
impacts, the Secretary is declining to exercise his discretion to 
exclude these lands, in part because we determined there were no 
existing regulations or other measures in place on these lands 
redundant with protection provided by critical habitat designation.
    We do not agree that inclusion of private homes and other developed 
areas in areas mapped as designated critical habitat is unprecedented. 
We routinely include structures such as single-family dwellings, and 
other features that do not contain PCEs, in areas mapped as designated 
critical habitat because the scale of our mapping does not allow us to 
remove such areas from our maps. The cost and time required to remove 
all areas that do not contain the PCEs at the scale of a single-family 
dwelling would be prohibitive. In the case of Smoke Tree Ranch, there 
are occupied habitat patches distributed within the developed area, 
making it especially difficult to remove structures from mapped areas. 
Where inclusion of developed lands lacking PCEs in mapped critical 
habitat cannot be avoided, these areas are excluded by text in this 
final rule and are not designated as critical habitat.
Comments Related to Legal and Procedural Issues
    Comment 19: Two commenters expressed concern that they were not 
personally notified of the proposed critical habitat designation, and 
expressed concern that their legal rights might be violated in the 
future. The first commenter expressed concern that they were ``denied'' 
a requested public hearing. The second commenter specifically requested 
an extension of the 30-day comment period (initiated on March 31, 2010, 
at 75 FR 16046) under 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2) because they were not 
notified by the Service of the proposed rule. They stated they were not 
aware of the proposed rulemaking until the City of Palm Springs 
informed them in a letter on April 19, 2010. They also stated that if 
their property was not excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation, they were requesting a public hearing under 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3). Finally, the second commenter argued that designation of 
critical habitat would constitute regulatory ``taking'' of their 
property.
    Our Response: We considered the commenters' concerns regarding 
notification of our proposed rulemaking and the associated request for 
comment period extension. Under 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2) the Secretary may 
extend or reopen the period for public comment on a proposed rule upon 
a finding that there is good cause to do so. Under 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(1)(iii), we gave notice of the proposed regulation to local 
authorities and private individuals known to be affected by the rule. 
In particular we notified the Tribe and the City of Palm Springs who 
have jurisdiction over the commenters' properties. We did not know the 
commenter would be affected by the rule because we do not know the 
identity of most private property owners within a proposed critical 
habitat designation prior to publication. However, under 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(1)(vi), we published a public notice of the proposed 
rulemaking on July 20, 2009, in the local Desert Sun newspaper, at the 
beginning of the first comment period. Furthermore, as the second 
commenter stated, the City notified them personally of our proposed 
rulemaking and open comment period on April 19, 2010, in time to submit 
their comments. Therefore, we determined that lack of personal 
notification of the commenters upon publication of the proposed rule 
was not a good cause to extend the 30-day comment period.
    We considered the commenters' concerns and requests regarding the 
opportunity for a public hearing. Under 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3), the 
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person 
so requests within 45 days of publication of the proposed regulation 
(during the first 60-day comment period). The commenters submitted 
their requests more than 45 days after the proposed rule published, 
during the second comment period. We believe we fulfilled our 
obligation under the Act to notify the public of our proposed 
rulemaking, and provided sufficient time to prepare and submit comments 
(see above discussion). Therefore, we informed the commenters of our 
policies and notifications, and did not hold a public hearing as 
requested.
    Regarding the commenter's statement that designating the property 
as critical habitat would result in a ``taking'' of the property, we 
have determined that the designation of critical habitat for Casey's 
June beetle does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation (see Takings--Executive Order 
12630, under Required Determinations, below).

Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis

Comments From Tribes
    Comment 20: The Tribe and one tribal member stated the Service's 
methodological approach of separately estimating incremental impacts of 
the designation relative to existing baseline protections has been 
invalidated in court and violates the Act.
    Our Response: The estimation of incremental impacts is consistent 
with direction provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
Federal agencies for the estimation of the costs and benefits of 
Federal regulations (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). It is also 
consistent with several recent court decisions, including Cape Hatteras 
Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F. 
Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.) and Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Those 
decisions found that estimation of incremental impacts stemming solely 
from the designation of critical habitat is proper.
    Comment 21: The Tribe and one other commenter stated the DEA's 
assignment of costs to the baseline and incremental scenarios relies on 
the untested assumption that there is a 25-percent chance of a negative 
or false negative survey for the beetle at a given project site. They 
asserted this approach is inconsistent with real world experience where 
project proponents, Federal agencies, and the Service develop and 
negotiate minimization and mitigation strategies.
    Our Response: Where a Federal nexus is present, project proponents 
typically engage biologists and survey to determine whether listed 
species are

[[Page 58987]]

