[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53224-53254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21442]



[[Page 53223]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 165

August 25, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 53224]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AX40


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
revise designated critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we are proposing approximately 
25,704 acres (10,402 hectares) as critical habitat for this taxon in 
Riverside County, California.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 24, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by October 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064, which 
is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 
Hidden Valley Rd., Ste. 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5902. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate particular 
habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) including whether there are threats to the taxon (the 
term taxon, as used herein, refers to any taxonomic rank that is not a 
species (for example, a genus, a subspecies, or a variety); Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae is a variety) from human activity, the 
degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and 
whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation 
such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the taxon, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas, that were not occupied at the time of listing, are 
essential for the conservation of the taxon and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts 
associated with climate change on Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) What areas, extent, and quality of the unoccupied fluvial 
(water) sand transport systems in the Coachella Valley and surrounding 
hills and mountains are essential to the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be included in the designation 
and why.
    (6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities, families, or 
tribes, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit 
these impacts.
    (7) Which specific areas within tribal lands proposed for critical 
habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific 
tribal lands outweigh the benefits of including that area, in 
particular for tribal lands owned or managed by the Morongo Band of 
Mission Indians (formerly the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 
of the Morongo Reservation) or the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.
    (8) Which specific lands covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple 
Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan 
(Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP) proposed as critical habitat should be 
considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether 
the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area covered by the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP outweigh the benefits of including that 
area. We are currently considering all lands covered by the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP and proposed as critical habitat for exclusion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
    (9) What specific actions the Coachella Valley Association of 
Governments (CVAG) has undertaken to meet the objectives and goals set 
out in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP specific to Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae since CVAG began implementing the MSHCP/
NCCP.
    (10) Whether there are any other lands covered by habitat 
conservation plans or other conservation actions that benefit 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be considered for 
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, where the benefits of 
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of 
including that area.
    (11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (12) The validity of our approach for determining the extent of the 
fluvial sand transport system, and differentiating between fluvial sand 
transport and fluvial sand source areas. We identified fluvial sand 
source areas (areas where sediment is eroded from

[[Page 53225]]

parent rock by moving water) as portions of drainages where slope is 10 
percent or greater and fluvial sand transport areas (corridors along 
which water transports sediment, but little erosion of parent rock 
takes place) as portions of drainages where slope is less than 10 
percent. This approach was informed by Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 21), 
who found that sediment production in the drainage areas supplying sand 
to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat is much lower in 
areas where the ground slope is less than 10 percent.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section. We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such 
as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address from public 
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae in this proposed rule. A summary of topics relevant to 
this proposed rule is provided below. For more information on A. l. 
var. coachellae, refer to the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), and the designation 
of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal 
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). Additionally, information 
on this taxon may be found in the 5-year review for A. l. var. 
coachellae signed on September 1, 2009, which is available on our Web 
site at: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.

Description of the Taxon

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is a member of the Fabaceae 
(pea family). It is one of the 36 varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus 
that collectively range from desert to timberline in North America 
(Barneby 1964, pp. 911-958). Coachella Valley milk-vetch was originally 
described by Rupert C. Barneby as A. l. var. coulteri based on a 
specimen collected in 1913 by Alice Eastwood in Palm Springs, 
California (Barneby 1945, p. 129). However, the name had previously 
been published for another milk-vetch, and consequently Barneby 
published a new, and currently accepted, name of A. l. var. coachellae 
(Barneby 1964, p. 695). It is an erect winter annual or short-lived 
perennial, 4 to 12 inches (in) (10 to 30 centimeters (cm)) tall and 
densely covered with short, white-silky hairs, giving it a silvery 
appearance. The flowers are deep purple to violet, in a loose or dense 
13- to 25-flowered raceme (an inflorescence in which stalked flowers 
are arranged singly along a central stem). The two-chambered fruits are 
greatly inflated (Spellenberg 1993, pp. 597-598).

Taxon Biology and Life History

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae cohorts (a group of 
individuals of the same age, recruited into the population at the same 
time (Lincoln et al. 2003, p. 64)) may have different life histories, 
depending on rainfall and climatic conditions. Occurrences of plants 
can consist of both reproductive annuals as well as perennials 
(facultative perennial), and the number of individuals in an area can 
fluctuate yearly (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6). Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae seeds germinate between fall and early winter (Meinke 
et al. 2007, p. 46). Seasonally dormant root crowns (the point at which 
the root system and stem of a plant meet) of perennial plants produce 
new shoots between December and January. Second-year plants can begin 
to flower as early as December, while plants in their first year 
usually do not flower until January or February. Flowering continues 
into April (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6).
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is an outcrosser (a plant 
that typically cross-pollinates) and is dependent on pollinators. While 
there are studies that show the plant is able to self-pollinate and 
generate viable seeds, A. l. var. coachellae is only marginally 
reproductively successful without pollinators and produces seed at very 
low rates. Meinke et al. (2007, p. 36) performed a pollinator exclusion 
study and found that only 2 fruits containing 11 seeds total were 
produced from 144 flowers limited to self-pollination, compared to 72 
fruits containing 596 seeds total produced by 138 flowers left open to 
insect pollination. Additionally, Mazer and Travers (1992) found that a 
related variety, A. l. var. piscinensis, is incapable of autogamy 
(self-fertilization) and reliant on pollinators. The presence of 
pollinators vastly improves the success of pollination and the 
abundance of seed produced by A. l. var. coachellae plants (Meinke et 
al. 2007, p. 36).
    Based on field observations, the primary pollinators of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae in many instances appear to be nonnative 
honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 36). Meinke et al. 
(2007, p. 36) observed that less than 1 percent of pollinator visits to 
A. l. var. coachellae plants were made by native bees (not identified; 
possibly a species of Anthidium); all other pollinator visits were made 
by nonnative honeybees. We presume the natural pollinator(s) of A. l. 
var. coachellae are native insects, most likely native solitary bees, 
because other varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus are known to have 
solitary bees as their major or essential pollinators (Burks 1979, p. 
850; Mazer and Travers 1992, p. 18).
    Fruits of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are inflated 
(contain pockets of air as opposed to being flat or compact); this 
adaptation makes the fruits suited to dispersal by wind when dry 
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 40), which facilitates gene flow between 
populations. Insect predation, disease, and mammal herbivory destroy 
many seeds, leaving the viable seed set as only about 25 percent of the 
total number of fruits produced (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 43). As summer 
progresses and seed is set, the plants may die or aerial stems may die 
back. Plants may persist through the fall as dormant root crowns 
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6).
    Meinke et al. (2007, p. 31) observed that the proportion of plants 
surviving the summer and fall is dependent upon climatic conditions. 
Although they survive a second year, Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae are generally not long-lived (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 33). 
Plants in the northwestern portion of the range, where rainfall is 
higher, are more likely than those farther southeast to survive into 
their second year or longer. Plants that occur in the southeastern 
extent of the range, which receives less rain, are primarily annuals 
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 31).
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae populations can survive and 
persist in prolonged drought as dormant seeds in the soil (seed bank) 
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3). Therefore, visible, 
above-ground plants, which may not be evident at a site each year, are 
only a partial indication of population size. The

[[Page 53226]]

extent of time that the seeds are viable in the soil is not known, 
although studies on A. l. var. micans (freckled milk-vetch) demonstrate 
that buried seeds can germinate after a period of up to 8 years (Pavlik 
1987, p. 317). Suitable habitat that lacks above-ground individuals may 
sustain the taxon through one or more dry years as an undetectable seed 
bank and dormant root crowns. Therefore, appropriate habitat that lacks 
above-ground individuals may be important to the long-term survival of 
A. l. var. coachellae.

Habitat

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is strongly associated with 
active, stabilized, ephemeral, and shielded sandy substrates in the 
Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Sanders and Thomas 
Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3; Barrows and Allen 2007, p. 323). This 
taxon is primarily found on loose aeolian (wind transported) or fluvial 
(water transported) sands that form dunes or sand fields, and along 
margins of sandy washes (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 
3).
    Most of the sand in the northern Coachella Valley is derived from 
drainages within the Indio Hills, the San Bernardino Mountains, the 
Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Mountains. This 
sand is moved into and through the valley by the sand transport system. 
The sand transport system consists of two main parts: (1) The fluvial 
(water) portion (headwaters, tributaries, and the stream channels 
within the various drainages surrounding Coachella Valley), and (2) the 
aeolian (wind) portion (predominantly westerly and northwesterly winds 
moving through the valley) (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 5-7). The 
fluvial and aeolian portions of the systems are capable of moving sand 
until the velocity of the water or wind decreases to a point that sand 
is deposited. Both portions of the system are subdivided into three 
components: source areas, transport areas, and depositional areas.
Fluvial Portion of the Sand Transport System
    The water that forms the basis of the fluvial portion of the sand 
transport system in the Coachella Valley enters the system as 
precipitation during storm events (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). These 
storm events cause flash flooding, which facilitates the erosion that 
generates sediment, and moves that sediment downstream in ephemeral 
streams and washes and eventually into the aeolian transport corridor. 
Most flooding events only transport small amounts of sediment to the 
valley floor; flooding events large enough to move large amounts of 
sediment are very infrequent (for example, the last large flooding 
event on the Whitewater River occurred in 1938) (Griffiths et al. 2002, 
p. 5).
Fluvial Sand Source Areas
    Fluvial source areas are the areas where sediment is generated. In 
these areas, sediment is eroded from parent rock or sediment deposits 
and is carried downstream by moving water, which continues to erode 
rock and generate sediment until it reaches the fluvial transport area. 
This process occurs mainly in the hills and mountains surrounding 
Coachella Valley in areas of high relief (greater than 10 percent 
slope). However, in the Indio Hills/Thousand Palms area (which contains 
proposed Unit 4 of critical habitat, as described in the Proposed 
Critical Habitat Designation section below), the fluvial source area 
consists of alluvial deposits (sand, silt, clay, gravel, or other 
matter deposited by flowing water) at the base of the Indio Hills. 
Large episodic floods move sediment trapped in the alluvial deposits 
into an alluvial fan (a fan-shaped alluvial deposit formed by a stream 
where its velocity is abruptly decreased), from which the sediment can 
be transported by wind (Lancaster et al. 1993, p. 28). Fluvial sand 
source areas do not provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae and therefore are not considered to be within the 
geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.
Fluvial Sand Transport Areas
    The fluvial transport areas are stream channels that convey the 
sediment generated in fluvial source areas downstream to fluvial 
depositional areas. Very little erosion of parent rock or sediment 
deposits takes place in fluvial transport areas compared to fluvial 
source areas. Fluvial sand transport areas are generally portions of 
drainages where the slope is less than 10 percent. Fluvial transport 
channels include portions of the lower reaches of Mission Creek, 
Morongo Wash, Whitewater River, San Gorgonio River, and Snow Creek 
(upstream portions of these waterways are considered fluvial source 
areas because the higher ground slope in these areas allows for 
erosion/generation of sediment). Fluvial sand transport areas do not 
provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and 
therefore are not considered to be within the geographical area 
occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.
Fluvial Sand Depositional Areas
    The fluvial sand depositional areas are broad, flat, depositional 
plains or channel terraces where sediment carried by fluvial transport 
channels is deposited (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). During larger 
flood events, sediment can be deposited on bajada (large, coalescing 
alluvial fans) surfaces as floodplain deposits. There are four main 
fluvial sand depositional areas in the Coachella Valley: (1) In the 
Snow Creek/Windy Point area, which receives sediment from the San 
Gorgonio River and Snow Creek; (2) in the Whitewater Floodplain area, 
which receives sediment from the Whitewater River; (3) in the Willow 
Hole area, which receives sediment from Mission Creek and Morongo Wash; 
and (4) in the Thousand Palms area, which receives sediment from washes 
associated with drainages originating in the Indio Hills. These four 
main fluvial sand depositional areas do provide habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae, are currently occupied, and were occupied 
by the taxon at the time of listing.
Aeolian Portion of the Sand Transport System
    The aeolian portion of the sand transport system begins where the 
fluvial portion of the system ends. Northerly and northwesterly winds 
pick up sand-sized grains of sediment accumulated in fluvial 
depositional areas, and carry them south/southeast through the valley 
and into aeolian depositional areas where they form sand fields and 
dunes (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 7).
Aeolian Sand Source Areas
    Aeolian sand source areas are the portions of the fluvial 
depositional areas that are subject to wind erosion. Winds erode these 
sediment accumulations and carry sand across aeolian sand transport 
areas. Between flooding events, which replenish the sediment in fluvial 
depositional areas, sand available for aeolian transport can be 
depleted by wind erosion. Figure 6B in Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 25) 
shows the aeolian sand source areas (fluvial depositional areas) 
associated with the San Gorgonio River, the Whitewater River, and 
Mission Creek and Morongo Wash. Aeolian sand source areas provide 
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, are currently 
occupied, and were occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.

