[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32857-32875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0019; MO9221050083]
RIN 1018-AV91


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Casey's 
June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as Endangered and Designation of Critical 
Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act and propose to designate approximately 777 acres 
(ac) (314 hectares (ha)) of land as critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle in south Palm Springs, Riverside County, California. This 
species inhabits desert chaparral plant communities associated with 
gently sloping, depositional surfaces formed at the base of the Santa 
Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley region. This proposed rule, if 
made final, would implement Federal protection provided by the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
September 8, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT August 
24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS- R8-ES-2009-0019]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. 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 Field Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone: 760-431-9440; 
facsimile: 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal 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 suggestions on this proposed rule from the public, tribes, other 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested parties. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Any available information on known or suspected threats and 
proposed or ongoing projects with the potential to threaten Casey's 
June beetle, specifically: (a) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (e) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence;
    (2) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there 
are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can 
be expected to increase due to the designation, and

[[Page 32858]]

whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation, 
such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of this species;
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts resulting from the proposed critical habitat designation and, 
in particular, any impacts to small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;
    (6) The proposed designation of tribal lands owned by the Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in light of 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); and
    (7) 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.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include 
sufficient information with your comment to allow us to verify any 
scientific or commercial data you submit.
    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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed listing of Casey's June beetle as endangered and proposed 
designation of critical habitat. For more detailed information on the 
taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Casey's June beetle, please refer to 
the 90-day finding on the petition to list the species under the Act, 
published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44960), and 
the 12-month finding, published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2007 
(72 FR 36635). These documents are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.

Species Information

Life History and Habitat

    Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) was first collected in the 
City of Palm Springs, California, in 1916 and later described by 
Blaisdell (1930, pp. 174-176) based on male specimens. This species 
measures 0.55 to 0.71 inch (in) (1.4 to 1.8 centimeters (cm)) long, 
with dusty brown or whitish coloring, and brown and cream longitudinal 
stripes on the elytra (wing covers and back).
    Casey's June beetles emerge from underground burrows sometime 
between late March and early June, with abundance peaks generally 
occurring in April and May (Duff 1990, p. 3; Barrows 1998, p. 1). 
Females are always observed on the ground and are considered flightless 
(Duff 1990, p. 4; Hovore 1995, p. 7; Hovore 2003, p. 3). It is unknown 
how far females can disperse, or if they may disperse by other than 
terrestrial crawling (such as incidental movement by birds). Flightless 
adult June beetles are not likely to be dispersed by the wind or larger 
animals. It is likely adult or larval females are moved by water flow 
in wash areas, although it is unclear what their survival rate is under 
such circumstances. Females display an accentuated sexual dimorphism 
characterized by an enlarged abdomen, reduced legs and antennae, and 
metathoracic wing reduction and venation. During the active flight 
season, males emerge from the ground and begin flying near dusk (Hovore 
2003, p. 3). Males are reported to fly back and forth or crawl on the 
ground where a female beetle has been detected (Duff 1990, p. 3). After 
mating, females return to their burrows or dig a new burrow and deposit 
eggs. Excavations of adult emergence burrows revealed pupal exuviae 
(casings) at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 6 in (10 to 16 cm) 
(Hovore 1995, p. 6).
    The larval cycle for the species is likely 1 year, based on the 
absence of larvae (grubs) in burrows during the adult flight season (La 
Rue 2004, p. 1). The food source for Casey's June beetle larvae while 
underground is unknown, but other species of June beetles are known to 
eat ``plant roots or plant detritus and associated decay organisms'' 
(La Rue 2004, p.1).
    La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that all Dinacoma species populations are 
ecologically associated with alluvial sediments. Casey's June beetle 
habitat is typically associated with broad, gently sloping, 
depositional surfaces that form at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains 
in the dry Coachella Valley region by the overlapping or converging of 
individual alluvial fans (bajada) (Bates and Jackson 1987, p. 52).
    Casey's June beetle is most commonly associated with Carsitas 
gravelly sand series soil (CdC), described by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA on-line Geographic Information System 
(GIS) database 2000; USDA 1980, pp. 11-12) as gravelly sand on 0 to 9 
percent slopes. This soil series is associated with alluvial fans, 
rather than areas of aeolian or windblown sand deposits. Hovore (2003, 
p. 2) described soils where Casey's June beetle occurs or occurred 
historically as, ``* * * almost entirely carsitas series, of a CdC 
type, typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly effervescent, 
moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky, non-plastic, deposited 
on 0 to 9 percent slopes. On alluvial terraces and where they occur 
within washes, these soils show light braiding and some organic 
deposition, but [most years] do not receive scouring surface flows.'' 
Although Casey's June beetles have primarily been found on CdC soils, 
the beetles are also associated with Riverwash (RA), and possibly 
Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC), soils in the Palm Canyon Wash area 
(Anderson and Love 2007, p. 1). Their burrowing habits would suggest 
that Casey's June beetles need soils that are not too rocky or 
compacted and not difficult to burrow into.

Species Distribution and Status

    Casey's June beetle distribution is confined to an area of less 
than 800 acres (324 hectares (ha)) in southern Palm Springs, 
California. According to information reported in the 12-month finding 
(72 FR 36635: July 5, 2007), known occurrences of Casey's June

[[Page 32859]]

beetles are restricted to locations within the Palm Canyon alluvial 
floodplain. Additional information on the species' distribution was 
brought to our attention following the publication of our 12-month 
finding. Surveys conducted by Bruyea in 2006 discovered a total of 13 
individual Casey's June beetles at a new location east and south of 
Palm Canyon Wash, adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive. This location, 
not known to us at the time of the publication of our 12-month finding, 
represents a slight eastern extension for the known range of the 
species (Bruyea 2006, p. 10).
    We consider all known occurrences of Casey's June beetle to 
constitute a single population based on currently available data. 
However, additional studies are needed to confirm this assumption. 
Casey's June beetle population status is represented by a small 
population that has exhibited a significant decline in its habitat and 
distribution. Unfortunately, no empirical information is available to 
determine the finite rate of population change for Casey's June beetle. 
However, small, declining, and peripheral (disjunct or connected) 
populations are more vulnerable to demographic, genetic, and 
environmental stochastic events and natural catastrophes. Genetic 
stochastic events can further influence population demography via 
inbreeding depression and genetic drift. In a seminal work, Allee 
(1931) suggested small, single populations disappear when opportunities 
for reproduction dissipate because of reduced opportunity to find each 
other (Allee effect or depensation). Stephens et al. (1999, pp. 185-
190) and Dennis (2002, pp. 389-401) suggest comparable definitions 
indicating that the Allee effect is a density-dependent event that is 
inversely related to population size. Courchamp et al. (2008, pp. 160-
170) further notes that habitat loss and fragmentation may exacerbate 
Allee effects by further decreasing the size or density of small 
populations. Although no empirical information is available to 
determine the rate of population change for Casey's June beetle, the 
population has decreased over the past 10 years, even when locations of 
new sightings of scattered individuals are considered.
    For the purposes of determining current range in relation to our 
proposed critical habitat designation, we assume all suitable habitat 
areas are occupied adjacent to and between areas where Casey's June 
beetles have been detected. We determined this assumption is reasonable 
based on the presence of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) in 
these areas and the dispersal capabilities of males during flight 
season, with reasonable potential for male movement throughout all 
suitable habitat areas.
    For more information about the distribution and historic range of 
the species, please refer to the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635; July 5, 
2007).

Previous Federal Action

    This proposed listing with critical habitat is in response to our 
warranted but precluded 12-month finding that was published in the 
Federal Register on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36635). For more information on 
previous Federal actions related to Casey's June beetle, please refer 
to our July 5, 2007, 12-month finding.
    Casey's June beetle was precluded from listing in our July 5, 2007, 
finding (72 FR 36635) because of the lack of funding for the large 
number of candidate species. In Fiscal Year 2007, we had more than 120 
species with a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2, based on our 
September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate 
species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assigned each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a 
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant 
portion of the range)). The lower the LPN, the higher the listing 
priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest 
listing priority). Because of the large number of high-priority 
species, we further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by 
using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union 
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list 
status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat 
rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 
50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the 
highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank 
(G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), 
and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 
populations, comprised a list of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have the highest priority to 
receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. Casey's 
June beetle, composed of one biological population, ranked as 
critically endangered (G1), and with substantial threats, was included 
in the Top 40. Although funding was not available at the time of the 
12-month finding, we subsequently received funding for development of a 
proposed listing rule for this Top 40 species.

Proposed Listing of Casey's June Beetle

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to Federal Lists of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors are: (a) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (e) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.