present prior to determining whether consultation with the Service is 
required. Thus, the presence or absence of the beetle is a key factor 
in determining whether a consultation will go forward absent critical 
habitat. The assumption about likely outcomes of future surveys is 
necessary to estimate the possible impacts in our FEA.
    Comment 22: The Tribe asserted that if 100 percent of critical 
habitat is essential, then the economic analysis should assume 100 
percent of the area will be fully and equally conserved due to that 
critical habitat designation, not only 25 percent.
    Our Response: This comment appears to reflect a misunderstanding of 
the DEA, confusing all costs associated with listing and critical 
habitat designation with total costs of conserving areas designated as 
critical habitat. The DEA assumed 75 percent of all costs associated 
with listing would occur due to occupancy regardless if critical 
habitat were designated (baseline), and where there was no occupancy 
detected (25 percent of the time), costs would be attributable solely 
to critical habitat. In areas where the beetle has been previously 
identified, we expect positive surveys, and all costs are attributed to 
the baseline. The analysis assumes 100-percent conservation of the 
designated habitat; however, the majority of the time, these areas 
would have been conserved anyway as a result of the presence of the 
beetle at the site.
    Comment 23: The Tribe clarified it has chosen not to delegate land 
use authority to a local agent (e.g., the City of Palm Springs) in the 
area of its reservation south of Acanto Drive. This area is subject to 
the Tribe's Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning. The Tribe 
states it was not contacted for land use information in this area and 
that the economic analysis should be revised to consider tribal land 
uses and controls in this area.
    Our Response: The Service's consultants responsible for preparing 
the DEA attempted to contact the Tribe to collect information about 
land uses and the potential impact of the designation on reservation 
lands via email and telephone multiple times between August and October 
2009; however, the Tribe did not respond. Therefore, consultants relied 
on economic and other data they obtained from the Tribe at the end of 
2007 during the preparation of the economic analysis of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Ovis canadensis nelsoni 
(Peninsular bighorn sheep). At that time, the Tribe identified several 
planned development projects north of Acanto Drive that overlap 
proposed critical habitat for the beetle, including the Eagle Canyon 
(Alturas) Project, the Monte Sereno residential development, and an 
unnamed residential development project also identified in the City of 
Palm Springs' Canyon South Specific Plan. Data provided by the Tribe 
did not identify any planned projects on tribal reservation lands south 
of Acanto Drive.
    We reviewed the Indian Canyons Master Plan, which includes tribal 
zoning maps, and have revised the economic analysis to incorporate this 
newer information. Specifically, that plan identifies allotted trust 
and tribal trust lands south of Acanto Drive zoned for low density 
residential development (2 dwelling units per ac (0.4 ha)) and open 
space--rural development (1 dwelling unit per ac (0.4 ha)). The Tribe's 
master plan outlines a vision for the type of development it would like 
to see, as opposed to demand, for development expressed by the market. 
The likelihood these lots will be converted to residential housing in 
the reasonably foreseeable future (e.g., the next 10 to 20 years) is 
difficult to predict. The City of Palm Springs is predominantly built-
out, increasing the value of remaining, developable land. In addition, 
parcels south of Acanto Drive are adjacent to recently developed 
parcels to the north and east, suggesting this area may be subject to 
development as the City of Palm Springs'' population grows. However, in 
its 2007 General Plan, the City of Palm Springs reports higher than 
optimal housing vacancy rates, which is likely to depress housing 
prices and the demand for raw land.
    Data on sales transactions for these or similar, undeveloped 
parcels are scarce, and because the lands are not subject to local real 
estate taxes, assessed values are not available. Furthermore, lacking 
information about the demand for and timing of future development, it 
is not possible to estimate the present value of these parcels based on 
current housing prices. Therefore, the potential impact of critical 
habitat designation on these parcels is discussed qualitatively in 
Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Comment 24: One tribal commenter stated the economic analysis 
should consider the unique circumstances regarding the loss of value of 
tribal lands, which go beyond simple losses in land value. Indian 
allotments represent economic and cultural patrimony for the allottee.
    Our Response: Additional discussion of these unique circumstances 
has been added to Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Comment 25: One tribal member commented they intend to sell their 
4-ac (1.6-ha) property to help support their children, who are not 
members of the Tribe and, therefore, cannot inherit tribal property or 
receive financial support from the Tribe.
    Our Response: Based on information in the comment letter and our 
independent mapping effort, the commenter's parcel appears to be part 
of the Tribe's allotted trust lands south of Acanto Drive. According to 
the Indian Canyons Master Plan, the parcel is targeted for residential 
development at a maximum density of 2 units per ac (0.4 ha). Potential 
impacts to this parcel are discussed in conjunction with other tribal 
lands located in this area in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Comment 26: One apparent (based on land property information) 
tribal commenter asserted their parcel is currently approved for three 
residences and the total value of the parcel is $3 million. They stated 
designating the property as critical habitat would render it 
undevelopable, resulting in a ``taking'' of the property.
    Our Response: Based on information provided in the comment letter, 
this parcel appears to be part of the Tribe's allotted trust lands 
located south of Acanto Drive. Depending on its exact location, the 
parcel lies in an area zoned for either two units per ac (0.4 ha) or 
one unit per 40 ac (16 ha) consistent with the Indian Canyons Master 
Plan. The commenter provides no detail on the approval of the 25-ac 
(10-ha) property for three residences (presumably by the tribal 
planning authorities) or whether development of the site is imminent. 
Land for the 56-ac (23-ha) Eagle Canyon (Alturas) development project 
located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) northwest of the site will be 
developed at a significantly higher density of four units per ac (0.4 
ha) and sold for approximately $6.6 million in 2007 (based on 
information obtained from the Riverside County Assessor). Thus, the 
subject parcel, which is less than half the size, will be developed at 
a significantly lower density, is farther from the City of Palm 
Springs, and is likely to have a present value that is less than the $3 
million value provided in the comment letter. Potential impacts to this 
parcel are discussed in conjunction with other tribal lands located in 
this area in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Regarding the commenter's statement that designating the property 
as critical habitat would result in a ``taking'' of the property, we 
have determined that the designation of critical habitat for Casey's 
June beetle does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation (see

[[Page 58988]]

Takings--Executive Order 12630, below).
    Comment 27: The Tribe stated that in the course of its ongoing 
section 10(a)(1)(B) habitat conservation plan (HCP) permit consultation 
process with the Service, the Service indicated if Casey's June beetle 
is not covered by the draft HCP, it will ``exclude'' 2,160 ac (874 ha) 
from HCP coverage. The Tribe noted this ``exclusion'' area is greater 
than the area containing recent and historic Casey's June beetle 
observation records and expressed concern that it includes areas never 
before identified as potential habitat for this species. The Tribe 
contended this HCP ``exclusion'' area is equivalent to expansion of 
critical habitat to almost four times the proposed area and requests 
the costs of this larger area be included in the economic analysis.
    Our Response: The Tribe notified us in a letter dated October 6, 
2010, that they suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a) permit for 
their draft HCP (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1). The Tribe is continuing to 
implement the draft HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural 
resources within its jurisdiction (ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). This final 
rule reflects the best available information we have at this time 
regarding the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. It is 
possible that, as we learn more about the species, new areas may be 
identified as potential habitat for the species. Critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the 
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis 
of the best available information at the time of the action. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
    Regarding Tribe's request that these areas be included in the 
economic analysis, any additional costs related to any areas outside 
the designation would result from the listing of the species, not 
critical habitat designation. The focus of an economic analysis is the 
incremental cost of critical habitat designation. Thus, the geographic 
scope of the analysis is limited to the areas designated as critical 
habitat. Furthermore, section 4(b)(1) of the Act specifically prohibits 
the consideration of economic impacts in decisions concerning the 
listing of a species. Therefore, impacts associated with species 
listing to areas outside of proposed critical habitat are not included 
in an economic analysis.
Public Comments on the Economic Analysis
    Comment 28: One commenter stated the discount rate applied should 
be reevaluated given current economic conditions.
    Our Response: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
requires Federal agencies to report results using discount rates of 3 
and 7 percent (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). Furthermore, most of the 
costs presented in the DEA are based on current land values derived 
from assessor's data and adjusted to current dollars using 
retrospective price indexes. Thus, these values are not influenced by 
the discount rate assumption.
    Comment 29: One commenter stated the DEA did not clearly define how 
it estimates potential costs associated with time delays, regulatory 
uncertainty, and stigma.
    Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA and subsequent FEA defines these 
categories of cost for the purposes of the analysis. Data are not 
readily available to quantify potential impacts from regulatory 
uncertainty and stigma; thus they are only discussed qualitatively. For 
residential and commercial development projects that may proceed with 
modification, the value of potential time delays resulting from the 
need for additional section 7 or CEQA review should be less than the 
value of the property; otherwise the project would likely be cancelled. 
Given the uncertainty regarding viable reasonable and prudent 
alternatives, the DEA (and FEA) estimated an upper-bound impact 
equivalent to the total value of the parcels. We discuss potential 
delay costs to flood damage reduction projects qualitatively in Chapter 
4 of the FEA because the data required to quantify impacts are 
unavailable.
    Comment 30: One commenter stated the DEA failed to acknowledge the 
impact to species or the costs to conservation efforts that will accrue 
due to any exclusions or failure to include additional habitat required 
for species recovery.
    Our Response: The commenter implied exclusion of lands from 
critical habitat and failure to include additional lands (outside of 
those proposed) would result in increased species'' recovery costs. 
Data and models required to understand changes in recovery probability 
are not readily available. Thus, such costs to the species of excluding 
areas cannot be quantified at this time. The DEA evaluated regulatory 
alternatives proposed by the Service, effectively the designation of 
all or some combination of the proposed lands. Evaluation of costs or 
benefits of designating lands outside the proposal are beyond the scope 
of the economic analysis. Additionally, we do not believe that our 
exclusion of 11 ac (4 ha) tribal trust reservation lands (see Tribal 
Reservation Lands under Exclusions) is likely to result in increased 
costs associated with species conservation.
    Regarding possible failure to include additional habitat required 
for recovery, the lands that we determined meet the definition of 
critical habitat are what we consider essential for conservation of the 
species. Therefore, we do not believe conservation costs would accrue 
due to exclusion of lands from or non-inclusion of lands in critical 
habitat designation.
    Comment 31: One commenter stated the Service's economic analysis 
framework ignores indirect and cumulative effects of critical habitat 
designation. They asserted measurement of these types of impacts is 
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    Our Response: Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, and OMB's Circular A-4, which provides direction to Federal 
agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 12866, represent the 
framework used to estimate the costs and benefits of regulations 
promulgated by all Federal agencies. They do not require the estimation 
of indirect or cumulative impacts. Furthermore, section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act is silent on the definition of ``economic impacts'' to be 
considered prior to the designation of critical habitat. Thus, the 
Service relies on the well-established and universally followed 
principals laid out in OMB's Circular A-4.
    Comment 32: One commenter pointed out the DEA noted, ``the City of 
Palm Springs has not mandated changes in a project's design as a result 
of critical habitat designation for other species.'' They asserted this 
statement is inaccurate, and stated that nearly 15 years ago the City 
of Palm Springs worked with the Service to revise plans for the 
Mountain Falls, Palm Hills, and Shadowrock projects to support 
restoration of the Peninsular bighorn sheep.

