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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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

RIN 1018-AV91

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

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered status for Casey's June beetle (

Dinacoma caseyi

) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also designating approximately 587 acres (237 hectares) of land as critical habitat for the species in Riverside County, California.

DATES:

This rule becomes effective on October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical habitat are available on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

and

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.

Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics directly relevant to the listing and designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

). The genus

Dinacoma

and approximately 90 other genera constitute the New World members of the subfamily Melolonthinae (

i.e.

, May beetles, June beetles, and chafers) of the scarab beetle family (Scarabaeidae) (Smith and Evans 2005). Despite past references to potentially new species or subspecies of

Dinacoma

(Blaisdell 1930, pp. 173-174; La Rue pers. comm., 2006), Casey's June beetle,

Dinacoma caseyi

Blaisdell, and

D. marginata

(Casey) Casey remain the only described taxonomic entities in the genus (Evans and Smith 2009, p. 44). For additional information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Casey's June beetle, and the history of this rulemaking, refer to the August 8, 2006, 90-day finding (71 FR 44960), the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), the July 9, 2009, proposed listing and critical habitat rule (74 FR 32857), and the March 31, 2010, document making available the draft economic analysis (DEA) (75 FR 16046) published in the

Federal Register

. These documents are available on the Internet at

http://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.

New Species Information

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

New Species Occupancy and Habitat Information

Multiple commenters and one peer reviewer further suggested that the species may occupy areas outside proposed critical habitat. To determine if areas outside of the proposed critical habitat designation harbor the Casey's June beetle, we funded a survey of likely habitat within the species' known historical range and beyond. While the survey focused on areas north of Palm Springs (

i.e.

, immediately south of the Chino Cone) and south to Palm Desert, we have yet to receive a final report from the surveyor (

i.e.

, David Hawks). Nonetheless, preliminary survey information received to date primarily supports our determination of the species' current range and population distribution, and modification of PCEs to include disturbed soils and predominantly, but not exclusively, native vegetation (

i.e.

, not the two specific “intact” vegetation types listed in the proposed rule) (Hawks pers. comm., 2010; see below discussion).

Hawks (pers. comm. 2010, 2011a and b) located two occupied Casey's June beetle sites outside of proposed critical habitat, in natural remnants of the Palm Canyon Wash channel surrounded by golf course landscaping just east of the easternmost section of wash proposed as critical habitat, in the vicinity of Golf Club Drive. These wash habitat remnants total 17 acres (ac) (7 hectares (ha)), and are downstream from the confluence of Palm Canyon Wash and Tahquiz Creek, where additional streamflow occurs following a storm event. Although it is possible these habitat remnants could contribute to species recovery, their ability to support occupancy long-term is questionable because these areas are subject to scouring flood events, which would remove available habitat and displace and most likely extirpate any individuals occupying the sites. In addition, the frequency of scouring flood events likely to extirpate resident individuals is expected to increase with climate change (see

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

section below). Therefore, at this time, we have determined that these wash habitat remnants do not meet the definition of critical habitat. However, we will continue to gather information regarding the potential for this wash habitat area to contribute to species recovery.

Hawks' comprehensive survey (pers. comm. 2010) included potential Casey's June beetle habitat remnants identified throughout the City of Palm Springs, including many vacant lots within the developed areas of the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) documented numerous female emergence holes and observed many female beetles during his surveys, confirming occupancy of Coachella fine sand series (CpA), and Myoma fine sands (MaB) soil types. Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) stated he never found emergence holes in the Carsitas cobbly sand series (ChC) soil type. However, he believes ChC soil may be occupied if it is an inclusion surrounded by Carsitas gravelly sand series (CdC) soil, and if it is not part of the landscape defining the edge of the floodplain, such as along South Palm Canyon Drive to the west. Based on this information from Hawks (pers. comm. 2010) we determined that ChC soils not 100 percent surrounded by CdC and Riverwash (RA) soils do not meet the definition of critical habitat (see Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, Physical or Biological Features, and

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections below).

Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) positive survey results generally supported our estimation of Casey's June beetle population distribution within proposed critical habitat, with the exception of newly discovered occupied wash habitat remnants described above that represent a slight northeastern distribution extension, and the lack of occupancy in some southern areas that were determined not to meet the definition of critical habitat and therefore were not designated (see Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, Physical or Biological Features, and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections below). In a subsequent communication, Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a) described his survey results from the southern population distribution area: “Adults of both sexes of [Casey's June beetle] as well as emergence holes were observed in the wash and in [adjacent] floodplain areas west of the wash between Bogert Trail and Acanto Drive. Adults of both sexes as well as emergence holes were observed in the wash and in floodplain areas west of the wash from Acanto and south for a few hundred meters. South of this area, [Casey's June beetle] emergence holes were observed in late June 2010 (after the adult emergence period) in both the wash and the floodplain habitat adjacent to the wash as far south as the fence and almost to the small dam and this is as far south as we surveyed. Emergence holes were less common towards the southern extent of this area, and, especially in the wash, they were not apparent in the close vicinity of the dam (within about [328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m))]). The wash [close to the dam] is narrow and much more disturbed (apparently by turbulent water flow), gravelly, and rocky in this area, and is perhaps unsuitable as [Casey's June beetle] habitat.” This new information confirms occupancy of the southernmost wash and upland designated critical habitat areas where beetles had not previously been reported (as described in Barrows 1998, p. 1), and increases the highest elevation for a Casey's June beetle observation (southernmost wash area) to approximately 580 ft (177 m).

New survey information shed light on the occupancy and suitability status of lands proposed for critical habitat designation at the southern extreme of the population distribution. Light trap surveys of southern portions of the species' population distribution were conducted by Jim Cornett (2010, pp. 10-11) in upland habitat, from South Palm Canyon Drive south into Indian Canyons Preserve. Although Cornet (2010, p. 14) did not trap any male Casey's June beetles or observe any females, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a) observations do not support Cornett's conclusion that uplands contiguous with the wash south of Acanto Drive are not occupied. Traps on the eastern edge of Cornett's “Area 3” (Cornett 2010, p. 10), where he sampled in April, were within approximately 660 ft (200 m) of locations where Hawks reported Casey's June beetle occupancy in May. Cornett did not survey for females or emergence holes in 2010. Conversely, the results of Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011b) and Cornett's (2010, pp. 10 and 14) surveys in western areas adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive were all negative. Furthermore, Hawks (pers. comm. 2011b) reported unsuitable habitat conditions for this western area, similar to those described by Hovore (1997a, p. 3) and evident on current aerial imagery. Therefore, we believe habitat in this southwestern portion associated with South Palm Canyon Drive is not occupied and not likely occupiable. However, as noted in the preceding paragraph, Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a and b) new information does indicate occupancy in the southernmost mapped contiguous CdC and RA soil areas.

New habitat information resulted in changes to our habitat area estimates. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) discovery of 17 ac (7 ha) of occupied Casey's June beetle habitat outside of proposed critical habitat in Palm Canyon Wash increased our estimates of extant and historic occupied habitat. However, based on the currently available information, we have determined that this newly discovered occupied habitat does not meet the definition of critical habitat (see above discussion). Multiple tribal commenters further suggested the species may no longer occupy areas within the southern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit, and that these habitat areas were no longer suitable for Casey's June beetle occupancy (see

Comments 5

and

8

below in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section). Survey information from 2010 supports this hypothesis for areas in the southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit associated with South Palm Canyon Drive (see above discussion). The determination that the southwestern portion of the proposed critical habitat unit associated with South Palm Canyon Drive is no longer occupied or contains suitable habitat decreased the total area estimate of remaining suitable habitat (despite the addition of the two newly discovered occupied sites in a natural remnant of the Palm Canyon Wash channel discussed above). As a result of this new information, we have made appropriate changes to this final rule.

