53224 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 email 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 shortlived 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 twochambered 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 selfpollination, 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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 milkvetch), 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 nonFederal 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 °F (1.1 °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 midto 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 finegrained 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 abovementioned 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53234 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 aboveground 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 aboveground 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53236 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 Wash System .................... Unit 3 ................. Mission Creek/Morongo 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53238 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53239 

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 governmentowned 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.012</GPH>
53240 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 governmentowned 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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-togovernment 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

Unit Basis for exclusion 

Area considered for exclusion Percent of unit 

total ac ha 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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-togovernment 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53246 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 nongovernmental 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 offhighway 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53248 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) A 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 caseby-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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species Historic 

range Family Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Astragalus lentiginosus 

var. coachellae.

Coachella Valley milkvetch.U.S.A. (CA) ................. Fabaceae ......... E 647 17.96(a) NA 

*******

3. Amend § 17.96(a) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae (Coachella Valley MilkVetch)’’ under Family Fabaceae to read 

as follows: 

§ 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53250 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

coachellae (Coachella Valley milkvetch) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.014</GPH>
53252 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.016</GPH>
53254 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 

* * * * * 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP25AU11.017</GPH>