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

    Casey's June beetle is part of a family of beetles that have 
naturally restricted ranges (LaRue 2006, p. 1). This beetle is adapted 
to specialized habitat and soil types found in the Palm Canyon Wash 
area of Palm Springs, California. We do not know the exact historical 
range of Casey's June beetle due to general location descriptions from 
early collection records (see discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR 
44962; August 8, 2006)). Based on this anecdotal information, we used 
soils data as the principle component to estimate that 97 percent of 
the historical range of Casey's June beetle has been converted to 
development. Of the 777 ac (314 ha) of land remaining as extant 
habitat, 343 ac (139 ha) are tribal lands and 323 ac (131 ha) are in 
private ownership. Tribal land consists of approximately 86 ac (35 ha) 
in tribal trust, 67 ac (28 ha) in fee-title, and 193 ac (78 ha) in 
allotment. The remaining 14 percent (111 ac (45 ha)) is owned by local 
entities (City of Palm Springs and County Flood Control) for roads, 
flood control, and water facilities. All tribal lands are at risk of 
development, as are any undeveloped portions of the lands owned by 
local governments and private landowners.

[[Page 32860]]

    The population of the City of Palm Springs has increased from 
42,805 to 47,251 between 2000 and 2008, an increase of 10 percent (CDF 
2008, Table 1, Table E-1). The city is predicted to grow by 25 percent 
between 2000 and 2020 (SCAG 2004, table 2004GF). The current growth 
rate has increased development pressure for residential and commercial 
property that encroaches upon Casey's June beetle habitat.
    We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from 
2003 to 2007 to determine habitat impacts of completed and pending 
projects as cited in the petition and referenced in the July 5, 2007, 
12-month finding (72 FR 36635). We were unable to identify all projects 
cited in the petition (and the 90-day finding; 71 FR 44962, August 8, 
2006), as the petitioners did not provide specific geographic 
descriptions, and the extent of area of proposed development projects 
cited did not exactly match calculations in our most recent analysis. 
However, based on site visits and digital aerial photographs, we 
identified at least seven projects that removed or impacted occupied 
and likely occupied habitat, within the distribution described above, 
in the past 5 years. The Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail 
adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal lands) impacted approximately 39 
acres (16 ha) of occupied habitat. Impacts to Casey's June beetle were 
expected to be mitigated by payment of $600 per acre ($240 per ha) 
(total of $24,780) to the City of Palm Springs or a habitat 
conservation entity designated by the City for 41 ac (17 ha) of 
``potential'' Casey's June beetle habitat (Dudek and Associates 2001, 
p. 24). However, to our knowledge, no appropriate habitat has yet been 
conserved for Casey's June beetle to offset the Monte Sereno project 
impacts (Dudek and Associates 2001, p. 24).
    In 2006, the City of Palm Springs issued a mitigated negative 
declaration for Smoke Tree Ranch Cottages (City of Palm Springs 2006, 
p. 2) (``Casitas'' development cited in the 90-day finding (71 FR 
44960; August 8, 2006)), finding ``no significant impact'' to Casey's 
June beetle. However, at least 7 ac (3 ha) of occupied habitat was 
proposed for development (Cornett 2004, pp. 18-27). The Smoke Tree 
Commons shopping center impacted approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of habitat 
for Casey's June beetle. The project's Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR) stated that the City of Palm Springs was responsible for 
enforcing and monitoring Casey's June beetle mitigation measures prior 
to issuing a grading permit to the developer, including recording a 
conservation easement and developing a management plan for Casey's June 
beetle on conserved habitat (Pacific Municipal Consultants 2005, p. 9). 
A conservation easement was established; however, a management plan was 
not drafted prior to issuance of the grading permit, and monitoring and 
management activities for Casey's June beetle are not assured (Ewing 
2007, p. 1).
    The other four projects identified that removed or impacted 
occupied and likely occupied habitat are: (1) The 2-ac (1-ha) Desert 
Water Agency wells and pipeline project in the Smoke Tree Ranch 
development; (2) the 34-ac (14-ha) Alta project north of Acanto Drive 
and west of Palm Canyon Wash on tribal lands; (3) the 24-ac (10-ha) 
Estancias subdivision north of Acanto Drive; and (4) the 3-ac (1-ha) 
Palm Canyon project at South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon Drive. 
These seven projects resulted in the loss of, or impacts to, 
approximately 126-ac (51-ha) of occupied and likely occupied Casey's 
June beetle habitat from 2003 to 2008. An additional 5 ac (2 ha) of 
Casey's June beetle habitat has been impacted by small projects (for 
example, single home lots, pipeline development). Hovore (2003, p. 4) 
hypothesized that the destruction and isolation of occupied habitat 
caused by the Monte Sereno and Alta projects in 2003 ``* * * overall 
may reduce the known range and extant population of [Casey's June 
beetle] by about one third.''
    We conducted an analysis for the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635) 
that used available digital aerial photographs at intervals from 1991 
to 2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-2) and 2006 field surveys 
(Anderson 2006b, pp. 1-36), which determined that Casey's June beetle 
experienced an approximate 25 percent reduction in contiguous habitat 
from 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in 2006. Since 2006, 
new biological surveys and information have been provided to us that 
results in a larger area that we now consider as occupied habitat. With 
this new information and 2008 digital aerial photographs, we determined 
that there was approximately 1,001 ac (405 ha) of habitat in 1991. 
Therefore, our new analysis shows that Casey's June beetle has 
experienced approximately 22 percent reduction in habitat from 1,001 ac 
(405 ha) in 1991 to 777 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our updated calculations 
account for these additional acres and reveal that habitat was lost at 
a rate of 1.6 percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 
percent per year from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year 
from 2003 to 2005, and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 
2008. The rate of habitat loss could be accelerated as remaining 
parcels of habitat are developed or impacted in blocks; thus, any or 
all remaining habitat could be developed/lost or impacted within a 
given year.
    Since publication of the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 
36635), the City of Palm Springs completed the California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process for the 80- to 100-ac 
(32- to 40-ha) Eagle Canyon residential development project planned on 
tribal lands (Davis 2007, p. 1; Park 2007, p. 1) in the area containing 
CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon Drive near Bogert Trail and Acanto 
Drive (tentative tract number 30047) (City of Palm Springs 2008, p. 
14). Our analysis (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3) indicates that this 
project may alter the drainage system maintaining soil moisture levels 
in approximately 54 ac (22 ha) by disrupting the water source 
maintaining suitable soil moisture levels and directly impacting CdC 
soils likely to be occupied. This in turn could potentially decrease 
the 777 ac (314 ha) of remaining extant, suitable habitat by 7 percent. 
Limited surveys conducted on the Eagle Canyon project, where occupancy 
was previously documented, were inconclusive in determining the 
likelihood of current habitat occupancy (Osborne 2008b, p. 3).
    Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey's June 
beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy following severe flood 
events (Cornett 2004, p. 14; Hovore 2003, p.11). Of the total 777 ac 
(314 ha) estimated remaining habitat, only 523 ac (212 ha) is upland 
habitat (approximately 6 ac (2.4 ha) of this upland habitat is proposed 
to be impacted by the Eagle Canyon project). Upland habitat refers to 
any upland terrace area that is outside of the wash and does not occur 
on Riverwash (RA) soils. According to the Coachella Valley General Plan 
data (Riverside County 2005), all remaining upland habitat within Smoke 
Tree Ranch and on tribal land north of Acanto Drive is projected to be 
developed at a density of two homes per acre (0.8 per ha) by the year 
2020, even though some parcels are designated as parks and recreation 
in the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 = ``1145'') and are presently 
developed with three homes per acre (1.2 per ha). Undeveloped habitat 
on tribal land south of Acanto Drive has the same initial land use 
designation as adjacent land north of Acanto Drive (LU93 = ``3100'') 
(Riverside County 2005, pp. 94-120) in the East Bogert Trail area, 
except that it