[[Page 53227]]

Aeolian Sand Transport Areas
    Sand eroded from the aeolian sand source areas is blown into and 
across the aeolian sand transport areas. Sand may accumulate in aeolian 
transport areas when ample sand is available in upwind source areas; 
conversely, aeolian transport areas may be depleted of sand when sand 
is lacking upwind. Figure 6B in Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 25) shows 
the aeolian sand transport areas for the portions of the sand transport 
system associated with the San Gorgonio River, the Whitewater River, 
and Mission Creek and Morongo Wash. Aeolian sand transport areas 
provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, are 
currently occupied, and were occupied by the taxon at the time of 
listing.
Aeolian Sand Depositional Areas
    Sand carried by wind through the sand transport areas is deposited 
when the velocity of the wind decreases sufficiently. This occurs 
mainly where wind is slowed by vegetation (for example, honey mesquite 
in the Willow Hole area), other objects, or geological features. In 
general, sand formations (for example, sand dunes and sand fields) 
persist in depositional areas, whereas sand accumulations in transport 
areas are more ephemeral. Aeolian sand depositional areas provide 
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, and support, 
currently and at the time of listing, the highest numbers of the taxon.
    The fluvial and aeolian processes discussed above have been 
disrupted in many areas by development, alteration of stream flow, and 
the proliferation of nonnative plants. These threats to the persistence 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat are discussed 
further in the Special Management Considerations or Protection section 
below.
Sand Formations
    Sand is found in various types of formations within the Coachella 
Valley, including but not limited to: Active sand dunes, stabilized or 
partially stabilized dunes, active sand fields, stabilized sand fields, 
shielded sand dunes and fields, ephemeral sand fields, and alluvial 
sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes. Each of these 
sand deposit formations provides habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae to varying degrees. A discussion of threats that are 
degrading the quality of A. l. var. coachellae habitat by impacting 
these sand formations (for example, development, unauthorized off-
highway vehicle use, nonnative plants, and groundwater pumping) is 
included below in the Special Management Considerations or Protection 
section.
Active and Stabilized or Partially Stabilized Sand Dunes
    Active sand dunes are almost barren expanses of moving sand with 
sparse, if any, perennial shrub cover. For Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae, active sand dunes provide suitable habitat. Active sand 
dunes may intermix with stabilized or partially stabilized dunes or 
become stabilized over time; stabilized sand dunes have similar sand 
accumulations and formations but are stabilized by shrubs, scattered 
low annuals, and perennial grasses. Stabilized or partially stabilized 
dunes are less vulnerable to loss of sand due to wind and therefore 
provide more stable habitat for long-term A. l. var. coachellae 
persistence (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 6-8).
Active Sand Fields
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in active sand 
fields that are similar to active sand dunes, but are smaller, 
shallower sand accumulations of insufficient depth to form dunes. Sand 
fields may form hummocks, which are local accumulations of sand that 
form when sand accumulates around, and is held in place by, shrubs or 
clumps of vegetation (for example, Prosopis spp.-mesquite hummocks). 
Shrubs that form hummocks are important for the maintenance of A. l. 
var. coachellae habitat where the plants occur because they prevent 
sand from being removed from depositional areas faster than it can be 
replaced by natural sand transport processes. In areas where mesquite 
plants are being lost (such as Willow Hole and Thousand Palms), aeolian 
processes are removing sand faster than it can be replenished (see the 
Special Management Considerations or Protection section below for 
further discussion of loss of mesquite hummocks due to groundwater 
pumping).
Stabilized Sand Fields
    Stabilized sand fields are similar to active sand fields but 
contain sand accumulations that are stabilized by vegetation or are 
armored, a process where the wind picks up and moves smaller particles 
and leaves behind larger grains and gravels, forming an ``armor'' that 
prevents wind from moving additional smaller particles trapped below 
(Sharp and Saunders 1978, p. 12). Armored sand fields are temporarily 
stable, becoming active when the armor is disturbed over large areas 
(such as by flood, severe wind events, or human activities), or new 
sand is deposited from upwind fluvial depositional areas (Sharp and 
Saunders 1978, p. 12).
Shielded Sand Dunes and Fields
    Shielded sand dunes and fields are similar to the sand formations 
described above, except that sand source and transport systems that 
would normally replenish these areas have been interrupted or the dunes 
are otherwise shielded by human development (CVAG 2007, p. 4.7-5). 
These shielded areas support large occurrences of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae that may contribute to the conservation of 
the taxon; however, the natural processes sustaining the habitat have 
been permanently removed.
Ephemeral Sand Fields
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in ephemeral 
sand fields, which occur in areas where the rate at which sand is 
transported out of the area by wind exceeds the rate at which sand is 
replenished by upwind flood deposition events, resulting in a transient 
aeolian sand habitat that pulses after significant flood events deliver 
new sand to the aeolian transport corridor (Barrows and Allen 2007, p. 
323; USFWS GIS data). This type of formation generally occurs at the 
western end of the Coachella Valley, where wind velocities are the 
highest (Barrows and Allen 2007, p. 323).
Alluvial Fans or Flood Plains
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae can also occur on alluvial 
soils or on flood plain terraces (with little aeolian sands) in large 
alluvial fans, such as along Morongo Wash in Desert Hot Springs (J. 
Avery, USFWS Biologist, pers. obs. 2004-2009). Some of these formations 
have moderate amounts of diffuse disturbances and still support A. l. 
var. coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 21). Although the taxon can 
tolerate low levels of disturbance, plants do not typically persist 
into their second year in these conditions. Additionally, Meinke et al. 
(2007, p. 63) found that low levels of disturbance may help to promote 
seed germination. Therefore, the early stages and first-year plants of 
A. l. var. coachellae may be capable of surviving low-level 
disturbances that occur in these formations (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 
63).
    Suitable habitat may be transitory, and consequently currently 
unoccupied areas may become suitable following fluvial or aeolian 
events, and vice versa

[[Page 53228]]

(Lancaster 1995, p. 231). Conservation of the variety of sandy 
substrate types that may support the taxon is important for the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because of the 
dynamics of the aeolian sand transport processes. The life history of 
A. l. var. coachellae is uniquely suited to the transitory nature of 
its habitat, and the occurrences of the taxon will likely be impacted 
to the extent that the fluvial or aeolian sand transport systems are 
disrupted.
Plant Associations
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae commonly occurs in 
association with Desert Dunes or Creosote bush--white burr sage-scrub 
vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 566-569, 876-877). These vegetation 
types are associated with rainfall patterns, shifting from west to east 
across the Coachella Valley. The vegetation generally consists of 
dispersed perennial shrubs, with intervening shrubless tracts providing 
space for wind dispersal of A. l. var. coachellae fruits.
    Woody perennials, such as Lepidospartum squamatum (California 
broomsage), Hymenocela salsola (cheesebush), Ambrosia dumosa 
(burrobush), and Psorothamnus arborescens (California dalea) are 
typically associated with Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in 
the western and relatively high-rainfall areas near the San Gorgonio 
Pass (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 21). These perennial taxa along with 
Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) and annuals such as Rafinesquia 
neomexicana (California chicory) and Camissonia pallida (pale sun cup) 
are characteristic of the sandy wash habitat at Snow Creek (Meinke et 
al. 2007, pp. 22-24). This habitat type is associated with the fluvial 
sand deposits on floodplain terraces (discussed above).
    In the southeastern extent of the range, where rainfall is the 
lowest, Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae occurs with annuals 
such as Abronia villosa (desert sand verbena), Oenothera deltoides 
(dune primrose), Geraea canescens (desert sunflower), Oligomeris 
linifolia (leaved cambess), Astragalus aridis (annual desert milk-
vetch), and Baileya pauciradiata (Colorado Desert marigold) (Meinke et 
al. 2007, p. 21) on primary dunes at the Coachella Valley National 
Wildlife Refuge (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 17). This habitat type is 
associated with active sand dunes or partially stabilized sand dunes 
(discussed above). Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is variously 
found with Larrea tridentata (creosote bush), Psorothamnus emoryi 
(Emory dalea), Atriplex canescens (fourwing saltbush), Dicoria 
canescens (desert dicoria), Achnatherum (as Oryzopsis) hymenoides 
(Indian ricegrass), Croton californicus (California croton), and 
Petalonyx thurberi (sandpaper plant) on low-shifting dunes; sand 
fields; and small, isolated dunes (Meinke et al. 2007, pp. 22-24).
    Salsola tragus (Russian thistle), Schismus barbatus (Mediterranean 
grass), Tamarix spp. (salt-cedar), and Brassica tournefortii (Sahara 
mustard) are nonnative plants known to occur with and threaten 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae via competition for resources 
such as water and nutrients (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 26). The latter is 
considered to pose the most serious threat by competitive exclusion and 
by restricting natural movement of sand (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 24). 
Further discussion of nonnative plants is presented in the Special 
Management Considerations or Protection section below.