[[Page 58989]]

    Our Response: Language has been added to the FEA to clarify that 
the City of Palm Springs has not mandated changes in a project's design 
to address listed species conservation without input from the Service 
and the California Department of Fish and Game to facilitate these 
changes. With regards to changes proposed by the wildlife agencies to 
protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep, proposed changes were due to the 
presence of the sheep, not critical habitat. Fifteen years ago, no 
critical habitat was designated for the Peninsular bighorn sheep.
    Comment 33: One commenter argued the economic analysis should rely 
on the fair market value of affected parcels rather than the assessed 
or adjusted values.
    Our Response: Fair market value is determined through observed 
sales transactions for parcels of land. Given the small size of the 
designation and the recent economic downturn, sales of raw land within 
critical habitat in the last year are rare. Therefore, as described in 
Chapter 3, the economic analysis relies on assessed values, which are 
based on the most recent sales transaction for the parcel and adjusted 
for changes in the value of homes or commercial property in the region 
since the date of that transaction using retrospective indices. We 
believe the assessor's values represent the best available data.
    Comment 34: One commenter asked how the estimate of $12,703,000 of 
baseline costs referenced in the document announcing the availability 
of the DEA was derived (75 FR 16046; March 31, 2010). A second 
commenter stated that in assessing the costs of designating critical 
habitat, the Service must look only at the incremental cost and should 
not consider costs attributable to the listing alone. They commended 
the Service for clearly separating baseline costs from the incremental 
costs of the designation.
    Our Response: This estimate is the total of the present value 
impacts, assuming a 7 percent discount rate, presented in Exhibit ES-4 
of the DEA. This Exhibit has been updated in the FEA based on new 
information. We appreciate the second commenter's opinion and agree 
that our methods were appropriate.
    Comment 35: One commenter noted the DEA provides caveats to its 
cost estimates describing the possibility that impacts may be reduced 
if reasonable and prudent alternatives to specific projects are 
possible. The commenter stated the report should instead simply 
acknowledge that designation results in the complete loss of value of 
the affected parcels.
    Our Response: Given the high degree of uncertainty associated with 
the potential outcome of specific future section 7 consultations or the 
CEQA review process, the DEA made the simplifying assumption that 
affected parcel value could be lost completely. This assumption is 
intended to bound potential impacts to developable parcels. However, as 
described in the report, the Service believes that if a project is 
likely to adversely modify critical habitat it may be possible to 
maintain the viability of the project through the development of 
reasonable and prudent alternatives, resulting in impacts that are less 
than projected.
    Comment 36: One landowner stated they intend to build a home and a 
guest house on their approximately 2.7-ac (1.1 ha) parcel located at 
2540 Araby Drive. They stated they believe designation of critical 
habitat would prevent their development plans from being realized and 
lower the value of their land.
    Our Response: Chapter 3 of the FEA was revised to include this 
development project. The effect of critical habitat on development 
plans depends on the presence of a Federal nexus, and in the absence of 
a nexus, actions taken by the City of Palm Springs in response to the 
designation. However, see Comment 11 above for further discussion of 
this land; we ultimately did not include it in this final critical 
habitat designation.
    Comment 37: One commenter stated they own two lots that they are 
holding for possible development of a small home for personal use. They 
are opposed to critical habitat designation if it restricts their 
ability to develop the lots. If development is precluded, they stated 
they would like to sell the property to a conservation organization.
    Our Response: A discussion of the value of these lots has been 
added to Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Comment 38: One commenter stated the designation of private homes 
and other developed areas within Smoke Tree Ranch is unprecedented. 
They argued the designation of critical habitat would threaten the 
``specter of Federal regulatory control over home maintenance, 
landscaping, and other normal routine activities.'' They expressed 
concern that despite the Service's textual exclusion of developed 
areas, this exclusion does not apply to the areas around the homes or 
future modifications to the existing structure.
    Our Response: The activities described above are unlikely to 
involve a Federal agency; thus section 7 consultation is not 
anticipated. City of Palm Springs permitting is also unlikely to be 
required for the routine activities. Future modifications to existing 
structures could require approval from the City of Palm Springs' 
planning or building departments. Given the existing conservation 
easement in place at Smoke Tree Ranch to protect Casey's June beetle, 
and the deed restrictions associated with individual homes, local 
authorities are unlikely to require additional protection measures for 
the beetle. Any additional protection measures would be due to the 
presence of the listed beetle and therefore will occur regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated. The FEA discusses the data 
needed to quantify these baseline impacts; however, data limitations 
prevent the quantification of such impacts at this time.
    Comment 39: One commenter stated the DEA underestimates potential 
economic losses at Smoke Tree Ranch for two reasons. First, it omits 
the value of undeveloped lots. Second, it ignores the potential 
decreases in property value for developed parcels resulting from the 
stigma associated with the designation and the inability of these 
homeowners to make home improvements.
    Our Response: The comment is not explicit as to whether the 
referenced undeveloped lots are lots targeted as homesites that simply 
have not been developed yet, or are parcels adjacent to homes that 
comprise part of the home's value but are likely to remain undeveloped 
to protect the viewshed and natural aesthetics of the community (view 
lots). Chapter 3 of the FEA has been updated to include the value of 
currently undeveloped lots that are not part of Smoke Tree Ranch's 
conservation easement. This value represents an upper-bound estimate of 
the potential impacts of restricting development because we are unable 
to distinguish between sites targeted for development and lots likely 
to remain undeveloped permanently to protect the viewshed. Potential 
impacts are attributed to the baseline scenario based on the known 
presence of the beetle.
    It is possible the designation of critical habitat may stigmatize 
existing homes, reducing their value, if potential buyers are concerned 
they will not be able to modify or improve the existing structures due 
to the designation. However, given the potential for existing stigma 
associated with the presence of the beetle and current deed 
restrictions, it is difficult to measure the potential incremental 
decrease in value. Therefore, this issue is discussed qualitatively in 
Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    Comment 40: One commenter stated that the Gay and Lesbian 
Association of Retiring Persons, Inc. (GLARP), a