[[Page 32861]]

is outside the city limit of Palm Springs (code GP2020 = ``58''). Some 
of these lands are developed at a density of one home or more per acre 
(0.4 per ha). Code GP2020 = ``58'' is designated as tribal land or open 
space in the General Plan. However, lands in this area with this 
designation have been developed at a density as high as three homes per 
acre, indicating that planning designations on tribal land do not 
ensure the final land use. Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) 
indicate most of the 523 ac (212 ha) of remaining upland Casey's June 
beetle habitat (where the species would not be exposed to scouring 
floods) could be eliminated by development.
    Development is the greatest threat to habitat in upland CdC soils 
that are believed to support Casey's June beetle; however, development 
threats are not limited to upland terrace habitat. For example, entire 
sections of Palm Canyon Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry 
Trail have been converted to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 
2007, p. 3). La Rue (2006, p. 2) emphasized the magnitude of 
development threats to Dinacoma spp. population survival: ``Most 
Dinacoma [spp.] have experienced range reduction because of 
unprecedented habitat destruction and modification for recreational, 
residential and urban development resulting in serious distributional 
fragmentation throughout [their] former already naturally limited 
ranges. Consequently, several populations [of the genus Dinacoma] have 
been extirpated, especially those that once existed in Los Angeles 
County (for example, Glendale, Eaton Canyon).'' Therefore, habitat 
modification for recreational, residential, and urban development 
reduces an already limited range for Casey's June beetle and poses a 
substantial threat to this species' survival.
    However, we note that although undeveloped and undisturbed lands 
are essential to the survival of Casey's June beetle, Smoke Tree Ranch 
represents the largest remaining habitat patch and largest occurrence 
of the species, and may represent a community where the spatial scale 
of human disturbance or fragmentation can coexist with this species' 
occupancy, as Hanski (Hanski et al. 2005, pp. 21-28) models for 
butterflies, and others identify with neutral models (Doak et al. 1992, 
pp. 315-336; With and Crist 1995, pp. 2446-2459). Although Smoke Tree 
Ranch represents the largest known remaining habitat patch, Allee 
effects as a function of fragmentation may be expressed on this segment 
of the population (Courchamp et al. 2008, pp. 160-170).
    In addition to the threat of direct conversion of remaining 
habitat, analysis of 2008 aerial photography in Palm Canyon Wash 
indicates numerous land-disturbance activities affecting occupied wash 
habitat managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District. In the vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge 
and Araby Drive, there appears to be road maintenance and flood control 
activities, as well as unregulated off-road vehicle disturbance. 
Cornett (2003, p. 12) noted similar off-road vehicle (ORV) impacts 
during Casey's June beetle surveys on a nearby site adjacent to 
Whitewater Wash and the Palm Springs Airport. Off-road vehicles impact 
desert soils and associated biota by increasing erosion (Snyder et al. 
1976, pp. 29-30; Rowlands 1980, p. 169), reducing both plant and 
vertebrate diversity (Bury et al. 1977, Table 4, Figure 6; Rowlands 
1980, pp. 63-74; Lathrop 1983, pp. 153-166; Cornett 2004, p. 15), and 
changing soil density through compaction, which may also influence soil 
water retention capacity (Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, pp. 144-145; Webb 
1983, pp. 51-79, Adams et al. 1982, pp. 167-175). Indirect evidence 
suggests that land disturbance impacts the species' burrows and larvae 
that occur in the soil and the flightless females when they rest at the 
top of the burrows (Cornett 2004, p. 15). Any activities that cause 
direct adult mortality, compact or disturb soils when adult beetles are 
active, or affect soils to a depth where immature stages or resting 
adults are found, may affect the species' persistence in those areas or 
dispersal to adjacent areas. Land practices that disc the soil as a 
means of fire prevention or control may also impact habitat, as well as 
frequent use for horseback riding by local riding clubs. Therefore, 
land disturbance activities pose a significant threat to species' 
survival.
    Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly 
fragmented by development in recent years (see above development 
discussion). Continued fragmentation of already limited, remnant 
habitat compromises the ability of various species to disperse and 
establish new, or augment declining, populations (Collinge 2000, p. 
2211-2226; Freemark 2002, pp. 58-83; Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 182-
194) and can isolate segments of a population (Picket and White 1986, 
pp. 189-192). Isolated population segments lead to increased chances of 
extirpation by stochastic events, and elimination of dispersal areas 
that would have provided for population expansion (Hanski et al. 1995, 
pp. 21-28; Collinge pp. 2000, 2211-2226). This process, as it applies 
to Casey's June beetle, is evident in the development history of the 
City of Palm Springs and the distribution of populations (Cornett 2004, 
pp. 11, 14). Casey's June beetle is especially impacted by habitat 
fragmentation because females are flightless and unable to move between 
fragmented patches (Hovore 1995, p. 7). Although male beetles can move 
between habitat patches, thereby maintaining genetic mixing on a local 
scale, fragmented patches that no longer support any female Casey's 
June beetles may be attractive sinks to male beetles. The risk of local 
extinction is widely noted to increase as the fraction of occupied 
habitat patches, occupied patch area, and density of occupied patches 
decrease (Foreman and Godron, 1989, 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; 
Hanski et al. 1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).
    Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated population movement would be ``slow 
and indirect,'' and suggested the population structure for Casey's June 
beetle in any given area could be described as multiple mini-colonies 
or ``clusters of individuals around areas of repeated female 
emergence.'' Females located in habitat edge patches may be most at-
risk due to their placement in the landscape. This would, in Hovore's 
(2003, p. 4) assessment, make the species ``susceptible to extirpation 
resulting from land use changes that would remove or alter surface 
features'' that isolate colonies into non-contiguous patches. Although 
fragmentation of habitat within a population still allows mixing of 
genes by male flight, it would preclude recolonization of a site should 
all flightless female individuals be eliminated. Fragmentation of 
suitable habitat into smaller patches increases the amount of habitat 
edge and, therefore, increases the risk of colony loss and decreases 
the probability of species' survival.
Summary of Factor A
    Twenty-two percent (193 ac (78 ha)) of the 1,001 ac (405 ha) of 
contiguous suitable habitat for Casey's June beetle identified in 1991 
has been lost to development. The rate of habitat loss has continued to 
increase since the early 1990's. From 2003 to 2005 the greatest loss of 
Casey's June beetle habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8 percent per year. 
Although the rate of habitat loss since 2005 is less than 3.8 percent 
per year, development and habitat impact

[[Page 32862]]

trends are continuing (see above discussion of Eagle Canyon project 
approved by the City of Palm Springs), and we anticipate additional 
upland habitat for the beetle may be impacted or lost in the 
foreseeable future. Based on recent information and calculations, we 
believe that the estimated amount of undeveloped habitat currently 
available for the species is approximately 777 ac (314 ha) (including 
all non-contiguous habitat containing all soil types used by the 
species) with some of these areas possibly serving as biological sinks 
for the species. Projecting development at current rates within the 
extant range of the beetle suggests that in 20 years almost all 
remaining habitat may be lost on private or tribally owned land. Based 
on current projected development and habitat impact trends, the loss of 
historically occupied locations, the limited distribution of Casey's 
June beetle, habitat fragmentation, and land use changes associated 
with urbanization, we find that Casey's June beetle is in danger of 
extinction by the present and threatened destruction, modification, and 
curtailment of its habitat.