Spatial Distribution, Historical Range, and Population Size

    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a distribution limited 
to the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, in the southern California 
portion of the Colorado Desert. At the time of listing, the 
distribution of the taxon was equivalent to the historical geographic 
range of the taxon. The range of A. l. var. coachellae has remained 
effectively the same since the taxon was listed as endangered in 1998 
(63 FR 53596; October 6, 1998); however, the spatial distribution 
within that range has changed as development has eliminated 
occurrences. At the time of listing, there were an estimated 25 extant 
occurrences of A. l. var. coachellae, and the quantity of suitable 
habitat was considered to be decreasing due to continuing direct and 
indirect impacts associated with development (63 FR 53596; October 6, 
1998). Additional occurrences have been detected within the historical 
geographic range of the taxon since 1998; however, it is likely that 
these occurrences existed at the time of listing and we are aware of 
them now because of increased survey efforts. Throughout this rule we 
refer to all occurrences as ``occupied at the time of listing'' 
regardless of whether the areas were documented before or after the 
taxon was listed.
    The majority of verified historical and extant occurrences of 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are found in the northern 
Coachella Valley, from just east of the community of Cabazon eastward 
to the dunes off Washington Street, in the city of Thousand Palms, 
north and west of the city of Indio, within approximately 3 miles (mi) 
(5 kilometers (km)) of Interstate 10 (Barrows 1987 (map); CNDDB 2011). 
Collections northeast of Desert Center in the Chuckwalla Valley, east 
of the Coachella Valley, were thought at the time of listing to 
represent disjunct occurrences of A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53598). 
However, these have since been determined to most likely be A. l. var. 
variabilis (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 1).
    Periodic surveys and observations indicate that the extent and 
success of germination events and surviving reproductive population 
sizes may differ widely from year to year, depending on climatic and 
environmental conditions (for example, Barrows 1987, pp. 1-2). 
Densities of standing plants can vary considerably among occurrences 
across the taxon's range in any given year. This makes meaningful 
assessment of total numbers of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
plants (that is, population size) difficult. Additionally, as discussed 
above, the number of standing plants at any given time is only a 
partial indication of population size because seeds can persist in the 
ground (seed bank) for a number of years (Sanders and Thomas Olsen 
Associates 1996, p. 3). The number of individuals present may also be 
underestimated if surveys are conducted at a time or place where aerial 
stems have died back and broken off leaving the root crown, which could 
be overlooked. The historical abundance of A. l. var. coachellae plants 
is unknown (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3).

Previous Federal Actions

    The following section summarizes the previous Federal actions since 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed as endangered on 
October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596); please refer to this final listing rule 
for a discussion of Federal actions that occurred prior to the taxon's 
listing.
    At the time of listing, we determined that designation of critical 
habitat was ``not prudent'' (63 FR 53596). On November 15, 2001, the 
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant 
Society (CNPS) filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Service challenging our ``not prudent'' determinations for 
eight plant taxa, including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
(Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, case number 01-cv-
2101 (S.D. Cal.)). A second lawsuit asserting the same challenge was 
filed on November 21, 2001, by the Building Industry Legal

[[Page 53229]]

Defense Foundation (Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. 
Norton, case number 01-cv-2145 (S.D. Cal.)). The parties in both cases 
agreed to remand the critical habitat determinations for the eight 
plant taxa at issue to the Service for reconsideration. On July 1, 
2002, the Court directed us to reconsider our not prudent determination 
and if we determined that designation was prudent, submit to the 
Federal Register for publication a proposed critical habitat 
designation for A. l. var. coachellae by November 30, 2004, and to 
submit to the Federal Register for publication a final rule designating 
critical habitat by November 30, 2005. The proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal 
Register on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468). The final rule designating 
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal 
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112).
    The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit on January 14, 
2009, claiming the Service failed to designate adequate critical 
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (CBD v. Kempthorne, 
case number ED-cv-09-0091 VAP(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.)). In a settlement 
agreement dated November 14, 2009, we agreed to reconsider the critical 
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae. The settlement requires 
the Service to submit a proposed revised critical habitat designation 
for A. l. var. coachellae to the Federal Register by August 18, 2011, 
and submit a final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal 
Register by February 14, 2013.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
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 the 
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 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to 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 be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, 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 critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) 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, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical or biological features which are essential to the 
conservation of the 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 on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an 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, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement to provide for a species' life-history processes, 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. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its 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 for 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 determine 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 the recovery plan for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or 
personal knowledge.

[[Page 53230]]

Climate Change and Critical Habitat
    ``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather 
statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), including 
the mean and variation of surface variables such as temperature, 
precipitation, and wind, whereas ``climate change'' refers to a change 
in the mean or variability or both of climate properties that persists 
for an extended period (typically decades or longer), whether due to 
natural processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur 
continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at an 
accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean 
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: A 
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North America 
and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia; an 
increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic 
since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in annual average 
temperature of more than 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) across the United States 
since 1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (GCCIUS) 
2009, p. 27). Examples of observed changes in the physical environment 
include: An increase in global average sea level; declines in mountain 
glaciers and average snow cover in both the northern and southern 
hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); substantial and accelerating 
reductions in Arctic sea-ice (e.g., Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1); and a 
variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the distribution of species, 
and the timing of seasonal events (e.g., GCCIUS 2009, pp. 79-88).
    The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and 
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of 
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century 
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and 
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing 
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is 
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and 
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there 
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most 
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will 
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will 
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis), 
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts 
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different 
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in 
similar projections of global temperature change across the different 
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
    All models (not just those involving climate change) have some 
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data 
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change 
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions 
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models. 
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios, 
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of 
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios, 
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will 
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more 
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions 
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of 
Arctic sea ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797), 
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a 
key influence on climate change, have been occurring at the mid- to 
higher levels of the various emissions scenarios developed in the late 
1990s and used by the IPPC for making projections (e.g., Raupach et al. 
2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Pielke et al. 2008, entire; Manning et al. 
2010, Figure 1, p. 377). Also, the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicate that average global surface air temperature is 
increasing and several climate-related changes are occurring and will 
continue for many decades even if emissions are stabilized soon (e.g., 
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412; 
Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
    Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect 
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats. 
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of 
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their 
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated 
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related 
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease 
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a 
species, occurring individually or in combination, may affect the 
status of a species. Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a 
function of sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes, 
and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). 
As described above, in evaluating the status of a species, the Service 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available, and this 
includes consideration of direct and indirect effects of climate 
change. As is the case with all potential threats, if a species is 
currently affected or is expected to be affected by one or more 
climate-related impacts, this does not necessarily mean the species is 
an endangered or threatened species as defined under the Act. If a 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, this knowledge regarding 
its vulnerability to, and impacts from, climate-associated changes in 
environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate 
strategies for its recovery.
    While projections from global climate model simulations are 
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific 
information available, various downscaling methods are being used to 
provide higher-resolution projections that are more relevant to the 
spatial scales used to assess impacts to a given species (see Glick et 
al., 2011, pp. 58-61). With regard to the area of analysis for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, downscaled projections are not 
available.
Critical Habitat Dynamics
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. 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

[[Page 53231]]

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 sections 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 at the time of listing to propose 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, or 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 essential 
for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae from studies of this 
taxon's habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the final listing rule published 
in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), and the 5-
year review for A. l. var. coachellae signed on September 1, 2009 
(Service 2009). We have determined that the following physical and 
biological features are essential to A. l. var. coachellae:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a limited distribution. 
Within its limited range, A. l. var. coachellae requires space for the 
natural fluvial and aeolian transport and deposition of the sandy 
substrates on which it grows. Protection of aeolian and fluvial 
processes is crucial to maintain habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. 
These processes are responsible for transporting and depositing sand 
that is the foundation of habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. 
Disturbance or curtailment of these processes can result in a lack of 
adequate amounts of sand to produce the different formations that 
support habitat (for example, active dunes and sand fields). Protecting 
aeolian sand transport corridors between A. l. var. coachellae 
occurrences is also important for the dispersal of the wind-blown 
fruits into temporally unoccupied habitat to reestablish reproductive 
occurrences (metapopulation structure). Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae is also dependent upon insect pollinators (Meinke et al. 
2007, p. 37). Protecting aeolian sand transport corridors also provides 
space for pollinator movement between occurrences, which is important 
for the long-term maintenance of occurrences. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify fluvial and aeolian sand transport and 
deposition processes, and aeolian sand transport corridors for seed 
dispersal and pollinator movement, to be physical or biological 
features for this taxon.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is primarily found on 
various types of sand formations including active sand dunes, 
stabilized or partially stabilized dunes, active sand fields, 
stabilized sand fields, shielded sand dunes and fields, ephemeral sand 
fields, and alluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active 
washes. Each of these sand deposit formations provides habitat for A. 
l. var. coachellae to varying degrees (see Habitat section above for 
further discussion of sand formations that support the taxon). The 
taxon also requires moving water and air to transport sand from sand 
source areas to occupied habitat areas as discussed above. Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae can be found in abundance on shielded sand 
fields, and the A. l. var. coachellae plants in these areas are 
important for the conservation of the taxon. However, we do not 
consider shielded habitat to contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the taxon, because these 
areas are permanently cut off from the sand transport system. Shielded 
areas, although they currently contain sand formations, will eventually 
lose these formations as the winds remove sand over time. Therefore, 
based on the information above, we identify the other above-mentioned 
sand formations to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
    The physiological and soil nutritional needs of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae are not known at this time. The taxon 
shows variation in productivity and life-history patterns that appear 
to coincide with local or temporal variations in precipitation (wetter 
years result in higher levels of seed germination (e.g., Barrows 1987, 
p. 2)) and across its range (plants in the northwestern portion of the 
range where rainfall is higher are more likely to grow larger and 
survive into their second year or longer (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 25)). 
However, the specific optimal soil moisture range for the taxon is 
unknown.
    Additionally, the taxon does not grow in some areas that appear to 
contain suitable habitat. For example, Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae grows on some portions of the alluvial sand deposits on 
floodplain terraces of Morongo Wash, but not others, and it does not 
grow in the bed of the wash when the bed is dry even though the bed 
contains sandy substrates (J. Avery, USFWS Biologist, pers. obs. 2004-
2009). These apparent inconsistencies may be due to microsite 
differences (such as nutrient availability, soil microflora or 
microfauna, soil texture, or moisture). Research is needed to determine 
the specific nutritional and physiological requirements of A. l. var. 
coachellae.
Sites for Reproduction
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae plants, like most plants, 
do not require areas for breeding or reproduction other than the areas 
they occupy and any area necessary for pollinators and seed dispersal. 
Reproduction sites accommodate all phases of the plant's life history. 
Seeds likely require certain soil conditions to germinate (for example, 
moisture and nutrient levels within a certain range, or close proximity 
to the soil surface), but as discussed above, we do not yet know what 
those requirements are. In addition, wind is important for the 
dispersal of the wind-blown fruits into temporally unoccupied habitat 
(metapopulation structure) of A. l. var. coachellae.
    The primary visitors of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
appear to be nonnative honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Meinke et al. 2007, 
p. 36). These bees appear to be flexible in their choice of nesting 
sites. For example, bee nests were found in discarded tires, in Tamarix 
spp. trees, and under a bridge near A. l. var. coachellae occurrences 
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 36).