[[Page 58990]]

nonprofit organization, has been in the planning stages of developing 
senior housing in Palm Springs for the last 10 years. After several 
unsuccessful attempts involving other parcels, the organization has 
identified the Rim Rock property as their last remaining option. The 
owner is prepared to sell to GLARP; however, designation of critical 
habitat may affect the development potential of the parcel. Therefore, 
GLARP objects to the designation of this property as Casey's June 
beetle critical habitat, citing the hardship that will be caused to the 
senior gays and lesbians, a protected class of California citizens.
    Our Response: This additional information regarding the potential 
use of the Wessman property has been added to Chapter 3 of the FEA. 
This land is not included in this final critical habitat designation 
due to lack of PCEs. See response to Comment 17 above for more 
information.
    Comment 41: One commenter stated their property, located at the 
southwest corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and Matthew Drive (referred 
to in the DEA as the ``Rainbow Vision'' site), has approval from the 
City for development of a mixed-use retirement community. The original 
recipient of the approvals was Rainbow Vision Palm Springs LLC; 
however, through a series of transactions in 2008, the commenter became 
the fee owner and acquired all development rights related to the 
project. The commenter stated the value of the property reported in the 
DEA is understated, because the property is fully entitled for 
development.
    Our Response: The FEA has been updated to reflect current ownership 
information, development approvals, and the confirmed presence of the 
beetle at the property. As described in Chapter 3, the DEA relied on 
assessor's data to estimate property values. The assessments are based 
on the market value of the property at the date of its most recent 
acquisition and adjusted annually thereafter based on the California 
Consumer Price Index. The commenter's property is comprised of two 
parcels that were sold in 2008 and 2009. Thus, the market data relied 
upon by the assessor is current and likely reflects the entitled status 
of the property (project approval was granted by the Palm Springs City 
Council on March 19, 2008). The landowner did not provide an alternate 
estimate of the market value of the property; therefore, we relied on 
the existing estimate presented in the DEA.
    Comment 42: One commenter stated the DEA should consider the cost 
of maintenance activities beyond sedimentation removal (e.g., grading, 
erosion repair, vegetation removal) within the Palm Canyon Wash channel 
and levee system.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA includes language indicating 
other maintenance activities may be affected by the critical habitat 
designation, but detailed information about these activities is not 
available to calculate cost estimates.
    Comment 43: In relation to the flood control projects, one 
commenter expressed concern the DEA did not provide Federal decision 
makers a complete and accurate estimate of the incremental costs 
associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. They argued 
the DEA did not evaluate scenarios that could occur if flooding and 
scouring events within the maintained Palm Canyon Wash channel and 
levee system periodically eliminate suitable habitat for the beetle and 
preclude beetle occupancy and section 7 consultations are still 
required due to the critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: While it is true that flooding and scouring events 
within the maintained Palm Canyon Wash channel and levee system could 
periodically eliminate beetle occupancy, we believe these events would 
not eliminate suitable habitat nor preclude recolonization during the 
next active beetle season following a given event. We believe this 
area, regardless of periodic flooding and scouring events is occupied 
because within the area: (1) There is consistently high population 
abundance; (2) there are consistent positive survey findings; and (3) 
the location of the wash at the center of the species' current range 
and known population distribution. Therefore, the costs associated with 
projects within Palm Canyon Wash are appropriately considered baseline 
costs associated with listing, and not critical habitat designation.
    Comment 44: One commenter stated the DEA is based on the inaccurate 
assumption that all Palm Canyon Wash maintenance activities would 
always involve a Federal nexus under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act. The commenter also pointed out the proposed critical habitat 
designation has the potential to increase the costs of State and local 
approvals (such as CEQA) associated with maintenance activities that 
are similar to potential increased Federal regulatory costs.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA clarifies that some Palm Canyon 
Wash maintenance activities may not have a Federal nexus. Although 
unlikely, where no Federal nexus exists, the City of Palm Springs may 
request project modifications via its review under CEQA. The CEQA 
review process may be affected by the critical habitat designation in a 
manner similar to that for section 7 consultation.
    Comment 45: Two commenters stated the DEA did not evaluate the 
potential increased flood insurance cost, and the costs associated with 
increased flood risks and damages, if critical habitat designation 
delayed flood damage reduction activities. They suggested these costs 
may be reflected as reduced property values.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 of the FEA presents the cost of 
sedimentation removal as the low-end estimate of the lost value that 
would result if the Riverside County FCWCD is not able to carry out 
maintenance activities. It is likely the lost value is higher. This 
value may include increased flood insurance cost and increased flood 
risks and damages, but data required to quantify these costs are not 
readily available. Similarly, the FEA states that if the Palm Springs 
Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 41, Stage 3 Flood Control Project 
cannot move forward then increased risk to health and human safety from 
floods and increase cost of flood insurance may result. Again, data do 
not exist to quantify these costs.
    Comment 46: One commenter described possible mitigation measures 
that may be required for Palm Canyon Wash maintenance activities to 
avoid adverse modification.
    Our Response: Chapter 4 focuses specifically on sedimentation 
removal within Palm Canyon Wash. The FEA assumes that the Riverside 
County FCWCD will be prevented from carrying out sedimentation removal 
due to presence of the beetle and presents the cost of sedimentation 
removal as the low-end estimate of the lost value of this activity. The 
FEA notes it is possible the Service will find complete avoidance of 
sedimentation removal is not necessary and may recommend reasonable and 
prudent alternatives or other conservation measures to avoid adverse 
modification. Measures requested by the Service may be similar to those 
outlined in the MDP Line 41, Stage 3 Flood Control Project, including 
replacement of permanently impacted suitable habitat at a 2:1 ratio 
with offsite habitat creation or enhancement, or a mitigation fee of 
$5,730 per ac (0.4 ha). The Riverside County FCWCD suggested the 
sedimentation removal project could permanently impact 47 ac (19 ha) of 
habitat, resulting in the need for a 94-ac (38-ha) mitigation area or 
approximately $269,000 in mitigation fees.
    Comment 47: One commenter took issue with the fact that the DEA

[[Page 58991]]