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

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection 
for Casey's June beetle include: (1) State laws and regulations; and 
(2) local land use processes and ordinances (for example, tribal 
environmental policies). However, these regulatory mechanisms are not 
preventing continued habitat modification and fragmentation. There are 
no regulatory mechanisms that specifically or indirectly address the 
management or conservation of essential habitat for Casey's June 
beetle. Additionally, there are no regulatory protections for other 
species that may provide incidental benefit to Casey's June beetle. The 
following section discusses the above-mentioned regulatory protections.
State Laws
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure 
of potential environmental impacts resulting from public or private 
projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies in 
California. The CEQA guidelines require a finding of significance if a 
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range 
of an endangered, rare or threatened species'' (CEQA Guideline 15065). 
As a candidate species for Federal listing, Casey's June beetle is 
considered rare under CEQA Guideline 15380. The lead agency can either 
require mitigation for unavoidable significant effects or decide that 
overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline 
21002); such overrides are rare. In the case of overrides, projects may 
be approved that cause significant environmental damage, such as 
destruction of listed endangered species or their habitat. Therefore, 
protection of listed species through CEQA is dependent upon the 
discretion of the agency involved.
    The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protections 
for many species of plants, animals, and some invertebrate species. 
However, insect species, such as Casey's June beetle, are not afforded 
protection under CESA. Therefore, this is an existing regulatory 
mechanism that does not provide for the protection of Casey's June 
beetle or its habitat.
Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms
    Lands of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, included in 
the draft Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), encompass 343 ac (139 
ha) or approximately 45 percent of the estimated extant Casey's June 
beetle habitat (RA and CdC soils) according to our 2009 habitat 
analysis. Based on soil and species collection records, we estimate 
that historically (pre-European settlement), Casey's June beetle 
potentially occupied 5,834 ac (2,361 ha) (18 percent) of land currently 
owned by the Tribe. All post-1996 development of occupied habitat, with 
the exception of the 17-ac (7-ha) Smoke Tree Commons project, has 
occurred on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians land. The remaining 
273 ac (111 ha) of upland habitat on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians land is relatively flat and adjacent to, or surrounded by, 
recent development (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3), and some of these 
lands are approved for development by the City of Palm Springs and will 
likely be developed (please refer to the discussion of the Eagle Canyon 
project under ``Factor A'' above).
    In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's Field 
Supervisor dated October 10, 2006, the Tribe stated they had `` * * * 
enacted a Tribal Environmental Policy Act to, among other things, 
ensure protection of natural resources and the environment. See Tribal 
Ordinance No. 28 at I.B., (2000).'' The referenced Tribal Environmental 
Policy Act (Tribal Act) (Tribe 2000) states that the Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians is the lead agency for preparing environmental 
review documents, and that tribal policy is to protect the natural 
environment, including ``all living things.'' According to the Tribal 
Act (Tribe 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will consult with any Federal, State, 
and local agencies that have special expertise with respect to 
environmental impacts.
    Several projects implemented on tribal lands since the enactment of 
the Tribal Act have impacted Casey's June beetle habitat. Casey's June 
beetle occupancy of the Bogert Trail site in the vicinity of South Palm 
Canyon Drive on tribal land (Duff 1990, pp. 2-3, 4; Barrows and Fisher 
2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 3; Hovore 1997, p. 4; Hovore 2003, p. 4) 
has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by development since our 
receipt of the petition in 2004 (see Factor A above). The Alta and 
Monte Sereno development projects eliminated most of the species' 
upland habitat outside of Smoke Tree Ranch estimated to be occupied in 
2003. Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that grading for the Alta project 
near South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in May 2003 reduced the 
extant Casey's June beetle population size by ``about one-third.''
    No Federal, State, or local agencies that have special expertise 
with respect to environmental impacts to Casey's June beetle were 
consulted and no review documents were prepared by the Tribe prior to 
the recent development of the Alta and Monte Sereno projects in 
occupied Casey's June beetle habitat; therefore, our understanding is 
that the Tribal Act does not effectively protect the species' habitat. 
The Chief Planning and Development Officer for the Tribe (Davis 2007, 
p. 1) affirmed that the Tribal Act does not apply to all tribal 
reservation lands; for example, the currently planned Alturas 
development project (see Factor A above) is not covered, because it is 
``fee land.'' Although State environmental review documents (CEQA 
Environmental Impact Reports) were prepared by private consultants and 
reviewed by the

[[Page 32863]]

City of Palm Springs for the Eagle Creek development project, the Tribe 
did not participate in the review or comment with regard to Casey's 
June beetle (Davis 2007, p. 1).
    Our analysis indicates that although some tribal environmental 
policy does exist (Tribe 2000), it is a non-specific guidance document 
that does not contain mandates or adequately protect Casey's June 
beetle and its habitat. Therefore, we do not believe that existing 
tribal regulatory documents ensure conservation of Casey's June beetle. 
The Service will continue to work with the Tribe to obtain any other 
information that illustrates how tribal actions or policies would help 
conserve Casey's June beetle habitat and protect the species. 
Currently, we do not have information documenting how occupied or 
potentially occupied habitat for Casey's June beetle is protected from 
development and other impacts on tribal lands. The Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a draft HCP to the Service, 
which has undergone public review in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112). Although the Casey's June 
beetle was proposed as a ``Covered Species'' in the draft HCP, the 
Tribe informed the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office that they have 
``decided to remove Casey's June beetle from the list of species for 
which it is seeking take authority under its Tribal Habitat 
Conservation'' plan (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). In discussions regarding 
preparation of our final permit decision documents for the HCP, we 
asked the Tribe to reconsider their decision, and we continue to work 
with them to address Casey's June beetle and other species that may be 
impacted by land development activities on their tribal lands.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
    Some non-Federal lands within the purported historical range of 
Casey's June beetle are proposed for management under the Coachella 
Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley 
MSHCP). The Service issued a single incidental take permit (TE-104604-
0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees under the 
Coachella Valley MSHCP for a period of 75 years on October 1, 2008. 
Although Casey's June beetle was initially considered for coverage 
under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the September 2007 release of the 
final MSHCP, final EIR, and final implementing agreement, permitted on 
October 1, 2008, did not include Casey's June beetle as a covered 
species. Because it is not a covered species, the MSHCP does not 
provide specific measures for the protection or conservation of the 
species and its habitat.
Summary of Factor D
    Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect 
remaining Casey's June beetle habitat or the species itself. Occupied 
habitat continues to be lost to development projects, such as those in 
the Bogert Trail area, which were constructed without any Casey's June 
beetle mitigation. Because existing regulatory mechanisms do not 
provide protection for this species or its habitat, we believe this 
presents a significant threat to the survival of Casey's June beetle.

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

    The Casey's June beetle population may be threatened by other 
natural or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as climate 
change, increased intensity and frequency of scouring events in wash 
habitat, and indirect effects associated with adjacent development. 
However, there is little species-specific scientific information 
describing or predicting the potential for these threats to be 
realized, and these issues should be the subject of future research.
    Past and ongoing development adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash, 
channelization of the wash to protect development, and development of 
associated flood-control levees are all likely to increase Casey's June 
beetle mortality during flood events. Urban development adjacent to 
natural creek beds or washes concentrates stream flow by constraining 
channel width, thereby increasing the speed of water flowing past a 
given location (hydrograph; cubic feet per second) (Poff et al.1997, p. 
772). Therefore, scouring events occur more frequently than would have 
occurred prior to development that has already occurred around Palm 
Canyon Wash. Scouring events may temporarily eliminate Casey's June 
beetles within Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p.9; Cornett 2004, p. 
14). After scouring events, the wash would be slowly repopulated by 
females from neighboring occupied habitat outside the wash (for 
example, Smoke Tree Ranch) or from refugia within the wash. However, if 
scouring events continue to increase in frequency, there may be a point 
when the ability of and time needed for females to emigrate from 
surrounding occupied habitat or higher-elevation refugia into the wash 
will be longer than the scouring frequency. We do not know how far or 
how fast females can emigrate from upland refugia; however, we expect 
that travel across land would be relatively slow and occur over short 
distances compared to males that can fly. If this point is reached, 
Casey's June beetles may become extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash. We 
determined that the increased frequency of scouring events due to 
indirect effects of development adjacent to the wash may be a 
significant threat to Casey's June beetle.
    Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors, 
such as wind, temperature (for example, drying of alluvial soils), 
precipitation, and catastrophic flood events (Noss et al. 2001, p. 42; 
La Rue 2006, p. 2). As discussed above, increased intensity and 
frequency of flooding and scouring events in Palm Canyon Wash is of 
particular concern for Casey's June beetle. The global frequency of 
heavy precipitation events has increased since 1960, consistent with 
warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapor, and it is 
``very likely'' (90 percent confidence) that heavy precipitation will 
generally become even more frequent over most land areas (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 2 and 8-9). A review of literature and historic climate data 
specific to the area of Casey's June beetle (Anderson 2007, pp. 1-6) 
indicates Coachella Valley precipitation, peak stream flow (NWIS 2008), 
and other weather patterns since 1950 in Palm Canyon, are locally 
consistent with these global patterns predicted by the IPCC (2007 p. 2, 
pp. 8-9, and 15). General Circulation Models predict a 1 to 3 degree 
Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1.7 degree C) rise in temperature and at least a 25 
percent increase in precipitation by 2050, to as much as a 50 percent 
increase in precipitation as early as 2030 for California (Field et al. 
1999, pp. 5-10; Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399), and increasing 
intensity of flood and drought events (Dessens 1995, pp. 1241-1244; 
Giorgi et al. 1994, pp. 375-399). Other models predict as much as a 100 
percent increase in summer monsoonal precipitation for portions of the 
southwestern United States (Arritt et al. 2000, pp. 565-568). 
Therefore, it is likely the severity and frequency of heavy 
precipitation events will increase in the area.
    Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey's June 
beetles traveling up to 328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m)) to artificial 
light sources (Osborne 2008a. p. 2) during surveys. Such artificial 
light sources as black lights or mercury vapor lights may draw males in

[[Page 32864]]

a line-of-sight radius from existing habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 3). As 
males fly in search of female pheromone plumes (Domek et al. 1990, pp. 
271-276), they may become distracted by light sources that attract them 
to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where they 
are preyed upon, or to local swimming pools where they end up in pool 
skimmers and often drown. Swimming pools are one common source for male 
Casey's June beetle specimens (Barrows 1998, p. 1; Barrows and Fisher 
2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 5) and may serve as a genetic sink for 
this species. If large numbers of male Casey's June beetles are lost to 
these indirect effects of development, there could be reduced genetic 
diversity in males available for mating. Male beetles located at 
habitat patch edges closer to light sources would be more susceptible 
to distraction than those located at the center of patches. The loss of 
large numbers of these male Casey's June beetles would reduce or 
eliminate genetic segments of the population and diminish the overall 
genetic diversity of the population. We believe that loss of male 
beetles due to the indirect effects of development adjacent to upland 
habitat may be a significant threat to Casey's June beetle.
Summary of Factor E
    Casey's June beetle is negatively affected by increased intensity 
and frequency of catastrophic flood events, changing climatic patterns, 
and loss of individuals due to their attraction to adjacent light 
sources. Although the Palm Springs area is too small from a climate 
modeling perspective to have specific climate change models, climate 
change is likely to reduce Casey's June beetle population densities by 
increasing scouring events and water retention in the soil. Additional 
development within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat will 
likely include external lighting and swimming pools, both of which may 
result in additional losses and will continue to affect existing 
populations. Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade factors 
are likely to be a significant threat the continued existence of 
Casey's June beetle.