[[Page 53232]]

    Native solitary bees, which may be the natural pollinators of 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, utilize several plant species 
as pollen and nectar sources (Karron 1987, p. 188). Maintaining 
adequate populations of these bees likely depends on the presence of a 
variety of native plant species in sufficient numbers within or near A. 
l. var. coachellae occurrences, as well as between A. l. var. 
coachellae occurrences, to facilitate gene flow between occurrences. We 
do not know, however, why native bees have not yet been observed 
pollinating A. l. var. coachellae. Until specific pollinators for A. l. 
var. coachellae are identified, we are unable to consider protection of 
their specific habitat explicitly via this critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify 
aeolian sand transport corridors for seed dispersal and pollinator 
movement to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Taxon
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is primarily found on loose 
aeolian (wind-transported) or fluvial (water-transported) sands that 
are located on dunes or sand fields, and along disturbed margins of 
sandy washes. Within active, stabilized, and ephemeral sand fields and 
dunes, A. l. var. coachellae tends to occur in coarse sands in the 
margins of dunes, but not in most active windswept sand areas 
(Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, pp. 9-27) (see Habitat section above 
for more detailed description of active and stabilized sand fields and 
dunes). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify 
substrate components and conditions suitable to support A. l. var. 
coachellae to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
    The sandy substrates that are suitable for Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae are dynamic in terms of spatial mobility and tendency 
to change back and forth from active to stabilized (Lancaster 1995, p. 
231). This has significant consequences for A. l. var. coachellae 
because the plant's population densities vary with different types of 
sandy substrates. Conserving the dynamics of the fluvial and aeolian 
sand transport processes is important for the conservation of A. l. 
var. coachellae because those dynamics create a variety of substrate 
types that support occurrences of the taxon.
    The dynamics of the sandy substrates in the Coachella Valley are 
controlled by two main factors: (1) The supply of sand-sized sediment 
released, transported, and deposited by the fluvial system (water-
transported); and (2) the rate of aeolian (wind-blown) transport 
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 4-8). The latter is affected primarily by 
wind fetch (the length of unobstructed area exposed to the wind).
    Most of the suitable sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley are 
generated from several drainage basins in the San Bernardino, Little 
San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills (Lancaster et 
al. 1993, pp. i-ii; Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 10). Sediment is eroded 
and washed from fluvial source areas (hill slopes and channels in the 
local hills and alluvial deposition areas in the Thousand Palms area 
(Unit 4)), and is transported downstream in stream channels and within 
alluvial fans during infrequent flood events (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 
7). Fluvial transport is the dominant mechanism that moves sediment 
into fluvial depositional areas in the Coachella Valley (Griffiths et 
al. 2002, p. 7). The largest depositional area in the Coachella Valley 
is in the Whitewater River floodplain, northwest of the City of Palm 
Springs (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). For sufficient fine-grained 
sands to reach the aeolian system on the valley floor and support 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, it is necessary to protect 
major fluvial channels that transport source sand from the surrounding 
drainage basins as well as bajadas and depositional areas. The 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP identifies the protection of the above-
mentioned essential ecological processes, including sand source/
transport systems, as a species conservation goal.
    The San Gorgonio Pass is between the two highest peaks in southern 
California: San Gorgonio Mountain (11,510 feet (ft) (3,508 meters (m))) 
to the north and San Jacinto Mountain (10,837 ft (3,303 m)) to the 
south. Westerly winds funneling through San Gorgonio Pass are the 
dominant mechanism by which aeolian sands are transported from bajadas 
and fluvial depositional areas to aeolian deposits in the Coachella 
Valley (Sharp and Saunders 1978, p. 12; Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 1). 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is associated with various 
types of sand formations that are formed by these aeolian deposits 
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3). In order to maintain 
adequate replenishment of sands into aeolian depositional areas, it is 
important that sand-transport corridors between fluvial and aeolian 
depositional areas remain unobstructed for wind passage. The strong 
wind energy in this region can also erode sands from wash margins and 
suitable A. l. var. coachellae habitat, temporally shifting A. l. var. 
coachellae habitat into other areas, and thereby allowing the taxon to 
be dispersed and to colonize new areas or recolonize previously 
occupied areas. As a result, it is also necessary to protect sufficient 
space to allow for these dynamic aeolian sand deposits to shift in 
their distribution.
Primary Constituent Elements for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in areas 
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary 
constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements (PCEs) 
to be the specific elements of physical or biological features that 
provide for a species' life-history processes 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 taxon's 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
element specific to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is:
    Sand formations associated with the sand transport system in 
Coachella Valley, which:
    (a) Include active sand dunes, stabilized or partially stabilized 
sand dunes, active or stabilized sand fields (including hummocks 
forming on leeward sides of shrubs), ephemeral sand fields or dunes, 
and fluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes.
    (b) Are found within the fluvial sand depositional areas, and the 
aeolian sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand 
transport system.
    (c) Are comprised of sand originating in fluvial sand source areas 
(unoccupied by the taxon at the time of listing) in the hills 
surrounding Coachella Valley, which is moved into the valley by water 
(fluvial transport) and through the valley by wind (aeolian transport).
    We consider the fluvial sand depositional areas and the aeolian 
sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand transport 
system described in (b) to be within the geographical area occupied by 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae at the time the taxon was 
listed, whereas the fluvial sand source areas referenced in (c) are 
considered to be outside the geographical area occupied by the taxon at 
the time of

[[Page 53233]]

listing. The sand formations provide substrate components and 
conditions suitable for growth. The aeolian sand transport corridor 
also provides space for seed dispersal and pollinator movement needed 
to maintain sand movement and genetic diversity of the taxon.

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 features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this taxon 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats: direct and indirect effects of urban and 
recreational (e.g., golf course) development, nonnative plant species, 
unauthorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) impacts, mining and other 
activities or structures that alter streamflow, and groundwater 
pumping.
Development
    The Coachella Valley continues to attract increasing human 
populations and associated urban development pressure. Urban and 
recreational development can impact Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae directly by converting suitable, often occupied, habitat to 
structures, infrastructure, landscaping, or other non-natural ground 
cover that does not support the growth of the taxon. Structures and 
landscaping can also impact A. l. var. coachellae habitat indirectly by 
altering local wind and fluvial regimes. Such alterations can result in 
degraded A. l. var. coachellae habitat downstream or downwind of 
developed areas by inhibiting the movement of loose, unconsolidated 
sands needed for the formation and maintenance of suitable habitat 
vital to the growth and reproduction of the taxon. If the sand 
transport system is altered, sand cannot move through the valley to 
replace sands lost from the system downstream/downwind as a result of 
ongoing fluvial and aeolian processes.
    Special management considerations or protection are needed within 
critical habitat areas to address the threats posed to Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by urban and recreational 
development. Management activities that could ameliorate these threats 
include, but are not limited to: Protection of lands that support 
suitable habitat and associated sand transport, and siting future 
development such that disruption of fluvial and aeolian sand transport 
processes is minimized and deposition areas are preserved. These 
management activities will protect the physical or biological features 
for the taxon by decreasing the direct loss of habitat to development 
and by helping to maintain the sand transport system and sand 
deposition areas that together provide the sand formations that are 
necessary components of A. l. var. coachellae habitat.
    Preserving large areas of suitable habitat with intact wind and 
depositional regimes and preserving areas vital to the maintenance of 
the sand transport system are important to prevent further habitat 
loss. Preserving a variety of different habitat types (e.g., sand 
dunes, sand fields) throughout the range of the taxon should help 
maintain the genetic and demographic diversity (individuals in 
different age classes at any given time) of Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae.
    Designing and orienting structures and landscaping such that they 
minimize the blockage of sand movement will also help to prevent the 
disruption of the sand transport system and further habitat loss. For 
example, orienting a building so that the face of the building is at an 
oblique angle with the prevailing wind direction may allow more sand to 
move around the building than would occur if the face of the building 
were at a right angle with the direction of sand movement. Planning 
development such that structures and landscaping are located outside of 
areas vital to sand transport will also help lessen the degradation of 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat.
Nonnative Plant Species
    Invasive nonnative plant species, such as Brassica tournefortii 
(Saharan mustard), Schismus barbatus (Mediterranean grass), and Salsola 
tragus (Russian-thistle), can impact Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae habitat by stabilizing loose sediments and reducing 
transport of sediment to downwind areas, thus making habitat unsuitable 
for A. l. var. coachellae. Additionally, Tamarix spp. (salt cedar) can 
create wind breaks in the aeolian transport system that can decrease 
the movement of sand through the valley. Dense cover of nonnative taxa 
may also impede the natural wind dispersal of the mature fruits of A. 
l. var. coachellae. This will curtail natural reproduction within a 
given site and natural dispersal to repopulate temporally unoccupied 
sites.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Active weeding of nonnative plant species and 
targeted herbicide application. These management activities will 
protect the physical or biological features for the taxon by helping to 
control nonnative plants, which can degrade Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae habitat.
Unauthorized Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Impacts
    Unauthorized OHV use may impact Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae habitat by making substrate conditions unsuitable for growth 
through the alteration of the fluvial sand transport system, changes in 
plant community composition, and disruption of the substrate, which can 
cause soils to lose moisture and may also impact soil microflora or 
microfauna (Service 2008, p. 8766). The native plant community 
associated with A. l. var. coachellae habitat allows for sand movement 
and does not inhibit dispersal. Disturbance from OHV use can affect the 
plant composition of the native plant community. Management activities 
that could ameliorate the threat of unauthorized OHV use include 
fencing and signage of habitat areas to assist in educating the public 
and engaging local authorities to improve the enforcement of laws 
prohibiting OHV trespass. Control of unauthorized OHV use in habitat 
occupied by A. l. var. coachellae has recently improved through 
increased local law enforcement in some areas, including lands managed 
by Bureau of Land Management (BLM), although it remains an issue on 
many privately owned lands.
Alteration of Stream Flow
    The construction and operation of water percolation ponds, sand and 
gravel mines, and, to a lesser degree, dikes and debris dams can 
negatively impact Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat if 
they prevent the fluvial transport of sand to habitat areas through 
diversion, channelization, or damming (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 13, 
23). For example, the percolation ponds constructed on BLM and 
Coachella Valley Water District lands in the Whitewater River 
floodplain have substantially altered the transport of sand to habitat 
areas downstream and downwind, resulting in the severe degradation of 
sand and loss of A. l. var. coachellae habitat in these areas 
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 6, 42).
    Management activities that could ameliorate the threats posed to 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by alteration of stream 
flow include, but are not limited to: Working with concerned parties to 
find and

[[Page 53234]]

implement alternatives that allow for the removal or reconfiguration of 
existing barriers to fluvial sand transport, restoring sand transport 
to a more natural state, and working with concerned parties to design 
and implement future projects to maximize conservation/restoration of 
natural sand transport. These management activities will protect the 
physical or biological features for the taxon by helping to maintain 
the sand transport system that provides the sand that constitutes A. l. 
var. coachellae habitat.
Groundwater Pumping
    Hummocks formed by Prosopis spp. (mesquite) and other shrubs 
contribute to the creation and stabilization of sand dunes and sand 
fields by anchoring dunes and making them less vulnerable to wind 
erosion. Wind-blown sand accumulates in areas where wind speed is 
reduced (by topographical features, rocks, shrubs, or other objects) 
near the ground (Fryberger and Ahlbrandt 1979, p. 440). The shrubs in 
the hummock help to stabilize and support sand deposits around the 
hummock, which support Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
occurrences and its sand dune and field habitat. The mesquite shrubs in 
the Banning Fault/Willow Hole area are senescent and appear to be 
dying, likely due to ongoing artificial lowering of groundwater levels 
in the sub-basin to provide water for human use (Mission Springs Water 
District 2008, p. 4-97). Similar mesquite hummocks that existed 
historically have already been lost in and near the Thousand Palms 
Reserve (in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area), likely due to 
groundwater withdrawals (based on water well log data, field 
observation, and aerial photos) (J. Avery, pers. obs. 2006). Loss of 
the anchoring mesquite shrubs will lead to the loss of the associated 
hummocks over time by the erosion of sand deposits, therefore affecting 
A. l. var. coachellae habitat created or maintained by the trapping of 
sand.
    Management activities that could ameliorate the threats posed to 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by groundwater pumping 
include, but are not limited to: Subsurface irrigation of existing 
mesquite plants, and the planting, restoring, and irrigating of 
mesquite in areas where groundwater levels have fallen and caused the 
degradation or loss of the mesquite plants that hold sand in place, and 
which will ultimately result in the loss of the taxon's essential 
substrate. These management activities will protect the physical or 
biological features for A. l. var. coachellae by helping to maintain 
much of the extant mesquite hummocks within the range of the taxon and 
by restoring an undetermined acreage of historical mesquite hummocks 
that maintain (or will maintain) portions of A. l. var. coachellae 
habitat.
    In summary, threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
habitat include urban and recreational development, nonnative plant 
species, OHV impacts, alteration of stream flow, and groundwater 
pumping. We find that the occupied areas proposed as revised critical 
habitat contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of A. l. var. coachellae, and that these features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, 
or reduce to a negligible level, the threats affecting each unit or 
subunit and to preserve and maintain the essential features that the 
proposed critical habitat units and subunits provide to A. l. var. 
coachellae. Additional discussions of threats facing individual sites 
are provided in the individual unit descriptions in the Proposed 
Critical Habitat Designation section below.
    The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands 
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. For example, 
drainage areas that provide source material for the aeolian sand in the 
habitat (fluvial sand source areas) are necessary for the survival of 
this taxon.