assumed all costs associated with the MDP Line 41, Stage 3 Flood 
Control Project, except for a portion of the administrative costs of 
consultation related to adding adverse modification to the 
consultation, are considered baseline.
    Our Response: Because a Federal nexus is present and the project 
location has had positive surveys for the beetle in the past, all 
costs, except for a portion of the administrative costs of consultation 
related to adding adverse modification to the consultation, are 
considered baseline. The FEA notes that the entire project may not fall 
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but similar 
impacts would likely be felt as the result of challenges to previously 
prepared CEQA documents. Based on the best available scientific 
information, including several recent studies and multiple years of 
positive surveys, the Service considers all of Palm Canyon Wash to be 
entirely occupied (see New Species Information above), and will 
continue to view this area as occupied; thus costs are considered 
baseline (see our responses to Comments 22 and 46 above).
    Comment 48: One commenter stated the potential slowing of 
development as a result of critical habitat designation and the 
corresponding reduction in infrastructure needs has an economic benefit 
of reducing greenhouse gas emission. They argued this benefit should be 
assessed in the FEA.
    Our Response: Whether the proposed designation will have a 
measurable impact on greenhouse gas emissions is subject to 
considerable uncertainty. First, many of the development projects 
discussed are already sited in areas with existing infrastructure; thus 
new roads and utilities may not be required. Furthermore, certain 
projects may find alternate locations, redistributing emissions 
geographically without producing a net reduction. Finally, the Service 
has stated previously that the underlying causes of climate change are 
complex global issues that are beyond the scope of the Act (see 74 FR 
56070; October 29, 2009). Thus, the potential for such benefits is not 
discussed in the FEA.
    Comment 49: One commenter stated the designation of tribal 
reservation lands as critical habitat may encourage the Tribe to 
relocate these projects to other reservation lands where housing and 
commercial buildings can be constructed more efficiently. They 
suggested that, alternatively, existing housing in the area could be 
purchased at a deep discount in the current economic climate. They 
asserted that in failing to look at these alternatives, estimates in 
the DEA of foregone economic value are grossly inaccurate.
    Our Response: Regardless of whether other options are available to 
the Tribe, potentially removing the existing development potential 
associated with designated parcels represents a real loss of resource 
value that should be quantified in the analysis. Furthermore, the 
majority of the reservation lands proposed for designation (75 percent) 
are either allotted trust lands held in trust for the benefit of 
individual tribal members (or their heirs), or fee-title lands owned by 
individuals who may or may not be members of the Tribe. Thus, these 
individuals may not have alternative reservation lands available to 
them, or their substitution options may be limited and already slated 
for development (see Chapter 3 of the FEA and Comment 23 above). In 
these cases, potential losses estimated in the DEA are unlikely to be 
offset. Furthermore, these parcels are often seen as an investment to 
be sold to a developer, rather than as a source of housing for tribal 
members. To make members whole, the Tribe would need to provide 
alternative parcels of land of equal value. The development value of 
the designated parcel is still lost to society, even though the impact 
has been redistributed from individuals to the tribal entity. Finally, 
we assume the Tribe is a rational economic actor whose current 
development plans represent the most efficient allocation of resources. 
Thus, if alternative sites are developed, these are likely to be 
second-best options. These alternative parcels may experience an 
increase in value; however, that increase is not likely to completely 
compensate for the lost value of the designated parcels. The data 
required to estimate such net effects are not readily available.
    Comment 50: One commenter stated the DEA failed to include 
consideration of all benefits that would result from critical habitat 
designation, such as the preservation of open space; protecting and 
improving water quality by maintaining the alluvial fan in its natural 
state; preservation of natural habitat for other species, including 
those displaced by global warming; prevention of development in flood 
prone areas; and reduction of hazards (e.g., wildfires, erosion) 
associated with development on the alluvial fan. They asserted the DEA 
assumed the market accounts for these benefits and suggested these 
benefits should be assessed and quantified where possible or otherwise 
included in a detailed qualitative analysis.
    Our Response: As described in Chapter 5 of the DEA, the purpose of 
critical habitat is to support the conservation of Casey's June beetle. 
The data required to estimate and value in monetary terms incremental 
changes in the probability of conservation resulting from the 
designation are not available. Depending on the project modifications 
ultimately implemented as a result of the regulation, other ancillary 
benefits that are not the stated objective of critical habitat (such as 
increasing the value of homes adjacent to preserved habitat or 
preserving habitat for other non-listed species) may occur. We do not 
assume that these benefits have been accounted for in development 
decisions made by the market; rather, these benefits are discussed 
qualitatively. The FEA (5.1.111) has been revised to include discussion 
of the new ancillary benefit categories referenced in the comment.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB bases its determination upon the following four 
criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 58992]]

The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that 
the critical habitat designation for Casey's June beetle will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities 
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., 
development). We apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to 
each industry to determine if certification is appropriate. However, 
the SBREFA does not explicitly define ``substantial number'' or 
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a 
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this 
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small 
entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances, 
especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may 
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number 
of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the number of 
small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities 
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be 
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is 
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
that may affect Casey's June beetle. Federal agencies also must consult 
with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic 
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application of the 
``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
    In our final economic analysis of the critical habitat designation, 
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities 
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the 
designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. The analysis 
identifies the estimated incremental impacts associated with the 
proposed rulemaking, as described in Appendix A of the analysis, and 
evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to activity 
categories including residential and commercial development, tribal 
activities, flood control activities, and recreational activities. The 
analysis concludes that the incremental impacts resulting from this 
rulemaking that may be borne by small businesses will be associated 
only with development. Incremental impacts are either not expected for 
the other types of activities considered or, if expected, will not be 
borne by small entities.
    As discussed in Appendix A of the final economic analysis, the 
largest impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses would 
potentially result indirectly from CEQA compliance associated with the 
identified development projects. In the 20-year time frame for the 
analysis, one developer (the analysis identifies two; however, we did 
not include the lands owned by one of these companies in this final 
critical habitat designation) may experience significant impacts. The 
one-time costs resulting from compliance with CEQA, including 
administrative time spent by the businesses, compensation costs, and 
the value of time delays, total approximately $400,000 (7 percent 
discount rate present value impacts). These costs result from complete 
avoidance of habitat under CEQA that could occur even in the absence of 
critical habitat designation. The final economic analysis did not 
specify if this business qualifies as a small business; however, as it 
is the only business that may be significantly affected, the number of 
small entities significantly affected is not substantial.
    In summary, we considered whether the rule will result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we 
conclude that this rule will not result in a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

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

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. The OMB's guidance for 
implementing this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may 
constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking 
the regulatory action under consideration. The final economic analysis 
finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, 
based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts 
associated with Casey's June beetle conservation activities within the 
critical habitat designation are not expected. Therefore, this action 
is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that

[[Page 58993]]

``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments,'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of 
federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation 
``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 
or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments 
under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the 
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or 
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding'' and the State, local, or tribal governments ``lack 
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these 
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare 
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; 
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply, nor does 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to project 
modifications that may need to be made for development and flood 
control activities; however, these are not expected to affect small 
governments. Incremental impacts are expected to be borne by the 
Riverside County FCWCD, which is not considered a small government 
based on the county's population. Consequently, we do not believe that 
the critical habitat designation will significantly or uniquely affect 
small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is 
not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating 587 ac (237 ha) of lands in Riverside County, California, 
as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle in a takings implications 
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner 
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it 
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of 
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal 
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle does not pose significant takings implications for lands within 
or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in California. The designation may 
have some benefit to State and local governments because the areas that 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are 
more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the 
habitat necessary to the conservation of Casey's June beetle are 
specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these 
local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait 
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This final rule 
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the features 
essential to the conservation of the species within the designated 
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of 
Casey's June beetle.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The rule does not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit 
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the Circuit Court of 
the United States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d

[[Page 58994]]

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal reservation lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to tribes. We identified tribal reservation 
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle. There has been a substantial amount of government-to-government 
consultation between the Tribe and Service on developing the draft 
Tribal HCP and this rulemaking process for Casey's June beetle. 
Although the Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they 
removed Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the 
draft Tribal HCP, they indicated they will ``continue to informally 
coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on 
the Reservation.'' The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service 
to allow ``the Service to take the lead in addressing how to 
effectively conserve and protect this species'' (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). 
Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a) 
permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft 
HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural resources within 
its jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We will 
continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts to conserve 
Casey's June beetle. We believe the exclusion of tribal trust 
reservation lands from critical habitat will help preserve and 
strengthen the partnership we have developed with the Agua Caliente 
Band of Cahuilla Indians, reinforce those relations we are building 
with other tribes, and foster future partnerships and development of 
future management plans with both Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians and other tribes throughout the United States. At this time the 
Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude tribal trust lands 
(i.e., non-fee, non-allotted lands) from critical habitat (see Tribal 
Reservation Lands discussion under Exclusions, above).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Beetle, Casey's 
June'', in alphabetical order under ``INSECTS,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Species                                                   Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------------------   Historic range      where endangered or     Status     When     Critical     Special
             Common name                    Scientific name                                 threatened                   listed     habitat      rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
               Insects
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Beetle, Casey's June.................  Dinacoma caseyi.........  U.S.A. (CA)         Entire.................        E       793    17.95(i)          NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (i) by adding an entry for ``Casey's 
June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi),'' in the same alphabetical order that 
the species appears in the table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects.

Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi)

    (1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Riverside County in 
California on the map below.
    (2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat for Casey's June beetle are the habitat components that 
provide:
    (i) Soils of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand and Riverwash (RA) 
series, or inclusions of Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) series soils, or 
inclusions of Myoma fine sands (MaB) or Coachella fine sands (CpA) 
within CdC soils, at or below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation, associated 
with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes to 
provide space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and 
food sources; and
    (ii) Predominantly native desert vegetation, to provide shelter 
from traffic-related mortality and food for the species.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include lands covered by manmade 
structures,

[[Page 58995]]

such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, existing on the 
effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of the 
primary constituent elements.
    (4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit 
were created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and the critical 
habitat unit was then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
coordinates zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
    (5) Note: Map of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE11.006

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 58996]]

    (6) Palm Springs: Palm Canyon Wash, Riverside County, California. 
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Palm Springs and Cathedral City, land 
bounded by the following Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): (E, N): 546545, 
3740363; 546556, 3740362; 546566, 3740362; 546577, 3740362; 546587, 
3740362; 546595, 3740361; 546603, 3740360; 546608, 3740360; 546614, 
3740359; 546625, 3740360; 546637, 3740361; 546650, 3740363; 546657, 
3740362; 546667, 3740364; 546668, 3740364; 546674, 3740364; 546680, 
3740362; 546700, 3740357; 546722, 3740353; 546734, 3740350; 546746, 
3740348; 546756, 3740350; 546764, 3740355; 546767, 3740358; 546768, 
3740359; 546789, 3740351; 546791, 3740349; 546791, 3740343; 546795, 
3740334; 546799, 3740329; 546805, 3740325; 546810, 3740322; 546821, 
3740320; 546823, 3740320; 546833, 3740314; 546865, 3740301; 546941, 
3740289; 546971, 3740284; 546980, 3740284; 547001, 3740284; 547022, 
3740282; 547038, 3740280; 547058, 3740277; 547075, 3740275; 547086, 
3740279; 547092, 3740281; 547093, 3740281; 547104, 3740290; 547115, 
3740290; 547133, 3740287; 547158, 3740281; 547169, 3740278; 547170, 
3740278; 547175, 3740272; 547183, 3740257; 547192, 3740251; 547199, 
3740249; 547199, 3740249; 547241, 3740242; 547291, 3740233; 547343, 
3740225; 547345, 3740225; 547360, 3740231; 547371, 3740237; 547382, 
3740231; 547395, 3740224; 547408, 3740219; 547425, 3740213; 547442, 
3740210; 547449, 3740209; 547464, 3740209; 547473, 3740207; 547482, 
3740202; 547488, 3740193; 547488, 3740183; 547480, 3740159; 547474, 
3740137; 547473, 3740133; 547468, 3740120; 547455, 3740117; 547446, 
3740116; 547436, 3740123; 547418, 3740129; 547397, 3740136; 547380, 
3740141; 547354, 3740148; 547344, 3740151; 547323, 3740159; 547285, 
3740167; 547274, 3740168; 547267, 3740170; 547212, 3740182; 547147, 
3740193; 547092, 3740199; 547017, 3740206; 546951, 3740207; 546942, 
3740207; 546890, 3740206; 546840, 3740206; 546782, 3740206; 546740, 
3740205; 546722, 3740205; 546721, 3740204; 546717, 3740204; 546693, 
3740203; 546650, 3740201; 546584, 3740199; 546513, 3740197; 546387, 
3740193; 546325, 3740191; 546220, 3740191; 546158, 3740190; 546119, 
3740188; 546081, 3740185; 546024, 3740181; 546000, 3740177; 545991, 
3740176; 545976, 3740173; 545955, 3740169; 545938, 3740168; 545908, 
3740158; 545884, 3740153; 545855, 3740146; 545821, 3740135; 545781, 
3740122; 545754, 3740111; 545748, 3740109; 545743, 3740106; 545742, 
3740106; 545717, 3740096; 545699, 3740088; 545681, 3740081; 545664, 
3740073; 545646, 3740064; 545629, 3740055; 545612, 3740046; 545595, 
3740037; 545578, 3740028; 545550, 3740010; 545533, 3740000; 545516, 
3739989; 545499, 3739977; 545483, 3739965; 545467, 3739953; 545450, 
3739941; 545435, 3739929; 545431, 3739926; 545427, 3739923; 545425, 
3739921; 545419, 3739916; 545404, 3739903; 545388, 3739889; 545373, 
3739876; 545359, 3739862; 545344, 3739848; 545330, 3739833; 545330, 
3739833; 545330, 3739833; 545330, 3739833; 545330, 3739833; 545329, 
3739833; 545329, 3739833; 545329, 3739833; 545329, 3739832; 545329, 
3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545329, 
3739832; 545329, 3739832; 545328, 3739832; 545326, 3739830; 545306, 
3739812; 545305, 3739811; 545305, 3739808; 545303, 3739801; 545297, 
3739796; 545297, 3739796; 545285, 3739787; 545276, 3739771; 545272, 
3739754; 545271, 3739750; 545269, 3739731; 545260, 3739722; 545250, 
3739712; 545248, 3739704; 545243, 3739689; 545232, 3739657; 545229, 
3739650; 545229, 3739649; 545223, 3739639; 545201, 3739601; 545201, 
3739601; 545180, 3739575; 545179, 3739573; 545178, 3739572; 545171, 
3739562; 545155, 3739540; 545149, 3739536; 545146, 3739535; 545142, 
3739533; 545139, 3739528; 545138, 3739523; 545137, 3739517; 545137, 
3739509; 545138, 3739501; 545145, 3739496; 545152, 3739491; 545152, 
3739491; 545153, 3739490; 545155, 3739477; 545155, 3739477; 545151, 
3739474; 545145, 3739470; 545135, 3739465; 545129, 3739462; 545126, 
3739460; 545122, 3739454; 545121, 3739453; 545121, 3739453; 545120, 
3739449; 545120, 3739444; 545120, 3739437; 545120, 3739430; 545117, 
3739423; 545117, 3739423; 545116, 3739416; 545115, 3739409; 545114, 
3739408; 545108, 3739398; 545106, 3739396; 545094, 3739353; 545055, 
3739334; 545046, 3739330; 545045, 3739330; 545045, 3739334; 545023, 
3739334; 545023, 3739331; 545023, 3739330; 545002, 3739330; 544997, 
3739330; 544995, 3739331; 544990, 3739330; 544978, 3739327; 544965, 
3739325; 544941, 3739321; 544929, 3739319; 544924, 3739318; 544921, 
3739317; 544921, 3739320; 544915, 3739326; 544911, 3739332; 544909, 
3739334; 544895, 3739331; 544878, 3739327; 544868, 3739321; 544864, 
3739309; 544860, 3739295; 544821, 3739281; 544792, 3739270; 544775, 
3739264; 544767, 3739261; 544754, 3739256; 544751, 3739253; 544748, 
3739249; 544726, 3739226; 544725, 3739226; 544722, 3739226; 544718, 
3739224; 544709, 3739219; 544709, 3739218; 544703, 3739211; 544701, 
3739200; 544699, 3739186; 544697, 3739181; 544691, 3739169; 544669, 
3739152; 544642, 3739130; 544576, 3739067; 544533, 3739029; 544487, 
3739002; 544487, 3739002; 544485, 3739001; 544435, 3738976; 544434, 
3738976; 544433, 3738975; 544405, 3738943; 544388, 3738897; 544388, 
3738896; 544375, 3738851; 544345, 3738778; 544317, 3738731; 544302, 
3738717; 544285, 3738701; 544273, 3738690; 544272, 3738689; 544249, 
3738644; 544248, 3738643; 544246, 3738638; 544239, 3738620; 544230, 
3738596; 544216, 3738578; 544186, 3738560; 544155, 3738551; 544154, 
3738550; 544128, 3738526; 544127, 3738525; 544118, 3738499; 544109, 
3738474; 544107, 3738468; 544087, 3738437; 544057, 3738388; 544010, 
3738316; 543957, 3738246; 543954, 3738243; 543942, 3738229; 543906, 
3738190; 543901, 3738185; 543900, 3738184; 543881, 3738154; 543860, 
3738120; 543858, 3738117; 543844, 3738075; 543830, 3738015; 543819, 
3737992; 543800, 3737955; 543799, 3737953; 543775, 3737922; 543774, 
3737920; 543731, 3737863; 543688, 3737825; 543687, 3737825; 543685, 
3737821; 543678, 3737810; 543671, 3737798; 543667, 3737791; 543667, 
3737785; 543667, 3737752; 543667, 3737739; 543667, 3737739; 543659, 
3737692; 543643, 3737662; 543597, 3737610; 543568, 3737578; 543549, 
3737550; 543517, 3737511; 543469, 3737470; 543468, 3737469; 543451, 
3737446; 543451, 3737446; 543451, 3737446; 543452, 3737443; 543457, 
3737423; 543455, 3737425; 543452, 3737426; 543447, 3737427; 543440, 
3737427; 543427, 3737426; 543412, 3737422; 543411, 3737423; 543411, 
3737424; 543411, 3737424; 543411, 3737425; 543411, 3737426; 543411, 
3737426; 543411, 3737427; 543410, 3737427; 543410, 3737428; 543410, 
3737429; 543410, 3737429; 543410, 3737430; 543410, 3737430; 543410, 
3737431; 543410, 3737432; 543410, 3737432; 543409, 3737433; 543409, 
3737433; 543409, 3737434; 543409, 3737435; 543409, 3737435; 543409, 
3737436; 543409, 3737436; 543409, 3737437; 543409, 3737438; 543408, 
3737438; 543408, 3737439; 543408, 3737439; 543408, 3737440; 543408, 
3737441; 543408, 3737441; 543408, 3737442; 543408, 3737442; 543408,