Determination

    We carefully assessed the best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Casey's 
June beetle. Section 3(5)(C)(6) of the Act defines an endangered 
species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' This species' extremely 
low numbers, slow dispersal rate, and highly restricted geographic 
range make it particularly susceptible to extinction at any time from 
random events, such as 100-year floods, scouring events, or isolation 
of known occurrences.
    As described in detail above, projections for human population 
growth extend out to 2030 in Palm Springs (SCAG 2004). Such projections 
frame our analysis as they help us understand what factors can 
reasonably be anticipated to meaningfully affect the species' future 
conservation status. We updated our original analysis by Anderson and 
Love (2007, pp. 1-2) to determine rates of habitat loss in southern 
Palm Springs from 1991 to 2008. During that time, Casey's June beetle 
experienced an approximate 22 percent reduction in contiguous, 
undeveloped habitat from 1,001 ac (405 ha) in 1991 to 777 ac (314 ha) 
in 2008. Habitat loss was greatest in the 2003 to 2005 time period, and 
impacts have continued to occur. Habitat has been lost at a rate of 1.6 
percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 percent per year 
from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year from 2003 to 2005, 
and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 2008.
    In summary, the most significant threat to Casey's June beetle, as 
listed in Factor A, is loss of its habitat. This species faces 
immediate and continuing threats from development of habitat and 
habitat fragmentation and degradation. At the rate of habitat loss 
since 1996, we estimate that nearly all remaining upland habitat on 
private or tribally owned land will be lost by 2020. Additionally, a 
variety of localized threats factors (which fall under Factors A, D, 
and E) continue to negatively affect the species (including attraction 
to artificial light sources, swimming pools, and changes in soil 
hydrology). Furthermore, as described in Factor D, existing regulatory 
mechanisms provide little direct protection of Casey's June beetle 
habitat, the loss of which is the most significant threat to the 
species. This single remaining known population may already have 
reached the point where it is not naturally sustainable and may require 
management of remaining occupied habitat and population augmentation to 
prevent extinction.
    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that Casey's June beetle is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Consequently, we are proposing 
to list Casey's June beetle as an endangered species under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed species are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on 
any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently 
listed under the Act, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of 
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; leases on Tribal Trust lands that require Bureau of Indian 
Affairs approval; construction and management of gas pipeline and power 
line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and 
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal 
Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The

[[Page 32865]]

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), 
import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species. You may obtain permits for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and 
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect 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 private landowners. Where a 
landowner 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) of the Act would apply, 
but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, 
the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, 
but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed must 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of a species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life-cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found 
those PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement 
essential to the conservation of the species). We can designate areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing only when we determine that the best available scientific data 
demonstrate that the designation of such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include 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.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually 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.
    Any areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designations, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions Federal agencies implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. 
They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by section 
9 and the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis 
of the best available scientific information at the time of the Federal 
agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if information available at the 
time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be 
endangered or threatened. Regulations under 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 
that the designation of

[[Page 32866]]

critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity and the identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is no documentation that disclosing Casey's June beetle 
locations would cause harm to this species. Casey's June beetle 
locations are already available in public literature, and designation 
of critical habitat would not increase risk to this species. Further, 
we find that there are benefits to a critical habitat designation. The 
potential benefits include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 
of the Act and (2) providing education benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities (which may help to focus conservation 
efforts and awareness).
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the 
requirement under section 7(a)(2) of the Act that Federal agencies 
refrain from taking action that destroys or adversely modifies critical 
habitat. Casey's June beetle occurs solely on Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians land, local government lands, and private lands. 
Nevertheless, tribal and private lands may be subject to Federal 
actions that trigger the section 7 consultation process, such as 
granting Federal monies for conservation projects or the need for a 
Federal permit for projects subject to section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act. There may also be some education or information benefits to the 
designation of critical habitat. Education benefits include the 
notification of land owners, land managers, and the general public of 
the importance of protecting the habitat of this species. In the case 
of Casey's June beetle, these aspects of critical habitat designation 
would benefit the conservation of the species. Since we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the 
degree of human threat to the species and may provide some measure of 
benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for 
Casey's June beetle.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of Casey's June beetle. This 
includes information from the 90-day finding (71 FR 44960; August 8, 
2006) and the12-month finding (72 FR 36665; July 5, 2007), information 
and survey observations published in published peer-reviewed literature 
and provided in academic theses and agency reports; location data and 
survey information provided in agency status and monitoring reports and 
on GIS maps; regional GIS coverages; correspondence (for example, 
unpublished observations and data) from species experts; and data 
provided as part of the Coachella Valley MSHCP. Additionally, we 
reviewed available information about the historical and current 
distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat requirements for 
Casey's June beetle. This included data and reports submitted by 
species experts; research published in peer-reviewed scientific 
publications; museum records; technical reports, and unpublished field 
observations by Service, State, and other experienced biologists; 
additional notes and communications with qualified biologists and 
experts; and regional GIS coverages.

Primary Constituent Elements

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

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Casey's June beetle is associated with native vegetation of Sonoran 
(Coloradan) desert scrub located on desert alluvial fans and bajadas at 
the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley, Riverside 
County, California. Sonoran desert scrub habitat is characterized as 
scattered assemblages of broad-leaved microphyll shrubs with an open 
canopy (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, p. 114). The open canopy provides 
space for male beetles to fly in search of females and fulfill normal 
life-history activities. This scrub habitat type also provides the 
micro-habitat space inhabited by Casey's June beetle. Individual shrubs 
provide refugia for the underground stage of the beetle's life history, 
protecting emergence holes from anthropogenic disturbance.
    Habitats utilized by Casey's June beetles are varied as a result of 
areas that are known to undergo anthropogenic disturbances. In general, 
the species uses soil surfaces to burrow and deposit eggs. After 
beetles emerge, emergence holes are easily detectable beneath shrub 
canopies where they are protected from human activity. However, many 
emergence holes that occur in the open are apparently destroyed or 
disturbed by ``equestrians, vehicles, and other human activities'' 
(Hovore 2003, p. 3). Therefore, the habitat where subterranean larvae 
and females waiting on the surface for mates are protected from human 
impacts is clustered around trees and shrubs where there is intact 
crustal soil (Hovore 2003, p. 3). These individual shrubs are refugia 
for the underground and reproductive stages of the beetle's life 
history, which protect them from anthropogenic disturbance. The 
undisturbed soil may not reflect the entire distribution of the 
emergence holes (the primary indicator of occupancy) because 
disturbance easily destroys evidence of the hole, but instead represent 
the remaining intact holes observable following a disturbance (Hovore 
2003, p. 3). Individual shrubs also provide the subterranean space 
required for reproduction and to maintain larval development. See the 
``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements'' section for more specific information on 
soil characteristics and nutritional requirements.
    In addition to anthropogenic disturbance, Casey's June beetle 
habitat undergoes natural disturbance. Palm Canyon Wash experiences 
intense flooding and scouring about once every 10 years (Cornett 2004, 
p.14), with turbulence that can excavate and unearth sand where the 
species may occur (Wright 2003, p.3; NWIS 2008). These events are 
likely to extirpate Casey's June beetles from locations within the 
wash; however, these areas may subsequently be recolonized by beetles 
from surrounding upland areas or local refugia. It is hypothesized that

[[Page 32867]]

the wash serves as a sink area (an area that is often extirpated) for 
Casey's June beetle (Cornett 2004, p.14), but wash habitat may also 
serve as a source area when population densities are high between 
flooding events. If correct, these concepts indicate the need to 
conserve both upland and wash habitat to achieve conservation of the 
species.