New Information on Casey's June Beetle Diet and Movement

We found one new study on the diet of another endangered June beetle, and some new information on June beetle movement distances. Hill and O'Malley (2009, p. 1) found that the frass pellets (pelletized fecal matter) of larvae of the Mount Hermon June beetle (

Polyphylla barbata

) contained a variety of plant species and fungi material demonstrating that they are not specialist host plant feeders but are microhabitat specialists. Hawks' (pers. comm. 2010) observations at Smoke Tree Ranch indicate Casey's June beetle may be similar when he stated that, “We did not observe females at Smoke Tree [Ranch], but many hundreds of emergence holes associated with native vegetation [and nonnative vegetation such as] irrigated tamarisk, fan palms, oleander, and olive. We still are not sure what plants of any sort mean to [Casey's June beetle] grubs. * * * ” These results support our hypothesis that Casey's June beetles do not require particular species of host plants for feeding. However, native plant species likely are important habitat components in other ways not fully understood at this time, because native plant species are an integral component of the ecosystem in which Casey's June beetle evolved. We incorporated this information into the Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June Beetle section below.

The observation of a male Casey's June beetle at a street light in a suburban neighborhood approximately 750 ft (230 m) from the nearest suitable habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 6; Google Earth historical imagery 1996 and 2002) indicates that movement of males among occupied areas occurs over at least that distance, and it is likely that potential movement is much farther. The maximum male dispersal distance recorded for male Mount Hermon June beetles, a related species that also has flightless females, is 923 ft (281 m) (Arnold, Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., pers. comm. 2011). Arnold (pers. comm. 2011) noted this datum was from a mark-release-recapture study limited to his study site, and therefore it is “entirely possible” adult male June beetles are capable of making longer distance movements. This information supports the conclusion articulated in our Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below that all lands meeting the definition of critical habitat are likely

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

Federal Register

a proposal to list Casey's June beetle as endangered and to designate critical habitat. In this final rule, we determine endangered status for Casey's June beetle and designate critical habitat.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

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

Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles that has naturally restricted ranges (LaRue, University of California, Riverside, pers. comm. 2006). Casey's June beetle is adapted to specialized habitat and soil types found in the Palm Canyon Wash area of Palm Springs, California. We do not know the exact historical population footprint of Casey's June beetle due to the generality and paucity of location descriptions from early collection records (see discussion in the 90-day finding (71 FR 44962; August 8, 2006)). However, museum specimen records indicate the historical range can be described as the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains from the City of Palm Springs south to the community of Indian Wells. This historical range, while far greater than the current known population distribution, is nonetheless relatively restricted compared to most species.

We used soils data correlated with occupancy data to estimate the historical suitable habitat distribution of Casey's June beetle. Our review of the soil and occupancy data showed that over 97 percent of habitat likely to have been included in Casey's June beetle historical population distributions has been converted to development or rendered unsuitable by the impacts of adjacent development. Of the approximately 605 ac (245 ha) of remaining extant suitable habitat, approximately 70 percent remains relatively unprotected by existing regulations (see

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

section below). Approximately 50 percent of the unprotected habitat areas are tribal reservation lands and 30 percent are in private ownership. The remaining approximately 20 percent is owned by local entities (City of Palm Springs and County Flood Control) for roads, flood control, and water facilities. Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal reservation land consists of approximately 11 ac (4 ha) in tribal trust, and 152 ac (62 ha) in fee-title and allotted lands. The majority of tribal reservation lands are at risk of development, as are any undeveloped portions of the relatively unprotected lands owned by local governments and private landowners.

The population of the City of Palm Springs increased from 42,805 to 47,251 between 2000 and 2008, an increase of 10 percent (CDF 2008, Table 1, Table E-1). The City is predicted to grow by 25 percent between 2000 and 2020 (SCAG 2004, Table 2004GF). The current growth rate has increased development pressure on properties zoned for residential and commercial use, uses which would encroach upon Casey's June beetle habitat.

Development

We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from 2003 to 2007 to determine the habitat impacts of completed and pending projects as cited in the petition to list Casey's June beetle (Wright

et al.

2004, pp. 8-9) and referenced in the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635). We were unable to identify all projects cited in the petition, as the petitioners did not provide specific geographic descriptions, and the extent of area of proposed development projects cited did not exactly match calculations in our most recent analysis. However, based on site visits and digital aerial photographs, we identified at least seven projects that removed or impacted occupied and likely occupied habitat within the distribution described above in the 5 years between 2003 and 2007. Habitat disturbance activities such as development can result in direct mortality of larvae and adults.

The Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands) impacted approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of occupied habitat in 2005. Expected mitigation measures described by Dudek and Associates (2001, p. 24) for impacts to Casey's June beetle habitat were an in-lieu payment of $600 per ac ($240 per ha) (total of $21,960) to the City of Palm Springs or a habitat conservation entity designated by the City for loss of approximately 37 ac (15 ha) of “creosote bush scrub habitat” (no specified use of these funds), and re-creation of 9 ac (4 ha) of lost “desert wash scrub habitat” (no specified cost). To our knowledge, no appropriate habitat has yet been conserved or restored for Casey's June beetle to offset the Monte Sereno project impacts.

In 2006, the City of Palm Springs issued a mitigated negative declaration for Smoke Tree Ranch Cottages (City of Palm Springs 2006, p. 2) (“Casitas” development cited in the 90-day finding (71 FR 44960; August 8, 2006)), finding “no significant impact” to Casey's June beetle. However, at least 7 ac (3 ha) of occupied habitat were developed (Cornett 2004, pp. 18-27). The Smoke Tree Commons shopping center impacted approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of habitat for Casey's June beetle. The project's environmental impact report (EIR) stated that the City of Palm Springs was responsible for enforcing and monitoring Casey's June beetle mitigation measures prior to issuing a grading permit to the developer, including recording a conservation easement and developing a management plan for Casey's June beetle on

conserved habitat (Pacific Municipal Consultants 2005, p. 9). A conservation easement was established; however, a management plan was not drafted prior to issuance of the grading permit, and monitoring and management activities for Casey's June beetle are not assured (Ewing, City of Palm Springs, pers. comm. 2007).

The other four identified projects that removed or impacted occupied and likely occupied habitat are: (1) The 2-ac (1-ha) Desert Water Agency wells and pipeline project in the Smoke Tree Ranch development; (2) the 34-ac (14-ha) Alta project north of Acanto Drive and west of Palm Canyon Wash on tribal reservation lands; (3) the 24-ac (10-ha) Estancias subdivision north of Acanto Drive; and (4) the 3-ac (1-ha) Palm Canyon project at South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon Drive.

These seven projects resulted in the loss of, or impacts to, approximately 126 ac (51 ha) of occupied and likely occupied Casey's June beetle habitat from 2003 to 2008. An additional 5 ac (2 ha) of Casey's June beetle habitat has been impacted by small projects (for example, single home lots and pipeline development). Hovore (2003, p. 4) hypothesized that the destruction and isolation of occupied habitat caused by the Monte Sereno and Alta projects in 2003 “* * * overall may reduce the known range and extant population of [Casey's June beetle] by about one third.” Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) noted that although Hovore was always conscientious and reported any Casey's June beetle observation, not all biologists do so, and in at least one case a biologist apparently omitted Casey's June beetle observations from their environmental impact report for a proposed golf course project in the early 1990s. Streit (2009, pp. 12-13) did not identify the exact location he referenced, although his description that it is found in “the vicinity of the mouth of Palm Canyon, adjacent to Palm Springs, Riverside County, California,” and approximate construction dates of golf course projects based on digital aerial photography indicate the referenced project is the current Indian Canyons Golf Resort, located between Smoke Tree Ranch and the Monte Sereno project north of Bogart Trail and adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (tribal reservation lands).

We conducted an analysis for the 12-month finding (72 FR 36635) that used available digital aerial photographs taken at various intervals from 1991 to 2005 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-2) and 2006 field surveys (Anderson 2006, pp. 1-36), which determined that Casey's June beetle experienced an approximate 25 percent reduction in contiguous occupied habitat from 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in 2006. Based on new biological surveys and information provided to us since 2006, we now know an area larger than 770 ac (312 ha) was occupied by Casey's June beetle in 1991. With this new information and 2008 digital aerial photographs, we determined that there was approximately 1,018 ac (412 ha) of occupied habitat in 1991. Therefore, our new analysis showed that Casey's June beetle has experienced an approximately 22 percent reduction in occupied habitat from 1,018 ac (412 ha) in 1991 to 794 ac (314 ha) in 2008. Our updated calculations accounted for these additional acres and revealed that habitat was lost at a rate of 1.6 percent per year from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 0.6 percent per year from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 3.8 percent per year from 2003 to 2005, and at a rate of 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 2008 (dates based on available photographs). Although habitat loss since 2005 has slowed (likely due to the economic downturn), after our 2008 analysis was completed (post-12 month finding; 72 FR 36635, July 5, 2007) we discovered approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of habitat where two adjacent development pads were cleared on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian's reservation south of Acanto Drive, removing the PCEs from the majority of the parcel (per available satellite imagery). The loss of this graded area is of particular concern because it comprises approximately one-fourth of a formerly contiguous occupied upland habitat area adjacent to an area of the wash.