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 review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements 
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing 
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating 
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those 
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We relied on information in articles in 
peer-reviewed journals, the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, survey reports 
and other unpublished materials, and expert opinion or personal 
knowledge. We also used the model developed by the Coachella Valley 
Mountains Conservancy to help identify A. lentiginosus var. coachellae 
habitat (CVMC 2004). Finally, we used information from the proposed (69 
FR 74468; December 14, 2004) and final (70 FR 74112; December 14, 2005) 
critical habitat rules, the 5-year status review that was signed on 
September 1, 2009 (Service 2009), and other information in our files. 
We are proposing to designate revised critical habitat in areas within 
the geographical area occupied by A. l. var. coachellae at the time of 
listing in 1998. We are also proposing to designate specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of 
listing, because such areas support sand transport processes that are 
vital to maintaining suitable habitat, and therefore are essential for 
the conservation of the taxon.
    Suitable habitat may be occupied by the taxon even if no plants 
appear above-ground. Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
populations can survive drought periods through dormant seeds (seed 
bank) and root crowns, and as a consequence, the number of above-ground 
plants at any given time is only a limited temporal indication of 
population size (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 39). It is not known how long 
A. l. var. coachellae seeds may remain viable, but studies on A. l. 
var. micans demonstrate that buried seeds may remain viable for at 
least 8 years (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 31). Therefore, we also 
considered areas as occupied where suitable habitat did not contain 
above-ground individuals, but likely contain seed banks and dormant 
root crowns of A. l. var. coachellae.
    Unoccupied areas that provide for the fluvial transport of sand 
from fluvial sand source areas to fluvial depositional areas occupied 
by Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are also proposed for 
designation. These areas are essential for the conservation of A. l. 
var. coachellae because they maintain A. l. var. coachellae habitat 
(see criteria numbers 4, 5, and 6 below).
    We defined the boundaries of each unit based on the criteria below:
Occupied Areas
    (1) Potential suitable habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae was first identified using areas included in the Coachella 
Valley Mountains Conservancy (CVMC) species distribution model for the 
taxon (CVMC 2004). The CVMC model was developed using survey data for 
A. l. var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data 
2001), habitat variables, and expert opinion, and was created to assist 
in the design of preserves and to evaluate the potential benefits of 
the (then) proposed Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP for the plant (CVMC 
2004). Environmental variables associated with A. l. var.

[[Page 53235]]

coachellae occurrence locations were identified and maps containing 
those variables were combined with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 
land use and habitat data to create the model. Eight types of habitats 
were used in the model: (1) Margins of active dunes, (2) active 
shielded desert dunes, (3) stabilized desert dunes, (4) stabilized sand 
fields, (5) stabilized shielded sand fields, (6) ephemeral sand fields, 
(7) active sand fields, and (8) mesquite hummocks. The habitat types 
used to create the model represented conditions that result from the 
dynamic process of sand movement in the Coachella Valley floor; these 
habitat types are found in fluvial sand depositional areas and aeolian 
sand source, transport, and depositional areas (see Habitat section 
above for a detailed discussion of these habitat types). During our 
analysis for the 2005 critical habitat designation for A. l. var. 
coachellae, we reviewed the validity of the environmental variables 
used to create the model with occurrence data and information about the 
plant's ecology. We found documentation of A. l. var. coachellae 
occurrences in all of the natural communities used to create the model, 
and concluded that the model was reasonably capable of identifying 
suitable habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. We mapped the modeled 
habitat using GIS software, and refined the map to only include areas 
that we believe either contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the taxon or are otherwise essential 
for the conservation of the taxon.
    (2) We analyzed lands covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, 
and determined that A. l. var. coachellae habitat within the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas sufficiently provides for the 
conservation of the taxon within areas covered by the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP (Conservation Areas are a group of specific areas in which 
the bulk of the habitat conservation mandated by the HCP is to take 
place). We have determined that the modeled A. l. var. coachellae 
habitat outside of the Conservation Areas does not contain the physical 
or biological features considered essential to the conservation of the 
taxon, nor are these areas otherwise essential for the conservation of 
the taxon because these areas exist as small, disjunct patches, other 
larger areas where sand transport has been blocked, or they do not 
contain documented occurrences of the taxon.
    The modeled Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat areas 
that are covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP and are within the 
Conservation Areas are connected to the fluvial portion of the sand 
transport system. Each element of the PCE can be found in these areas 
(fluvial sand transport within Conservation Areas is discussed below). 
Modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat areas that are covered by the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP but are outside of the Conservation Areas 
may contain some elements of the PCE, but for reasons discussed above 
we do not consider these areas to meet the definition of critical 
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. Therefore, in areas covered by the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, we have confined the proposed critical 
habitat to lands that are within the Conservation Areas.
    (3) We added areas that are not covered under the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP, but have been determined by biologists familiar with the 
taxon, its habitat, and its distribution, to contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon (see 
Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat section 
below for further discussion regarding these areas). The biologists 
used aerial map coverages, Service GIS data, and personal knowledge to 
determine these areas.
Unoccupied Areas
    We determined that designating only those areas occupied at the 
time of listing (also identified as the occupied depositional areas and 
intervening areas needed for aeolian sand transport, seed dispersal, 
and pollinator movement) would not sufficiently provide for the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, because 
fluvial transport of sand from hills (fluvial sand source areas) into 
occupied areas is vital to the maintenance of habitat for the taxon. It 
will be impossible to conserve or recover this taxon if fluvial sand 
transport processes are lost; therefore, we determined that fluvial 
sand transport areas should be proposed for inclusion in the critical 
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae regardless of the fact 
that these areas are outside the geographical area occupied by A. l. 
var. coachellae at the time the species was listed. We used the 
following steps to determine which portions of the fluvial sand 
transport system are essential for the conservation of A. l. var. 
coachellae:
    (4) Based on studies of the geomorphological processes of sediment 
movement in the Coachella Valley by Lancaster et al. (1993) and 
Griffiths et al. (2002), we identified and mapped drainage basins that 
provide sediment for the four major sand transport systems in the 
Coachella Valley (San Gorgonio/Snow Creek, Whitewater River, Mission 
Creek/Morongo Wash, and Thousand Palms). Based on Griffiths et al. 
(2002, p. 10), the drainages in eastern San Bernardino, western Little 
San Bernardino Mountains, northern San Jacinto Mountains, and Indio 
Hills that contribute sediment to the Coachella Valley include the: San 
Gorgonio River; Whitewater River; Snow Canyon; San Jacinto 1 and 2; 
Stubbes Canyon; Cottonwood Canyon; Garnet Wash; Mission Creek; Dry 
Morongo; lower Little Morongo Creek; lower Big Morongo south of Morongo 
Valley; and drainages in the southern flank of Indio Hills west of 
Thousand Palms Canyon. We used GIS data obtained from Peter Griffiths 
(United States Geological Survey 2002) to determine drainage 
boundaries. We used these drainage boundaries to ensure we did not 
include portions of stream channels that did not contribute sediment to 
occupied areas.
    (5) We then used aerial imagery to determine where the main stream 
channels conveying sand to the fluvial depositional areas (San Gorgonio 
River, Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Mission Creek, and Morongo Wash) 
are located, and used our GIS software to draw polygons that define the 
extent of these streams. Griffiths et al. (2002) found that very little 
of the sand reaching the valley floor areas originates from portions of 
the mountain drainages where the ground slope is less than 10 percent. 
We considered only the lower reaches of main stream channels (fluvial 
sand transport areas) that receive sediment from source areas in the 
surrounding mountains and hills and convey that sediment to the fluvial 
depositional areas on the valley floor essential for the conservation 
of the taxon. These channels have upstream portions and numerous 
tributaries within areas with 10 percent slope or greater (sand source 
areas); therefore, we believe there is enough redundancy among these 
tributaries and the areas that they drain that only the lower reaches 
of main stream channels (where ground slope is less than 10 percent) 
are essential for the conservation of the taxon. If the lower reaches 
of any of the main stream channels are lost, sand transport to portions 
of the occupied A. l. var. coachellae habitat downstream and downwind 
will be lost as well. Using GIS data, we determined where the ground 
slopes of the main stream channels become greater than 10 percent. We 
believe that where the main streams exceed 10 percent slope, they too 
become redundant with the numerous tributaries and washes

[[Page 53236]]

feeding into them. Therefore, we have only identified those fluvial 
sand transport areas as essential for the conservation of the taxon 
where portions of the main stream channels have a slope of less than 10 
percent.
    (6) The occupied areas in the Thousand Palms area (proposed Unit 4) 
depend on large flooding events to wash sands stored in channels on 
alluvial fans to the north at the base of the Indio Hills (fluvial sand 
source areas) southward into fluvial depositional areas where the sand 
can be moved by aeolian processes. Therefore, in the Thousand Palms 
area, we used aerial imagery to determine the extent of the alluvial 
fans where the sand is stored, and used our GIS software to create a 
GIS polygon to encompass this area.
    In this proposed revised critical habitat designation for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, we selected areas based on the 
best scientific data available that possess those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon and that 
may require special management considerations or protection, and other 
areas essential for the conservation of the plant. When determining 
proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid 
including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, 
and other hard structures because such lands lack physical or 
biological features for A. l. var. coachellae. 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 proposed revised rule have been 
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for 
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is 
finalized as proposed, 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 would 
affect adjacent critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we 
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential to the conservation of the taxon, and lands 
outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that 
we have determined are essential for the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed 
revision to the critical habitat rule for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae published on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). In cases where 
we have new information or information that was not available for the 
previous designation, we are proposing changes to the critical habitat 
designation for A. l. var. coachellae to ensure that this rule reflects 
the best scientific data available. We modified our description of the 
primary constituent elements and the criteria used to identify critical 
habitat, which resulted in modification of the boundaries of previously 
proposed critical habitat units to more accurately reflect areas that 
include the features that are essential to the conservation of A. l. 
var. coachellae. The Secretary will also consider whether to exercise 
his discretion to exclude specific areas from the final designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, including reconsidering areas 
excluded in the prior designation; we are seeking public comment 
regarding this matter (see Public Comments section of this rule). 
Finally, we divided what was previously Unit 1 (Whitewater River 
System) into two units (Unit 1--San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System, 
and Unit 2--Whitewater River System) to more accurately reflect the 
structure of the sand transport system in the Coachella Valley; these 
changes are outlined in Table 1 below.