[[Page 58997]]

3737443; 543408, 3737444; 543408, 3737444; 543408, 3737445; 543408, 
3737445; 543408, 3737446; 543407, 3737447; 543407, 3737447; 543407, 
3737448; 543397, 3737458; 543394, 3737467; 543390, 3737463; 543383, 
3737459; 543380, 3737458; 543369, 3737450; 543342, 3737385; 543340, 
3737378; 543338, 3737373; 543333, 3737365; 543333, 3737365; 543333, 
3737365; 543330, 3737362; 543309, 3737335; 543301, 3737267; 543279, 
3737068; 543272, 3737011; 543272, 3737009; 543251, 3736822; 543241, 
3736729; 543227, 3736600; 543203, 3736387; 543200, 3736359; 543198, 
3736326; 543198, 3736324; 543194, 3736290; 543190, 3736255; 543183, 
3736201; 543190, 3736202; 543191, 3736202; 543212, 3736202; 543221, 
3736202; 543257, 3736202; 543284, 3736202; 543274, 3736190; 543264, 
3736177; 543262, 3736168; 543258, 3736159; 543254, 3736142; 543251, 
3736128; 543248, 3736115; 543245, 3736105; 543243, 3736097; 543239, 
3736090; 543223, 3736070; 543221, 3736069; 543220, 3736069; 543217, 
3736072; 543213, 3736078; 543209, 3736085; 543204, 3736095; 543199, 
3736108; 543195, 3736126; 543193, 3736134; 543186, 3736125; 543137, 
3736125; 543126, 3736126; 543073, 3736129; 543050, 3736140; 543052, 
3736162; 543043, 3736213; 543039, 3736233; 543043, 3736266; 543051, 
3736290; 543051, 3736303; 543047, 3736305; 543035, 3736300; 543004, 
3736278; 542996, 3736272; 542960, 3736231; 542952, 3736217; 542938, 
3736200; 542928, 3736188; 542914, 3736182; 542905, 3736178; 542887, 
3736166; 542865, 3736139; 542835, 3736084; 542831, 3736070; 542825, 
3736060; 542816, 3736052; 542782, 3736031; 542740, 3735997; 542721, 
3735985; 542720, 3736121; 542720, 3736145; 542720, 3736145; 542720, 
3736145; 542720, 3736145; 542720, 3736148; 542720, 3736149; 542720, 
3736156; 542720, 3736156; 542720, 3736157; 542720, 3736157; 542720, 
3736159; 542720, 3736159; 542720, 3736159; 542720, 3736159; 542720, 
3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720, 
3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720, 3736160; 542720, 3736161; 542720, 
3736161; 542720, 3736161; 542720, 3736161; 542720, 3736161; 542720, 
3736161; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 
3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 3736162; 542720, 
3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720, 
3736163; 542720, 3736163; 542720, 3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720, 
3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720, 3736164; 542720, 
3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720, 
3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720, 3736165; 542720, 3736166; 542720, 
3736166; 542720, 3736166; 542720, 3736166; 542720, 3736166; 542720, 
3736200; 542720, 3736200; 542708, 3736200; 542528, 3736200; 542527, 
3736200; 542521, 3736221; 542520, 3736225; 542519, 3736226; 542521, 
3736246; 542521, 3736246; 542523, 3736250; 542523, 3736250; 542521, 
3736276; 542519, 3736289; 542520, 3736345; 542520, 3736398; 542520, 
3736452; 542520, 3736495; 542520, 3736519; 542520, 3736556; 542522, 
3736552; 542539, 3736520; 542551, 3736502; 542564, 3736487; 542571, 
3736481; 542585, 3736499; 542613, 3736567; 542720, 3736563; 542724, 
3736563; 542726, 3736484; 542753, 3736484; 542760, 3736478; 542778, 
3736473; 542796, 3736471; 542817, 3736468; 542830, 3736464; 542840, 
3736455; 542854, 3736456; 542858, 3736461; 542859, 3736471; 542857, 
3736477; 542853, 3736482; 542839, 3736545; 542829, 3736586; 542853, 
3736572; 542869, 3736559; 542867, 3736545; 542907, 3736518; 542915, 
3736504; 542923, 3736484; 542923, 3736604; 542879, 3736605; 542879, 
3736647; 542879, 3736656; 542881, 3736805; 543095, 3736807; 543121, 
3736807; 543121, 3736839; 543120, 3736951; 543119, 3737008; 543119, 
3737008; 543119, 3737008; 543119, 3737008; 542903, 3737006; 542893, 
3737009; 542876, 3737008; 542876, 3737108; 542876, 3737108; 542776, 
3737108; 542776, 3737182; 542784, 3737185; 542796, 3737201; 542797, 
3737207; 542875, 3737208; 543116, 3737210; 543116, 3737210; 543144, 
3737219; 543159, 3737223; 543180, 3737239; 543185, 3737243; 543195, 
3737251; 543203, 3737257; 543210, 3737263; 543221, 3737293; 543230, 
3737318; 543248, 3737381; 543248, 3737382; 543249, 3737388; 543254, 
3737405; 543257, 3737413; 543261, 3737426; 543277, 3737463; 543283, 
3737475; 543287, 3737481; 543289, 3737484; 543306, 3737511; 543317, 
3737526; 543339, 3737555; 543351, 3737575; 543370, 3737602; 543384, 
3737619; 543404, 3737637; 543417, 3737649; 543433, 3737662; 543445, 
3737672; 543465, 3737689; 543483, 3737709; 543504, 3737733; 543514, 
3737743; 543526, 3737760; 543535, 3737773; 543538, 3737782; 543541, 
3737820; 543534, 3737820; 543538, 3737828; 543541, 3737837; 543591, 
3737900; 543601, 3737906; 543607, 3737914; 543614, 3737917; 543618, 
3737924; 543619, 3737931; 543625, 3737936; 543634, 3737949; 543646, 
3737960; 543657, 3737971; 543666, 3737979; 543672, 3737989; 543676, 
3738002; 543677, 3738009; 543678, 3738011; 543678, 3738049; 543678, 
3738056; 543678, 3738093; 543678, 3738157; 543677, 3738225; 543677, 
3738425; 543677, 3738448; 543722, 3738487; 543773, 3738532; 543894, 
3738634; 543901, 3738634; 543904, 3738634; 543904, 3738672; 543904, 
3738674; 543904, 3738701; 543903, 3738701; 543902, 3738718; 543880, 
3738718; 543838, 3738717; 543818, 3738717; 543675, 3738715; 543675, 
3738722; 543675, 3738752; 543674, 3738772; 543672, 3738999; 543672, 
3739066; 543669, 3739139; 543669, 3739148; 543668, 3739178; 543668, 
3739208; 543666, 3739643; 543665, 3739807; 543665, 3739844; 543665, 
3739922; 543670, 3739922; 543701, 3739922; 543710, 3739923; 543714, 
3739923; 543716, 3739923; 543727, 3739935; 543733, 3739942; 543738, 
3739947; 543736, 3739948; 543712, 3739948; 543711, 3739973; 543726, 
3739973; 543730, 3739983; 543731, 3739986; 543734, 3739995; 543742, 
3739995; 543769, 3739994; 544024, 3739989; 544059, 3739988; 544075, 
3739987; 544170, 3739985; 544186, 3739985; 544185, 3739987; 544194, 
3739985; 544278, 3739984; 544415, 3739983; 544469, 3739983; 544469, 
3739929; 544469, 3739893; 544470, 3739837; 544470, 3739828; 544472, 
3739646; 544473, 3739430; 544473, 3739324; 544473, 3739183; 544473, 
3739148; 544759, 3739426; 544762, 3739429; 544763, 3739430; 544807, 
3739471; 544816, 3739479; 544873, 3739533; 544882, 3739542; 544892, 
3739550; 544892, 3739544; 544901, 3739559; 544911, 3739570; 544917, 
3739576; 544924, 3739583; 544932, 3739591; 544953, 3739613; 544977, 
3739637; 544994, 3739655; 545180, 3739837; 545213, 3739869; 545217, 
3739872; 545241, 3739901; 545248, 3739907; 545260, 3739917; 545287, 
3739941; 545296, 3739954; 545388, 3740038; 545533, 3740135; 545536, 
3740136; 545536, 3740137; 545537, 3740148; 545535, 3740184; 545535, 
3740207; 545539, 3740233; 545566, 3740232; 545590, 3740233; 545605, 
3740233; 545616, 3740232; 545651, 3740233; 545681, 3740233; 545716, 
3740233; 545727, 3740233; 545731, 3740233; 545740, 3740233; 545742, 
3740233; 545757, 3740236; 545771, 3740240; 545782, 3740241; 545785, 
3740241; 545785, 3740242; 545785, 3740242; 545794, 3740245; 545799, 
3740246; 545809, 3740249; 545840, 3740256; 545849, 3740256; 545861,