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

    Vegetation, soil, and climate contribute to the nutritional and 
physiological requirements of Casey's June beetle. It is hypothesized 
that beetle larvae feed on organic matter and detritus below ground 
(Hovore 2003, p. 2; LaRue 2004, p. 1). Observations of adult Casey's 
June beetles feeding underground have not yet occurred (Hovore 1995, p. 
2); however, accumulation of leaves around shrubs contribute to surface 
litter and subsurface detritus. Additionally, co-occurring annual 
plants and grasses using these desert scrubs as nurse plants or refugia 
also contribute to surface litter and likely provide an additional food 
source as radiculum (plant rootlets (LaRue 2004, p. 1, Simpson 1968, p. 
500)). Although Casey's June beetle distribution is not likely 
correlated with the distribution of a specific plant host, proximity of 
observed emergence holes to Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub plants 
indicate these plants may be important as a direct or indirect food 
source (Wright 2004, p.6).
    The Palm Springs area has slightly higher precipitation than 
surrounding areas in the eastern Coachella Valley, due to its proximity 
to the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains (LaRue 2006, p. 
2). This precipitation keeps the underlying soil damp, which is an 
important component for Casey's June beetle life history because they, 
like many other subterranean scarab beetles, prefer the interface 
between surface soil and damp subsoil (Hovore 1995, p. 6; LaRue, 2008, 
p. 1). The depth of the damp soil is generally between 10 cm (3.94 in) 
to 20 cm (7.87 in) (Hovore 1995, p. 5) and averages 72 to 78 degrees 
Fahrenheit (22 to 26 degrees Celsius) (USDA 1980, p. 11). This depth 
coincides with the depth at which larvae are usually found (5 cm (1.97 
in) to 20 cm (7.87 in) (LaRue 2004, p. 1). Individual scrub plant 
architecture has developed for maximum capture of precipitation, 
channeling water along stems to the central root system. Moisture in 
the soil layer prevents desiccation of larvae and eggs and maintains a 
constant temperature (LaRue 2008, p. 1). Additionally, areas with 
higher soil moisture are associated with a higher density of vegetation 
and microorganisms, such as fungi and bacteria believed to provide a 
more diverse food source for beetle larvae (LaRue 2008, p. 1).
    The Sonoran desert scrub plant community endemic to the Palm Canyon 
Wash and adjacent terraces also serve to maintain habitat consistency. 
The Carsitas series soils have a water table located from 2 to 6 ft 
(0.6 to 1.9 m) deep. Shrubs are important in water and nutrient cycling 
in desert ecosystems (Sala et al. 1989, pp. 501-505; McAuliffe 1994, 
pp. 111-148). Desert shrubs have deeper root systems that bring water 
from lower levels up to higher levels, cycle nutrients through the 
soil, and mediate diurnal temperature variations. Midday temperatures 
are lower near the center of desert scrub patches than in areas outside 
the canopy (Pickett and White 1985, pp. 174-176). The combination of 
moisture cycling, diurnal temperature variation, and seasonal climate 
change (Rosenburg 1974, pp. 66-74) may provide beetle larvae with a 
gradient of micro-environments to inhabit in the subsoil through the 
year, thereby allowing them to maintain optimal body temperature and 
humidity levels. Therefore, the precipitation of the Palm Canyon area, 
and its influence on the local plant community, may be a unique factor 
critical for Casey's June beetle.
    Soils associated with known occurrences of Casey's June beetles are 
described by Hovore (2003, p. 2) as almost entirely of the Carsitas 
Series, (CdC), typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly 
effervescent, moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky and non-
plastic, and deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes. These soils show light 
braiding and some organic deposition on alluvial terraces and where 
they occur within washes, although they generally do not receive 
scouring surface flows (Hovore 2003, p. 2). Additionally, Casey's June 
beetle is associated with Riverwash (RA) and Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) 
series of soils (Anderson 2007, p.1), usually occurring in these soils 
when they are contiguous with CdC series soil. The CdC type soils may 
also contain small inclusions of fine or coarse soils, such as Myoma 
(MaB) fine sand and Coachella (CpA) fine sand (USDA 1980, pp. 11-12, 
16, and 23).
    Alluvial soil (RA) is also an important component to Casey's June 
beetle habitat requirements. Organic matter and vegetation may be 
uprooted, redistributed, and buried in the wash during low-frequency, 
high-magnitude floods. Debris deposited by these hydrological processes 
and periodic flooding are essential to maintain alluvial soils in Palm 
Canyon Wash and may serve as new or re-conditioned habitat.

Cover or Shelter

    The upland terraces and Palm Canyon Wash are the remaining areas 
known to be inhabited by Casey's June beetle. The upland terraces offer 
the only known shelter from flooding and scouring events, or ORV 
impacts since vehicles tend to remain within the wash. Since the Palm 
Canyon Wash experiences periodic flooding and scouring that is likely 
to impact the species during flood events, the upland terraces are 
essential to the conservation of Casey's June beetle for long-term 
maintenance of the population because they act as a potential source of 
females for recolonization of the wash. Systematic surveys in the wash 
indicate that this area is important to the long-term survival of the 
species. Both the upland terraces and Palm Canyon Wash contain soil 
types conducive to burrowing and maintain plant communities that 
support the nutritional and physiological processes essential for the 
species.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    Casey's June beetle breeding and dispersal mechanisms require 
specific habitat important to species' reproduction. Because female 
Casey's June beetles are flightless, the species' breeding system and 
the ability of females to disperse (which is uncertain but much reduced 
compared to flight-capable males and likely less than 1,000 ft (305 m)) 
is restricted geographically to a relatively small area. During 
breeding, adults of the species are most active at dusk. Females emit 
pheromones to attract males to burrows for the purposes of mating. 
Breeding success depends on males' ability to detect pheromones and 
ability to maneuver to remain in contact with the pheromone plume 
(Domek et al. 1990, pp. 271-276). The southern Palm Springs area is 
surrounded by mountains and ridges that protect the area from the high 
winds that are frequent in the Coachella Valley (Wright 2004, p.4), 
thus providing conditions that are conducive to successful male flight, 
and pheromone detection and tracking. Therefore, successful 
reproduction depends on shelter provided by the surrounding mountains 
and ridges.
    Dispersal of Casey's June beetle is also limited by the 
flightlessness of females. This adaptation significantly hinders this 
species' ability to disperse or

[[Page 32868]]

recolonize an area. Females appear to emerge from burrows and remain on 
the surface nearby and then either re-enter these burrows or dig new 
burrows to lay eggs. If an isolated portion of the population were 
extirpated, then it would be difficult for females to quickly 
recolonize that area (Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 192-193; de Vries et 
al. 1996, pp. 332-342) because flightless females disperse by crawling 
and likely by water flow in wash areas (although it is unclear what the 
survival rate would be under water flow dispersal). Because male 
Casey's June beetles cannot repopulate an area by themselves, and 
females are flightless, habitat fragmentation and isolation are 
significant threats to gene flow in this species. Therefore, 
connectivity of suitable habitats that provides for dispersal over 
multiple generations is essential to the conservation of the species.
    Undisturbed suitable habitat is also essential to Casey's June 
beetle. As stated above, the adults of this species burrow in alluvial 
soils to lay eggs and the larval stages are known to live out this life 
stage in alluvial soil as well. The presence of undisturbed soil is 
crucial to Casey's June beetle. Such artificial, nonnative surfaces as 
concrete or highly manipulated ornamental landscaping cannot serve the 
same function as native habitat. Casey's June beetles are documented to 
occur in abundance within the residential community of Smoke Tree Ranch 
(Cornett 2004, Table 1). Cornett (2004, p. 14) hypothesized this 
abundance could be attributed to the landscape irrigation system in the 
community (creating high soil moisture), native vegetation landscaping, 
its location on an upland terrace, and widely spaced houses with open 
space. Driscoll and Weir (2005, pp. 182-194) reported that habitat 
fragmentation had a smaller effect on beetle species' abundance in 
Australia than patch size in disturbed landscapes, but individual 
species that were flightless or lived underground were most at-risk 
from the effects of fragmentation. While undeveloped and undisturbed 
lands are essential to the survival of Casey's June beetle, Smoke Tree 
Ranch represents the largest remaining habitat patch and largest 
occurrence of the species and may represent a community where the 
spatial scale of human disturbance or fragmentation can coexist with 
this species' occupancy, as Hanski (Hanski et al. 2005, pp. 21-28) 
models for butterflies.

Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species

    As stated in the 12-month finding for Casey's June beetle (72 FR 
36635; July 5 2007), all remaining CdC or RA type soils in the southern 
part of the City of Palm Springs are important for this species' 
survival. Because the species is so restricted in its range (due to 
such factors as loss of suitable habitat and habitat fragmentation) and 
there has been substantial development throughout its historical range, 
we consider all occupied habitat, including habitat contiguous with or 
adjacent to habitat with known occurrences, to contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of Casey's June 
beetle.

Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June beetle

    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species, we determined that the 
Casey's June beetle PCEs are:
    (1) Soils (regardless of disturbance status) of the Carsitas (CdC) 
gravelly sand soil series, soils of Riverwash (RA) and Carsitas cobbly 
sand (ChC) series adjacent and contiguous with CdC soil, and small 
inclusions of Myoma (MaB) and Coachella (CpA) fine sands adjacent to 
CdC soil, at or below 640 ft (195 m) in elevation associated with 
washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes providing 
space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food 
sources.
    (2) Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation and 
native desert wash vegetation that provide shelter and food for the 
species.
    With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we define the 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species through the identification of the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to support the life-
history functions of the species. Because not all life-history 
functions require all the PCEs, there may be areas within the critical 
habitat unit that will not contain all of the PCEs. We are proposing 
one unit for designation based on sufficient PCEs being present to 
support at least one of the species' life-history functions.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat within the geographical area 
occupied by the species, we assess whether the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species may require 
special management considerations or protection. Major threats to 
Casey's June beetle include (1) Habitat disturbance; (2) habitat loss 
and fragmentation associated with development (such as grading, 
building roads and other infrastructure, and constructing commercial 
and residential structures); and (3) recreational activities (for 
example, ORV use and equestrian activities) as described in Factor A of 
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section, above.
    Anderson and Love (2007) examined the rate of habitat loss since 
1996, and additional analyses identified continuing habitat loss over 
the last two years. Because Casey's June beetle is now restricted to a 
relatively small area as compared to its probable historical range, and 
habitat fragmentation is a threat to the long-term viability of Casey's 
June beetle, special management considerations or protection of the 
essential physical and biological features may be needed to address 
development or urban expansion impacts. Local government planning 
departments should eliminate urban expansion within or adjacent to 
Casey's June beetle habitat and provide linkage corridors between 
habitat patches to address the protection necessary for this species at 
this time. Preserving habitat and corridors linking habitat patches 
have been shown to be vital landscape elements for the conservation of 
species.
    Localized, small-scale impacts and incremental human disturbance, 
such as ORV activities, may have an insidious, cumulative impact on the 
essential features of Casey's June beetle habitat. The Service, in 
cooperation with local governments, can work to establish habitat 
restoration programs and restrict, fence, or post areas with signs to 
reduce land disturbance. Additionally, special management 
considerations or protection of the essential features may be needed to 
minimize the impacts of development or urban expansion to Casey's June 
beetle habitat. Designing open areas, maintaining or planting native 
vegetation, and irrigation appropriate for the vegetation, may be 
important programs for the conservation of this species. This should 
also include a program to monitor ongoing habitat loss and disturbance, 
and invasive plants. Management and monitoring plans could provide a 
uniform set of guidelines to assist local governments in this effort. 
However, habitat management guides and plans are

[[Page 32869]]

voluntary and may not provide for the long-term conservation of the 
species.

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 in determining the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain 
the features essential to the conservation of species which may require 
special management considerations or protection, as well as when 
determining if any specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the 
species. We only designate areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by a species when the Secretary determines that a designation limited 
to a species' present range would be inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). For Casey's June 
beetle, we limited proposed critical habitat to the present range of 
the species, because the only potentially suitable habitat outside the 
present range occurs in small, disjunct areas that are remote in 
relation to the proposed critical habitat. It is unlikely that the 
flightless females would be able to reach these small, isolated areas, 
and we believe these locations would be population sinks due to their 
remoteness if Casey's June beetle was artificially introduced. We are 
proposing to designate critical habitat in areas that we determined are 
occupied and contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    We consider all known occurrences of Casey's June beetle to 
constitute a single population based on currently available data. 
However, additional studies are needed to confirm this assumption. 
Because of the limitations of surveys to detect insect occupancy, the 
population level is the appropriate scale at which to determine 
occupancy of areas proposed as critical habitat. Although an area may 
be occupied by Casey's June beetles at the population distribution 
scale, light-trapping surveys to detect male presence during a given 
flight season may not have detected any individuals, either because 
they were at low densities, or because environmental conditions were 
not suitable for beetle activity. Although no formal data, such as a 
genetic analysis, has indicated all known occupied areas are within the 
same population distribution, we assume they are, based on the 
potential for male movement among sites that contain the primary 
constituent elements. Additionally, we assume all suitable habitat 
areas are occupied adjacent and intermediate to areas where Casey's 
June beetle has been detected based on appropriate PCEs in place and 
dispersal capabilities of males during flight season, with reasonable 
potential for male movement throughout all areas delineated as critical 
habitat. Therefore, all areas we are proposing to designate as critical 
habitat are considered to be currently occupied.
    We used the following data to delineate critical habitat: (1) Areas 
known to be occupied recently (1995-present); (2) all adjacent areas 
contiguous with occupied sites and on CdC soils or RA, ChC, MaB, and 
CpA soils when adjacent to CdC soils; (3) areas below 640 ft (195 m) in 
elevation (within 100 meters of the highest known elevation of an 
occurrence); (4) land dominated by native vegetation, but may contain 
some nonnative vegetation; and (5) areas that provide connectivity 
between occurrences (when possible) to provide for dispersal, 
recolonization, and genetic exchange. We also used information in our 
files and referred to expert opinion from Service biologists and 
outside experts who are knowledgeable about the species. The proposed 
critical habitat is designed to capture observed occurrences of Casey's 
June beetles and the soils and native vegetation needed for its long-
term conservation.
    We delineated the proposed critical habitat boundaries using the 
following steps:
    (1) We mapped observations of Casey's June beetles from Bruyea 
(2006), Cornett (2004), Hovore (1997), Hovore (1995), Powell (2003), 
and Simonsen-Marchant (2000, 2001). These records were initially mapped 
over digital aerial photographs of the Palm Canyon area in Palm 
Springs, California, acquired in June 2005 with a ground resolution of 
3.28 ft (1 m). We believe these surveys are the best available data on 
Casey's June beetle distribution, accurately depict the best locations 
of known occurrences within the species' range, and provide a logical 
starting point for the delineation of critical habitat.
    (2) We incorporated digital soil data produced by the USDA Natural 
Resources Conservation Service for all soils in the Palm Canyon area. 
This data delineated CdC (Carsitas gravelly sand), RA (Riverwash), ChC 
(Carsitas cobbly sand), MaB (Myoma fine sand) and CpA (Coachella fine 
sand) soils. We selected areas where the CdC soils were adjacent to one 
of the other soil series and contiguous with occupied habitat. This 
mapping delineated the soils that are suitable for, and assumed 
occupied by, the beetle.
    (3) After mapping the soils, we examined the elevations of all 
Casey's June beetle observations. Because the beetle is vulnerable to 
scouring flows that occur during rain events in washes at higher 
elevations, the species is normally found at elevations less 
susceptible to heavy water flows. We determined the highest elevation 
of an occurrence was 540 ft (165 m), and we extended the boundary 
elevation 100 ft (30.5 m) to account for soil gradients and any 
occurrences that may not have been observed. As a result, we are 
proposing as critical habitat the area below the 640 ft (195 m) contour 
with the best locations of known occurrences within the species' range 
and the appropriate soils.
    (4) We utilized digital aerial photographs acquired in April 2008 
with a ground resolution of 6 in (15 cm) to closely examine the area 
below the 640 ft (195 m) contour and ensure it captured the PCEs 
necessary to support life-history functions essential to the 
conservation of Casey's June beetle. Specifically, we removed areas 
that did not have native vegetation (such as golf course greens) or 
contained large denuded or graded areas to eliminate areas that likely 
do not and could not support Casey's June beetles.
    (5) We added connective corridors between known occurrences to help 
address habitat fragmentation between segments of the population, which 
is a substantive threat to the species. As a result, we included 
undeveloped areas that contain suitable habitat (native vegetation and 
appropriate soils as identified above) to provide connectivity between 
known occurrences of Casey's June beetles.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this 
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, 
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, 
because such lands lack essential features for Casey's June beetle. The 
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed critical habitat 
are excluded by text in this proposed rule. Therefore, when the 
critical habitat designation is finalized, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action may affect adjacent critical habitat.