   Table 1--Unit Number and Name Changes From the 2005 Critical Habitat Designation to This Proposed Rule, and
                                            Reasons for Name Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Previous unit No.               Previous unit name          New unit No.            New unit name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1...............................  Whitewater River System  Unit 1.................  San Gorgonio River/Snow
                                                                                          Creek System.
                                                                Unit 2.................  Whitewater River
                                                                                          System.
Unit 2...............................  Mission Creek/Morongo    Unit 3.................  Mission Creek/Morongo
                                        Wash System.                                      Wash System.
Unit 3...............................  Thousand Palms System..  Unit 4.................  Thousand Palms System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes in Designation Process

    In the 2004 proposed critical habitat rule for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae (69 FR 74468, December 14, 2004), we 
determined that 20,559 acres (ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) were essential 
to the conservation of the taxon. In that proposed rule, we excluded 
16,976 ac (6,870 ha) from the designation. In the 2005 final critical 
habitat rule (70 FR 74112, December 14, 2005), we identified 17,746 ac 
(7,182 ha) as containing features essential to the conservation of A. 
l. var. coachellae. Of this area, we excluded 14,091 ac (5,703 ha) 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on their coverage under 
the draft Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and removed 3,655 ac (1,480 ha) 
of Service Refuge and BLM lands from the designation because we 
determined that these lands did not meet the definition of critical 
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because these lands already 
received special management considerations due to their inclusion and 
management within the Coachella Valley Preserve System under the 
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard HCP. The final 2005 critical 
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae was 0 ac.
    In this 2011 revised critical habitat proposal, we determined that 
25,704 ac (10,402 ha) meet the definition of critical habitat; this 
entire area is being proposed as critical habitat for the taxon. The 
footprint of lands deemed essential in 2005 is very similar to the 
footprint of the current proposal; however, the 2005 essential lands 
did not include fluvial sand transport areas or any lands outside of 
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas. This 2011 proposal 
includes fluvial sand transport areas as well as Tribal areas and areas 
in the City of Desert Hot Springs that are outside of the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas.
    In the 2011 proposal we made the following specific changes, based 
on the best available scientific and commercial information:
    (1) We refined the primary constituent elements (PCEs) for clarity 
and to more accurately define the physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae.

[[Page 53237]]

    (2) We have proposed unoccupied areas we believe are essential for 
the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae. These areas consist of lower 
reaches of main channels (fluvial sand transport areas) that move the 
sands necessary for A. l. var. coachellae habitat from fluvial sand 
source areas in the surrounding hills and mountains to the depositional 
areas on the floor of the Coachella Valley. These areas were identified 
as important in the 2004 proposed critical habitat designation (69 FR 
74473; December 14, 2004), but were not proposed for inclusion in the 
critical habitat designation at that time, and were not included in the 
final designation because they are not occupied, they do not contain 
suitable habitat, and because the (then draft) Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP was proposing to protect sand source areas in a way that was 
anticipated to benefit the taxon (70 FR 74122; December 14, 2005). 
After reconsidering the best available information, we now consider 
these unoccupied areas to be essential for the conservation of the 
taxon.
    (3) We revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat based 
on the best scientific and commercial data currently available, and re-
evaluated all lands within the taxon's range (including tribal lands 
and lands within the City of Desert Hot Springs, which is not currently 
a permittee under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP) in light of this 
best available information. As a result, some areas are included in 
this proposed rule that were not identified as containing the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of A. l. var. 
coachellae in the 2005 critical habitat designation. As in 2005, we 
determined that of the lands covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP, only lands within the Conservation Areas contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon. We 
outline the steps that were used to identify and delineate the areas 
that we are proposing as critical habitat in this revised proposed 
critical habitat designation compared to the 2005 critical habitat 
designation in order to ensure that the public better understands why 
the areas are being proposed as critical habitat (see the Criteria Used 
to Identify Critical Habitat section).
    (4) In the 2004 proposed rule and the 2005 final rule, we excluded 
or did not include areas under sections 4(b)(2) or 3(5)(A) of the Act, 
respectively, within the planning boundaries for the (then draft) 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP and areas covered under the Coachella 
Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard HCP (which has since been subsumed by the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and effectively no longer exists) (see the 
discussion above for the specific areas previously excluded or not 
included). We note that the Service does not now interpret the 
definition of critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) of the Act) to mean 
that areas receiving protection or management do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. In this proposed rule, we are 
considering for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act the areas 
covered under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP that we believe meet the 
definition of critical habitat (see the Habitat Conservation Plan 
Lands--Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section). Exclusions 
that may occur in the final rule resulting from this proposed rule 
could differ from the exclusions made in the 2005 critical habitat 
designation.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing four units as critical habitat for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae. The critical habitat areas we describe 
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. The four 
areas we propose as critical habitat are the San Gorgonio/Snow Creek 
system (Unit 1), the Whitewater River system (Unit 2), the Mission 
Creek/Morongo Wash fluvial system (Unit 3), and the Thousand Palms 
system (Unit 4). Each of these units consists of fluvial sand transport 
areas, which are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, and occupied 
areas (i.e., fluvial and aeolian depositional areas, as well as aeolian 
sand source areas and aeolian sand transport areas). The two types of 
areas are intimately associated in time and space. The approximate area 
of each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 53238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.011


[[Page 53239]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.012

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae, 
below.

Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System

    Unit 1 consists of 1,149 ac (465 ha) of Federal land, 164 ac (66 
ha) of State land, 95 ac (38 ha) of local government-owned land, 1,791 
ac (725 ha) of private land, 316 ac (128 ha) of tribal land, and 39 ac 
(16 ha) of water district land in the

[[Page 53240]]

Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Within Unit 1, 158 ac (64 ha) are 
part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, however, Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a covered species under this plan. 
Unit 1 contains approximately 1,039 ac (420 ha) of unoccupied fluvial 
sand transport area associated with the San Gorgonio River and Snow 
Creek drainages. The remainder of Unit 1 consists of approximately 
2,515 ac (1,018 ha) of occupied suitable habitat extending 
approximately from the eastern edge of the community of Cabazon to just 
west of Whitewater River, and is approximately bound by State Route 111 
to the north, and the foot of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. 
In total, Unit 1 consists of 3,553 ac (1,438 ha) of land.
    Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active 
washes associated with San Gorgonio River and Snow Creek, which carry 
substrates created by fluvial erosion of the surrounding hills to 
occupied fluvial deposition areas in Unit 1 on the valley floor 
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 1 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including 
active sand dunes, sand fields, and stabilized and partially stabilized 
sand fields that provide substrate components and conditions suitable 
for the growth of A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 
2007, Table 10-1a), and areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand 
transport can occur.
    The occupied areas in Unit 1 meet the definition of critical 
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the taxon. These features may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonnative, invasive plants and unauthorized OHV activity in the 
occupied areas and threats from alteration of stream flow that impact 
habitat in the occupied areas. Please see the Special Management 
Considerations or Protection section of this proposed rule for a 
discussion of the threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
habitat and potential management considerations.
    The unoccupied areas in Unit 1 are essential for the conservation 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain habitat 
within the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area identified by the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core Habitat 
areas for A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, p. 9-21), 
and because they contain portions of the San Gorgonio River and Snow 
Creek that support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to the 
transport and deposition of sand that provides the foundation of 
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae in the occupied areas of Unit 1, and 
these fluvial sand transport areas support the westernmost occurrences 
of the taxon. Because of their geographic location, these plants and 
their habitat receive more rainfall than occurrences and suitable 
habitat farther east, which allows many individuals to survive more 
than 1 year, grow larger, and produce more seed, all of which promote 
the stability and reduce the chance of extirpation of the occurrences 
in this unit (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 33). Also, due to strong winds 
moving through this area from the west to east, the occupied habitat in 
Unit 1 likely acts as a source of seed (and hence, a source of genetic 
diversity) for areas of suitable habitat to the southeast (Meinke et 
al. 2007, p. 40). Unit 1 likely also contributes to the maintenance of 
genetic diversity in other occupied areas through the movement of 
pollinators (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 37).

Unit 2: Whitewater River System

    Unit 2 consists of 1,941 ac (786 ha) of Federal land, 20 ac (8 ha) 
of State land, 328 ac (133 ha) of local government-owned land, 1,286 ac 
(520 ha) of private land, 580 ac (235 ha) of tribal land, and 3,143 ac 
(1,272 ha) of water district land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside 
County. Unit 2 contains approximately 954 ac (386 ha) of unoccupied 
fluvial sand transport areas associated with the Whitewater River 
watershed. The remainder of Unit 2 consists of approximately 6,344 ac 
(2,567 ha) of occupied suitable habitat and is approximately bound by 
State Route 111 to the west, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north 
and east, and dense urban development in the cities of Palm Springs and 
Cathedral City to the south. In total, Unit 2 consists of 7,298 ac 
(2,953 ha) of land.
    Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active 
washes associated with Whitewater River, which carry substrates created 
by fluvial erosion of the surrounding hills (fluvial sand source areas) 
to occupied fluvial deposition areas in Unit 2 on the valley floor 
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 2 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including 
active and ephemeral sand fields, and stabilized and partially 
stabilized sand fields that provide substrate components and conditions 
suitable for the growth of A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a), and areas over which unobstructed 
aeolian sand transport can occur.
    The occupied areas in Unit 2 meet the definition of critical 
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in Unit 2 may 
require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats from nonnative plants, urban development, alteration of stream 
flow, unauthorized OHV activity in the occupied depositional areas, and 
threats from alteration of stream flow that impact habitat in occupied 
areas. Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection 
section of this proposed rule for a discussion of the threats to 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat and potential 
management considerations.
    The unoccupied areas in Unit 2 are essential for the conservation 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain Core 
Habitat within the Whitewater Floodplain Habitat Area, identified by 
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core 
Habitat areas for A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, 
p. 9-21); because they contain portions of the Whitewater River that 
support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to transport and 
deposit sand that provides the foundation of habitat for A. l. var. 
coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of Unit 2; and because 
they serve as a corridor between the habitat and occurrences to the 
west in Unit 1 and the habitat and occurrences to the east in Unit 3. 
Although Unit 2 does not serve as a substantial source of aeolian sand 
to Unit 3 relative to the onsite fluvial sand transport areas in Unit 3 
(Mission Creek and Morongo Wash), it may serve as a corridor for gene 
flow by means of pollen and seed dispersal between Units 1, 2, and 3 
due to dispersal of seeds from Unit 1 into Unit 2 and from Unit 2 into 
Unit 3 combined with movement of pollinators among the three units 
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 37).

Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System

    Unit 3 consists of 501 ac (203 ha) of Federal land, 199 ac (81 ha) 
of State land, 1,541 ac (624 ha) of local government-owned land, 5,275 
ac (2,135 ha) of private land, and 288 ac (117 ha) of water district 
land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Unit 3 contains 
approximately 2,722 ac (1,101 ha) of mostly unoccupied fluvial sand

[[Page 53241]]

transport area associated with the Mission Creek watershed and a 
portion of the Morongo Wash watershed (sand deposits on the floodplain 
terraces of Morongo Wash south of Pierson Boulevard support occurrences 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae). The remainder of Unit 3 
consists of approximately 5,083 ac (2,057 ha) of occupied habitat and 
includes sand deposits on the floodplain terraces of Morongo Wash south 
of Pierson Boulevard, and fluvial depositional areas and aeolian 
transport and depositional areas approximately bound (clockwise from 
the western boundary) by Little Morongo Road, 18th Avenue, Palm Drive, 
20th Avenue, Artesia Road, and Mihalyo Road, in or near the City of 
Desert Hot Springs. In total, Unit 3 consists of 7,805 ac (3,158 ha) of 
land.
    Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active 
washes associated with Mission Creek and Morongo Wash (north of Pierson 
Boulevard), which carry substrates created by fluvial erosion of the 
surrounding hills (fluvial sand source areas) to occupied fluvial 
deposition areas in Unit 3 on the valley floor (Griffiths et al. 2002, 
pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 3 contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae including stabilized and partially 
stabilized sand dunes, active and ephemeral sand fields, stabilized and 
partially stabilized sand fields, and mesquite hummocks that provide 
substrate components and conditions suitable for the growth of A. l. 
var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a). The 
fluvial sand deposits on the floodplain terraces in certain areas of 
Morongo Wash also provide substrate components and conditions suitable 
for growth of A. l. var. coachellae and support occurrences of the 
taxon. Unit 3 also contains areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand 
transport can occur.
    The occupied areas in Unit 3 meet the definition of critical 
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in Unit 3 may 
require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats from nonnative plants, urban development, alteration of stream 
flow, OHV use in the occupied depositional floodplain terrace areas, 
and threats from alteration of stream flow that impact habitat in 
occupied areas. Please see the Special Management Considerations or 
Protection section of this proposed rule for a discussion of the 
threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat and 
potential management considerations.
    The unoccupied areas in Unit 3 are essential for the conservation 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain habitat 
within the Willow Hole Conservation Area identified by the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core Habitat areas for 
A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, pp. 9-21--9-22), 
because they contain portions of Mission Creek and Morongo Wash that 
support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to transport and 
deposit sand that provides the foundation of habitat for A. l. var. 
coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of Unit 3, and because 
they support the northernmost extent of the taxon's range and large 
occurrences containing high densities of the taxon. Each of these 
factors contributes to the overall genetic diversity of A. l. var. 
coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 35) and the maintenance of genetic 
diversity via the movement of seeds and pollinators (Meinke et al. 
2007, p. 37). The large numbers of individuals also likely contribute 
numerous seeds to the soil seed bank. Unit 3 also contains the only 
area where A. l. var. coachellae is known to occur in large numbers on 
floodplain terraces of an active wash (Morongo Wash).

Unit 4: Thousand Palms System

    Unit 4 consists of 3,667 ac (1,484 ha) of Federal land, 1,698 ac 
(687 ha) of State land, 279 ac (113 ha) of local government-owned land, 
1,247 ac (505 ha) of private land, and 157 ac (63 ha) of water district 
land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Unit 4 contains 
approximately 2,146 ac (868 ha) of unoccupied fluvial sand source and 
alluvial sand deposition areas associated with drainages originating in 
the Indio Hills. The remainder of Unit 4 consists of approximately 
4,902 ac (1,984 ha) of occupied habitat area in the Thousand Palms 
Preserve along Ramon Road. In total, Unit 4 consists of 7,048 ac (2,852 
ha) of land.
    Unoccupied fluvial sand source and alluvial sand deposition areas 
in this unit contain active ephemeral washes that carry substrates from 
alluvial deposition areas (sand source areas) in Unit 4 to alluvial fan 
areas where they can be transported to occupied habitat areas via wind 
(Lancaster et al. 1993, p. 28). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 4 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including 
active dunes, active sand fields, and mesquite hummocks that provide 
substrate components and conditions suitable for the growth of A. l. 
var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a), and 
areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand transport can occur.
    The occupied areas in Unit 4 meet the definition of critical 
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in the 
occupied portion of Unit 4 may require special management 
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plants. 
According to Meinke et al. (2007, p. 18), this area supports 
infestations of Brassica tournefortii; researchers observed thousands 
of acres of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat inundated 
with dense populations of this nonnative species. Existing suburban 
development may require active management measures (for example, 
collection of sand from developed areas for redistribution within the 
wind movement corridor). The expansion of new urban development in sand 
source areas is also a threat to occupied habitat in this unit that may 
require special management considerations or protection, as are 
unauthorized OHV activity and a proposed flood control project that 
could disrupt or permanently destroy the sand transport system in the 
Thousand Palms area by diverting drainages that provide sand to 
occupied areas during large flooding events. Please see the Special 
Management Considerations or Protection section of this proposed rule 
for a discussion of the threats to A. l. var. coachellae habitat and 
potential management considerations.
    The unoccupied areas in Unit 4 are essential for the conservation 
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain the 
Thousand Palms Habitat Area identified by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP Planning Team as one of four areas of Core Habitat for A. l. var. 
coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, p. 9-22), and because they 
contain alluvial sand deposits that serve as sand source for occupied 
areas of Unit 4 and that support the fluvial and aeolian sand transport 
processes crucial to transport sediment that provides the foundation of 
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of 
Unit 4. Unit 4 is also essential because it supports occurrences 
containing large numbers of the taxon that contribute to the overall 
genetic diversity of A. l. var. coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 35), 
and because it is located in the southeasternmost portion of the 
taxon's range that is hydrologically independent and physically 
isolated from the other

[[Page 53242]]

units. As such, this unit is important to help buffer excessive losses 
in other parts of the range.

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 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 5th and 9th 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, 442 (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 continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. 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 may affect, and 
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 and/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 sometimes may 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 Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to 
support life-history needs of the taxon and provide for the 
conservation of the taxon.
    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.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. These 
activities include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would interrupt the fluvial or aeolian transport 
of sand to depositional areas occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
    (2) Actions that would damage or kill plants that trap sand, 
thereby creating unsuitable habitat (such as hummocks that contain 
Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana) for A. l. var. coachellae.
    (3) Actions such as channelization of waterways, which could 
decrease the sediment load of those waterways and thus decrease the 
amount or the deposition location of sand entering the sand transport 
system.
    (4) Actions that contribute to the introduction or proliferation of 
nonnative plants, such as Saharan mustard, which may compete with A. l. 
var. coachellae for resources and interfere with the movement of sand.
    (5) Actions such as development and landscaping that convert 
suitable A. l. var. coachellae habitat to groundcover that does not 
support the taxon.
    (6) Actions such as OHV use that cause sufficient alteration of 
substrates supporting A. l. var. coachellae occurrences to make the 
habitat unsuitable to support the taxon.

[[Page 53243]]

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3)(B) 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
    (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 proposed 
critical habitat designation and as a result no lands are being 
exempted under section 4(a)(3) 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, are 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 considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we 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 the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    When identifying 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 identifying 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.
    In the case of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, the 
benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of A. l. var. 
coachellae presence and the importance of habitat protection, and in 
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for A. 
l. var. coachellae due to the protection from adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result 
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate 
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat Units 1-4 are 
appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of 
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of 
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise his discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation.
    We are currently considering excluding the following areas from the 
critical habitat designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 
coachellae under section 4(b)(2) of the Act: tribal lands in Units 1 
and 2, lands in all four units that are covered under the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs (if the 
City is added to the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP permit before we 
finalize the critical habitat designation).
    We are considering excluding these areas because we believe that 
they are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant factor'' 
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we specifically 
solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas. In the 
paragraphs below, we provide information we will consider in our

[[Page 53244]]

analysis of the potential exclusion of these or other lands under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are not considering for exclusion any 
areas within the Western Riverside County MSHCP (all occur within Unit 
1) because Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a covered 
species under the plan.
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 are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    An analysis of the economic impacts for our previous proposed 
critical habitat designation was conducted and made available to the 
public on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56434). This economic analysis was 
finalized for the final rule to designate critical habitat for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae as published in the Federal 
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). The previous economic 
analysis found potential economic impacts of the designation to include 
administrative costs associated with engaging in section 7 
consultations, and project modification costs associated with 
management efforts taken to protect the taxon or its habitat. The 
potential economic impacts were expected to affect the following 
sectors: Residential and commercial development, flood control, water 
supply, energy development, public lands management, and 
transportation. After excluding land from the proposed critical 
habitat, the economic impact was estimated to be $7.78 million in 
undiscounted dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a 3 
percent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20 
years. Based on the 2005 economic analysis, we concluded that the 
designation of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae, as proposed 
in 2004, would not result in impacts to small businesses or the energy 
industry. This analysis is presented in the notice of availability for 
the economic analysis as published in the Federal Register on September 
27, 2005 (70 FR 56434).
    We will announce the availability of the current draft economic 
analysis on this revised designation of critical habitat as soon as it 
is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At 
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for 
downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During the development of a final 
critical habitat designation, we will consider economic impacts, public 
comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the 
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
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 proposal, we 
determined that there are no lands within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat that are owned or managed by the DOD, and, therefore, 
we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, the 
Secretary does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas 
from the final designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    Table 3 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that 
meet the definition of critical habitat that we are considering for 
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 
critical habitat rule.

                        Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Area considered for exclusion
               Unit                      Basis for exclusion     --------------------------------   Percent of
                                                                        ac              ha          unit total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1............................  Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.           2,089             845              59
                                    Tribal Lands (Morongo)......             316             128               9
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                       Unit 1 Total.............           2,405             973              68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2............................  Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.           4,777           1,933              65
                                    Tribal Lands (Agua Caliente)             580             235               8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                       Unit 2 Total.............           5,357           2,168              73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3............................  Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.           5,515           2,232              71
                                    City of Desert Hot Springs..           1,788             724              23
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                       Unit 3 Total.............           7,303           2,956              94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4............................  Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.           3,381           1,368              48
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          18,446           7,465              72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53245]]

Tribal Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    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); 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 better managed under tribal 
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation 
wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe 
that, in most cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat 
provides very little additional benefit to endangered and threatened 
species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as 
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance, thus 
compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to 
achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon 
which the viability of endangered and threatened species populations 
depend. We will take into consideration our partnerships and existing 
conservation actions that tribes have or are currently implementing 
when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final revised critical 
habitat designation. If the Secretary decides to exercise his 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering lands 
covered by the tribes identified below for possible exclusion from 
final critical habitat.
    We are considering the exclusion of 316 ac (128 ha) of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat proposed in Unit 1 under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act on tribal lands that are owned or managed by the 
Morongo Band of Mission Indians (formerly the Morongo Band of Cahuilla 
Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation), and 580 ac (235 ha) of A. 
l. var. coachellae habitat proposed in Unit 2 that are owned or managed 
by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente 
Indian Reservation (Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians) on the 
basis of our partnership with these tribes and their ongoing 
conservation and wildlife management efforts. The Morongo Band of 
Mission Indians has not completed a management plan that specifically 
provides for conservation of A. l. var. coachellae on their lands. The 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has been working with our office 
on developing a draft HCP that includes conservation measures for A. l. 
var. coachellae. Although the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
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), they are continuing to implement the draft HCP and will 
continue to protect and manage natural resources within their 
jurisdiction (ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We are seeking public comment 
regarding whether the conservation needs of A. l. var. coachellae can 
be achieved by limiting the designation to non-tribal lands and the 
appropriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of these lands from the 
final revised critical habitat designation (see Public Comments 
section).

Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act

    When evaluating a current land management or conservation plan 
(HCPs as well as other types) and the habitat management or protection 
it provides, we consider the following factors:
    (1) Whether the plan is complete and provides the same or better 
level of protection from adverse modification or destruction than that 
provided through a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
    (2) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations; and
    (3) Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    Habitat conservation plans often cover a wide range of species, 
including listed plant species and species that are not State or 
federally listed and would otherwise receive little protection from 
development. Many HCPs take years to develop, and upon completion, are 
consistent with recovery objectives for listed species that are covered 
within the plan area. Many HCPs also provide conservation benefits to 
listed and unlisted sensitive species through conservation measures and 
management and preservation of land in perpetuity.
    The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs that cover 
listed plant species from critical habitat designation include 
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional 
regulatory burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. A related 
benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from critical 
habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability it gives us to 
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. By excluding lands with 
approved HCPs, we preserve the integrity of our current partnerships 
and encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
    Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is a covered species under 
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. The Secretary is considering 
exercising his discretion to exclude lands covered by this plan 
(including lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs, which are not 
covered presently by the HCP, but which we expect to be added to the 
HCP in the near future; continued consideration for exclusion from this 
designation is contingent upon Desert Hot Springs becoming a permittee 
under the HCP). In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the 
stakeholders in this HCP and from the public on lands that the 
Secretary should consider for exclusion from the final designation of 
critical habitat. Below is a brief description of the lands proposed as 
critical habitat covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.

Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella 
Valley MSHCP)

    The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP is a large-scale, multi-
jurisdictional habitat conservation plan encompassing about 1.1 million 
ac (445,156 ha) in the Coachella Valley of central Riverside County. 
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP is also a ``Subregional Plan'' under 
the State of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning 
(NCCP) Act, as amended. An additional 69,000 ac (27,923 ha) of tribal 
reservation lands distributed within the plan area boundary are not 
included in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. The Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP addresses 27 listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' 
including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. On October 1, 2008, 
the Service issued a single incidental take permit (TE-104604-0) under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees under the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP for a period of 75 years. Participants in the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP include eight cities (Cathedral City, 
Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, 
and Rancho Mirage); the County of Riverside, including the

[[Page 53246]]

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 
Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and Riverside County 
Waste Management District; the Coachella Valley Association of 
Governments; Coachella Valley Water District; Imperial Irrigation 
District; California Department of Transportation; California State 
Parks; Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy; and the Coachella Valley 
Conservation Commission (the created joint powers regional authority). 
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP was designed to establish a multiple-
species habitat conservation program that minimizes and mitigates the 
expected loss of habitat and incidental take of covered species, 
including A. l. var. coachellae (USFWS 2008, pp. 1-207, and Appendix A, 
pp. 10-50).
    The permit covers incidental take resulting from habitat loss and 
disturbance associated with urban development and other proposed 
covered activities. These activities include public and private 
development within the plan area that requires discretionary and 
ministerial actions by permittees subject to consistency with the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP policies. An associated Management and 
Monitoring Program is also included in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 
and identifies specific management actions for the conservation of 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.
    Approximately 36,398 ac (14,730 ha) of modeled habitat for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae occurs in the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP Plan Area (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, pp. 9-25). 
Under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, approximately 15,706 ac (6,356 
ha) of modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat will be lost to 
development. To mitigate this loss, the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 
will preserve 7,176 ac (2,904 ha) of modeled habitat for the taxon in 
perpetuity. Another 4,497 ac (1,820 ha) are anticipated to be conserved 
through complementary and cooperative efforts by Federal and State 
agencies and non-governmental organizations. Additionally, 7,707 ac 
(3,118 ha) of A. l. var. coachellae modeled habitat within the Plan 
Area were preserved prior to completion of the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP (acres which coincidentally occur on three Coachella Valley 
fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) reserves in the Coachella Valley 
Preserve System). These lands and the 11,650 ac (4,715 ha) of lands yet 
to be conserved under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP will total 19,357 
ac (7,833 ha) of A. l. var. coachellae modeled habitat within the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Reserve System. As habitat areas are 
acquired under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, they are legally 
protected within the Reserve System and the direct impacts of 
development are precluded. This protection, as well as implementation 
of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and management 
and monitoring programs identified in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, 
will reduce impacts to this taxon compared to what would have occurred 
otherwise.
    We are considering the exclusion of lands covered by the Coachella 
Valley MSHCP/NCCP from the critical habitat designation to preserve the 
integrity of our partnerships with the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 
permittees and because of the protections afforded to the taxon and its 
habitat by the HCP, which may provide protection whether or not a 
Federal nexus exists and, therefore, may provide greater protection to 
the taxon and its habitat than critical habitat designation, especially 
on non-Federal lands (Unit 1: 2,089 ac (845 ha); Unit 2: 4,777 ac 
(1,933 ha); Unit 3: 7,303 ac (2,956 ha); Unit 4: 3,381 ac (1,368 ha); 
see Table 3 above). These lands include 1,788 ac (724 ha) of land in 
the City of Desert Hot Springs, which is not presently a permittee 
under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, but which may be added to the 
HCP before we finalize this revised critical habitat designation.
    Consistent with the terms of the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 
Implementing Agreement, the Secretary is considering exercising his 
discretion to exclude 17,550 ac (7,102 ha) of Astragalus lentiginosus 
var. coachellae habitat on permittee-owned or controlled land in Units 
1, 2, 3, and 4 that meet the definition of critical habitat for A. l. 
var. coachellae within the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. The 1998 final listing rule for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae attributed the primary threat from present 
or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat 
or to urban development, development of wind energy parks, and 
degradation by off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (63 FR 53598; October 6, 
1998). The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP helps to address these threats 
through a regional planning effort, and outlines specific objectives 
and criteria for the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae. We intend 
to exclude critical habitat from areas covered by the Coachella Valley 
MSHCP/NCCP based on the protections outlined above and per the 
provisions laid out in the Implementing Agreement, to the extent 
consistent with the requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage 
any public comment in relation to our consideration of the areas in 
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 for inclusion or exclusion (see Public Comments 
section above).

Peer Review

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

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings 
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, 
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

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 proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its 
determination upon the following four criteria:
    (1) 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.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.

[[Page 53247]]

    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) 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 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
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.
    At this time, we lack the updated and complete economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the 
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We 
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
    An analysis of the economic impacts for our previous proposed 
critical habitat designation was conducted and made available to the 
public on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56434). This economic analysis was 
finalized for the final rule to designate critical habitat for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. During that previous proposed 
rulemaking process, we certified that the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that the 
proposed rule did not meet the criteria under SBREFA as a major rule. 
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not required. 
In summary, we reasoned that probable future land uses in a subset of 
the areas proposed for designation were expected to have a Federal 
nexus or require section 7 consultation (for example, development 
projects or projects that alter stream flow). We determined that the 
most likely Federal involvement would be associated with activities 
involving Federal Highways Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Land Management, and that 
the critical habitat designation might result in project modifications 
when proposed Federal activities would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. We concluded that, while this might occur, it was not 
expected frequently enough to affect a substantial number of small 
entities, and even when it did occur, it was not expected to result in 
a significant economic impact because we expected that most proposed 
projects, with or without modification, could be implemented in such a 
way as to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat, as the measures 
included in reasonable and prudent alternatives must be economically 
feasible and consistent with the proposed action.
    This economic analysis was finalized for the final rule to 
designate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 
as published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 
74112). The previous economic analysis found potential economic impacts 
of the designation to include administrative costs associated with 
engaging in section 7 consultations, and project modification costs 
associated with management efforts taken to protect the taxon or its 
habitat. The potential economic impacts were expected to affect the 
following sectors: residential and commercial development, flood 
control, water supply, energy development, public lands management, and 
transportation. After excluding land from the proposed critical 
habitat, the economic impact was estimated to be $7.78 million in 
undiscounted dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a 3 
percent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20 
years. Based on the 2005 economic analysis, we concluded that the 
designation of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae, as proposed 
in 2004, would not result in impacts to small businesses or the energy 
industry. This analysis is presented in the notice of availability for 
the economic analysis as published in the Federal Register on September 
27, 2005 (70 FR 56434).
    We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion 
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on 
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for 
public comment.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. We do not expect this action to significantly affect 
energy supplies, distribution, or use because, based on the economic 
analysis performed for the previous designation, we do not anticipate 
that designation of the areas proposed as critical habitat for 
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae will impact the energy 
industry. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would 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 ``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

[[Page 53248]]

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 would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because this proposed rule would not 
substantially change the impacts associated with current management 
guidelines within Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP areas. Therefore, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and 
revise this assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings 
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or 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. Due to current public knowledge of the species 
protections both within and outside of the proposed areas, we do not 
anticipate that property values would be affected by the critical 
habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed the economic 
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is 
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as 
warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 
proposed 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 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas 
currently occupied by Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae may 
impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in 
place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and 
local governments and their activities. The designation may have some 
benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
taxon are more clearly defined, the elements of the features of the 
habitat necessary to the conservation of the taxon are specifically 
identified, and the areas that are otherwise essential for the 
conservation of the taxon are also identified. This information does 
not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. 
However, it may assist 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 proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions to define the 
critical habitat boundaries and identifies the elements of physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae within the proposed areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the taxon.

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.). This rule would 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 U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (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 position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the

[[Page 53249]]

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

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 recognized Federal 
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 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 are currently coordinating with affected tribes regarding this 
proposed critical habitat designation, and have included tribal lands 
in this revised proposal. We are requesting public comment on the 
appropriateness of including or excluding these lands in the final 
rule. We will continue to coordinate with the tribal governments during 
the designation process.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
    2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by revising the entry for ``Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae'' under ``Flowering Plants'' in the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

    3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by revising the entry for ``Astragalus 
lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley Milk-Vetch)'' under 
Family Fabaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Fabaceae: Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella 
Valley milk-vetch)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside County, 
California, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of A. l. 
var. coachellae consists of
    (i) Sand formations associated with the sand transport system in 
Coachella Valley, which
    (A) Include active sand dunes, stabilized or partially stabilized 
sand dunes, active or stabilized sand fields (including hummocks 
forming on leeward sides of shrubs), ephemeral sand fields or dunes, 
and fluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes.
    (B) Are found within the fluvial sand depositional areas, and the 
aeolian sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand 
transport system.
    (C) Are comprised of sand originating in fluvial sand source areas 
(unoccupied by the taxon at the time of listing) in the hills 
surrounding Coachella Valley, which is moved into the valley by water 
(fluvial transport) and through the valley by wind (aeolian transport).
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing 
(such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) 
and the land on which they are located existing within the legal 
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps. 
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse 
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Astragalus 
lentiginosus var.

[[Page 53250]]

coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.013


[[Page 53251]]


    (6) Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System, Riverside County, 
California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1: San Gorgonio 
River/Snow Creek System, Riverside County, California].
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System, 
Riverside County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.014


[[Page 53252]]


    (7) Unit 2: Whitewater River System, Riverside County, California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2: Whitewater River 
System, Riverside County, California]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2: Whitewater River System, Riverside 
County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.015


[[Page 53253]]


    (8) Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System, Riverside County, 
California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3: Mission Creek/
Morongo Wash System, Riverside County, California]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System, 
Riverside County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.016


[[Page 53254]]


    (9) Unit 4: Thousand Palms System, Riverside County, California.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4: Thousand Palms 
System, Riverside County, California]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 4: Thousand Palms System, Riverside County, 
California follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.017

* * * * *

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-21442 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C