[[Page 58998]]

3740259; 545892, 3740266; 545912, 3740270; 545914, 3740271; 545925, 
3740273; 545965, 3740281; 545990, 3740285; 546011, 3740288; 546052, 
3740294; 546077, 3740299; 546094, 3740309; 546108, 3740317; 546117, 
3740321; 546139, 3740332; 546156, 3740335; 546170, 3740337; 546170, 
3740337; 546179, 3740338; 546186, 3740337; 546188, 3740340; 546188, 
3740340; 546195, 3740343; 546203, 3740344; 546210, 3740346; 546217, 
3740347; 546225, 3740348; 546231, 3740347; 546240, 3740349; 546249, 
3740352; 546256, 3740354; 546263, 3740355; 546270, 3740356; 546275, 
3740359; 546281, 3740357; 546289, 3740359; 546295, 3740357; 546297, 
3740355; 546304, 3740352; 546323, 3740353; 546328, 3740353; 546328, 
3740353; 546332, 3740353; 546474, 3740353; 546476, 3740354; 546484, 
3740353; 546492, 3740354; 546500, 3740359; 546505, 3740367; 546510, 
3740372; 546515, 3740374; 546528, 3740370; 546528, 3740368; 546534, 
3740366; thence returning to 546545, 3740363; continuing to land 
bounded by 542904, 3737623; 542904, 3737612; 542941, 3737612; 543061, 
3737613; 543075, 3737613; 543075, 3737581; 543075, 3737544; 543075, 
3737508; 543075, 3737469; 543076, 3737429; 543076, 3737420; 542976, 
3737420; 542975, 3737438; 542975, 3737485; 542975, 3737511; 542975, 
3737511; 542875, 3737511; 542875, 3737511; 542875, 3737545; 542875, 
3737584; 542875, 3737600; 542875, 3737600; 542875, 3737622; 542875, 
3737623; thence returning to 542904, 3737623; continuing to land 
bounded by 546332, 3739429; 546332, 3739418; 546331, 3739399; 546328, 
3739390; 546324, 3739383; 546313, 3739372; 546302, 3739363; 546286, 
3739353; 546272, 3739349; 546263, 3739347; 546247, 3739346; 546210, 
3739346; 546162, 3739346; 546161, 3739346; 546160, 3739346; 546155, 
3739348; 546155, 3739349; 546154, 3739405; 546154, 3739424; 546157, 
3739424; 546164, 3739425; 546173, 3739424; 546190, 3739420; 546205, 
3739417; 546219, 3739417; 546231, 3739418; 546236, 3739419; 546244, 
3739420; 546255, 3739419; 546263, 3739419; 546269, 3739421; 546274, 
3739424; 546277, 3739428; 546277, 3739433; 546277, 3739440; 546277, 
3739447; 546277, 3739450; 546278, 3739454; 546280, 3739457; 546319, 
3739447; 546324, 3739444; 546329, 3739439; thence returning to 546332, 
3739429; continuing to land bounded by 546405, 3739025; 546401, 
3739010; 546395, 3739013; 546374, 3739026; 546356, 3739042; 546356, 
3739042; 546341, 3739060; 546342, 3739090; 546335, 3739100; 546326, 
3739112; 546325, 3739152; 546324, 3739225; 546335, 3739225; 546365, 
3739227; 546365, 3739227; 546364, 3739240; 546362, 3739241; 546359, 
3739242; 546347, 3739246; 546347, 3739260; 546347, 3739437; 546347, 
3739450; 546359, 3739447; 546392, 3739437; 546562, 3739387; 546651, 
3739361; 546703, 3739346; 546707, 3739344; 546699, 3739300; 546685, 
3739275; 546682, 3739269; 546658, 3739254; 546620, 3739239; 546606, 
3739238; 546605, 3739238; 546557, 3739237; 546553, 3739228; 546551, 
3739225; 546546, 3739218; 546536, 3739203; 546536, 3739203; 546508, 
3739181; 546493, 3739161; 546489, 3739157; 546469, 3739132; 546447, 
3739096; 546437, 3739083; 546415, 3739053; 546411, 3739042; thence 
returning to 546405, 3739025.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
 [FR Doc. 2011-24047 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P