[[Page 32870]]

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
    We are proposing one unit as critical habitat that encompasses the 
geographical area occupied by the species and totals 777 ac (314 ha). 
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for Casey's June beetle.
    The approximate area of proposed critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle totals 777 ac (314 ha), including 343 ac (139 ha) of tribal 
land, 111 ac (45 ha) of local government land, and 323 ac (131 ha) of 
private land. Area estimates reflect all land within the proposed 
critical habitat unit boundaries. Acre and hectare values were 
computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to nearest whole number, 
and then summed.
    We present a brief unit description below and reasons why it meets 
the definition of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. The unit is 
located in Riverside County, California, and extends from the 
confluence of Andreas Canyon Wash with Palm Canyon Wash northward along 
the toe of slope west of South Palm Canyon Drive to Murray Canyon Drive 
and northeastward (downstream) along Palm Canyon Wash, crossing East 
Palm Canyon Drive to South Gene Autry Trail.
    The critical habitat unit consists of approximately 777 ac (314 ha) 
considered occupied by Casey's June beetle. The Unit includes areas 
west of South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Canyon Wash, and Smoke Tree 
Ranch, and two areas east of Palm Canyon Wash and south of East Palm 
Canyon Drive. This unit contains all of the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species (PCEs 1 and 2), 
including alluvial soils of the CdC, RA, ChC, MaB and CpA soil series 
with Sonoran desert scrub and desert wash vegetation.
    Habitat in the unit is threatened by development, persistent 
recreational activity, and periodic flash flooding. Specifically, urban 
expansion, in-fill development, and recreational activities continue to 
result in the loss of habitat on tribal and private land. Therefore, 
the features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit 
likely require special management considerations or protection to 
minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see ``Special Management 
Considerations'' section above).
    Approximately 45 percent of this unit is on Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians land. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
removed the species from their proposed HCP and thus from consideration 
under existing development agreements with the local jurisdictions as 
of October 28, 2008 (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). Because the Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians has indicated that they are not planning to manage 
Casey's June beetle habitat, we determined that it is appropriate to 
include the tribal lands in the proposed critical habitat unit. 
However, we recognize the importance of Government-to-Government 
relationships with Tribes, and we are seeking public comment on the 
appropriateness of the inclusion of these lands in the final critical 
habitat designation (see ``Public Comments'' section above).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

 Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by 
the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 
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 (Ninth Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (Fifth Cir. 2001)), and we do not 
rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the 
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse 
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the 
proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 
functional to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 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. As a result of 
this consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of 
section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to 
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    <bullet> Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
    <bullet> Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    <bullet> Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    <bullet> Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or 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 designated critical habitat that may be 
affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement 
or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement 
or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies may 
sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on 
actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those 
actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect Casey's June beetle or its 
designated critical habitat will require section 7(a)(2) consultation 
under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local or private lands 
requiring a Federal permit (such as a Bureau of Indian Affairs approval 
of a lease, 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 us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are examples of agency actions that may be 
subject to the section 7(a)(2) consultation process. Federal actions 
not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, 
tribal,

[[Page 32871]]

local or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or 
permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) consultations.

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 and 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. 
Generally, the conservation role of Casey's June beetle's critical 
habitat unit is to support a viable self-sustaining population of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result 
in consultation for Casey's June beetle include (but are not limited 
to) habitat disturbance, loss and fragmentation associated with 
development (for example, grading, building roads and other 
infrastructure, and constructing commercial and residential structures) 
and recreational activities (for example, ORV use and equestrian 
activities). Please see ``Special Management Considerations or 
Protection'' section for a more detailed discussion on the impacts of 
these actions to the listed species.

Exemptions and Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise 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 legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider various factors 
in making a critical habitat designation. For example, we consider 
whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense 
where a national security impact might exist. We also consider whether 
landowners having proposed critical habitat on their lands have 
developed any conservation plans for the area, or whether there are 
conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, 
or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal 
issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the 
United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social or 
other impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    There are no HCPs or other management plans that we are considering 
for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Agua Caliente Band 
of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a draft HCP to the Service, 
which has undergone public review in accordance with the Act and the 
National Environmental Policy Act. Although the Casey's June Beetle was 
proposed as a ``Covered Species'' in the draft HCP, the tribe informed 
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office that they have ``decided to 
remove Casey's June beetle from the list of species for which it is 
seeking take authority under its Tribal Habitat Conservation'' plan 
(ACBCI 2008, p. 1). In discussions regarding preparation of our final 
permit decision documents for the HCP, we have asked the tribe to 
reconsider their decision, and we continue to work with them to address 
Casey's June beetle and other species impacted by land development 
activities on their tribal lands. Casey's June beetle is also not a 
covered species under the recently permitted Coachella Valley MSHCP. 
Therefore, the areas covered by these HCP efforts are not currently 
being considered or proposed for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Casey's June 
beetle are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense and there 
are currently no HCPs for Casey's June beetle. At this time, we have 
not identified areas for which the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion; therefore, we are not identifying any specific 
proposed exclusions for the designation of critical habitat for Casey's 
June beetle.

Economics

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must also consider economic 
impacts. We are preparing an analysis of the economic impacts of this 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. We 
will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis 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 ADDRESSES section). We may exclude areas from the 
final rule based on the information in the economic analysis.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are obtaining the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our proposed rule is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment 
during this public comment period on our specific assumptions and 
conclusions in this proposed rule.
    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, our final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request 
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal 
Register publication. Send your request to the person named in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 first hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review- Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed 
rule under

[[Page 32872]]

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 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.
    (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), 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 effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 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 available economic information necessary 
for the areas being proposed 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 E.O. 12866. The draft economic analysis will 
provide the required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion 
of the draft economic analysis, we will announce its availability 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 proposed critical habitat designation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. 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.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the 
following findings:
    (1) This critical habitat designation will not produce a Federal 
mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, 
statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon 
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and 
includes both ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal 
private sector mandates.'' These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-
(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that 
``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal 
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 [T]ribal governments under entitlement 
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of 
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, 
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the 
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust 
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: 
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 
Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster 
Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support 
Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private 
sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (2) We do not expect this critical habitat designation to 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments 
will be affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal 
funds, permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their 
actions will not adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required. However, as we conduct 
our economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation, we 
will further evaluate this issue and revise this assessment if 
appropriate.

Takings - Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for Casey's June beetle in a takings 
implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the proposed designation.

Federalism - Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), the proposed critical 
habitat designation does not have significant Federalism effects. A 
Federalism assessment 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 may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
primary constituent elements of

[[Page 32873]]

the habitat necessary to the conservation of Casey's June beetle are 
specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these 
local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait 
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform - Executive Order 12988

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

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

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

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit 
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with 
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the 
Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the 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 this proposed 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), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
tribes on a government-to-government basis. 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 identified tribal lands that meet 
the definition of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle, and have 
included them in this proposal. In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office dated October 28, 2008, the tribe stated that they have 
``decided to remove Casey's June beetle from the list of species for 
which it is seeking take authority under its Tribal Habitat 
Conservation'' plan. The Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribe 
stated they are deferring to the Service to allow ``the Service to take 
the lead in addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this 
species'' (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). In discussions regarding preparation of 
our final permit decision documents for the HCP, we asked the tribe to 
reconsider their decision, and we continue to work with them to address 
the Casey's June beetle and other species impacted by land development 
activities on their tribal lands. At this time, we are proposing to 
designate the tribal lands as critical habitat.
    We are requesting public comment on the proposed designation of 
tribal lands owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in 
light of 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 will continue to coordinate with the tribe during the 
designation process.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use - Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because there are no 
energy or distribution facilities within the area proposed as critical 
habitat, we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, 
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic 
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.

References Cited

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

Author

    The primary author of this notice is staff from the Carlsbad Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

[[Page 32874]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
    2. In Sec.  17.11(h) add an entry for ``Beetle, Casey's June'' in 
alphabetical order under ``INSECTS,'' to the List of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Insects.
* * * * *
Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi)
    (1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Riverside County in 
California on the map below.
    (2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat for Casey's June beetle are the habitat components that 
provide:
    (a) Soils (regardless of disturbance status) of the Carsitas (CdC) 
gravelly sand soil series, soils of Riverwash (RA) and Carsitas cobbly 
sand (ChC) series adjacent and contiguous with CdC soil, and small 
inclusions of Myoma (MaB) and Coachella (CpA) fine sands adjacent to 
CdC soil, at or below 640 ft (195 m) in elevation associated with 
washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes providing 
space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food 
sources.
    (b) Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation and 
native desert wash vegetation that provide shelter and food for the 
species.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include lands covered by man-made 
structures, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, existing 
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of 
the primary constituent elements.
    (4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit 
were created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and the critical 
habitat unit was then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
coordinates zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
    (5) Note: Map of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 32875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY09.000

    (6) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
* * * * *

    Dated: June 19, 2009
Jane Lyder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E9-16282 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C