Since publication in the

Federal Register

of the July 5, 2007, 12-month finding (72 FR 36635), the City of Palm Springs completed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process for the 80- to 100-ac (32 to 40 ha) Eagle Canyon residential development project planned on tribal reservation lands (Davis, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007; Park, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pers. comm. 2007). The project is in the area containing CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon Drive near Bogart Trail and Acanto Drive (tentative tract number 30047) (City of Palm Springs 2008, p. 14). We believe this area is not likely to be occupied by Casey's June beetle or occupiable in the future based on historical and recent disturbances (Hovore 1997a, p. 3; Google Earth imagery 2011) (see

New Species Information

section above), and because recent surveys conducted within and adjacent to the Eagle Canyon project area (Osborne 2008a, p. 3, Cornett 2010 p. 10 and 14; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b) where occupancy was previously documented (Hovore 1995, pp. 4-5) were negative.

Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey's June beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy following severe flood events (Hovore 2003, p.11; Cornett 2004, p. 14). Of the total 794 ac (321 ha) of estimated remaining habitat in 2008, only 523 ac (212 ha) was upland habitat. Upland habitat refers to any upland terrace area that is outside of the wash and does not occur on Riverwash (RA) soils. According to data from the Coachella Valley General Plan (Riverside County 2005), all remaining upland habitat on tribal land north of Acanto Drive is projected to be developed at a density of two homes per ac (0.5 per ha) by the year 2020, even though some parcels designated as parks and recreation in the 2020 General Plan (code GP2020 = “1145”) have already been developed with three homes per ac (7.5 per ha). Undeveloped habitat on tribal reservation land south of Acanto Drive has the same initial land use designation as adjacent land north of Acanto Drive (LU93 = “3100”) (Riverside County 2005, pp. 94-120) in the East Bogart Trail area, except that it is outside the city limit of Palm Springs (code GP2020 = “58”). Code GP2020 = “58” signifies tribal land or open space in the General Plan; lands with this code have been developed at a density as high as 3 homes per ac (more than 7 homes per ha). Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) indicate that more than 48 percent of the approximately 523 ac (212 ha) of upland Casey's June beetle habitat that we estimated to be extant in 2008 could be impacted by development.

Further indicating that development in Casey's June beetle habitat is likely, the Director of Planning Services for the City of Palm Springs stated in a communication to economists writing the DEA (Ewing pers. comm. 2009) that “* * * much of the [proposed critical habitat] is within the urban boundaries of the city and along a major thoroughfare (and former state highway). These lands are of significant economic value to the community and have already been the subject of entitlement applications, processing, and approval.”

Development is the greatest threat to habitat in upland CdC soils that are believed to support Casey's June beetle; however, development threats are not limited to upland terrace habitat. For example, entire sections of Palm Canyon

Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry Trail have been converted to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 2007, p. 3). LaRue (pers. comm. 2006) emphasized the magnitude of development threats to

Dinacoma

spp. population survival: “Most

Dinacoma

[spp.] have experienced range reduction because of unprecedented habitat destruction and modification for recreational, residential and urban development resulting in serious distributional fragmentation throughout [their] former already naturally limited ranges. Consequently, several populations [of the genus

Dinacoma

] have been extirpated, especially those that once existed in Los Angeles County (for example, Glendale, Eaton Canyon).” Therefore, habitat modification for recreational, residential, and urban development reduces an already limited range for Casey's June beetle and poses a substantial threat to this species” survival, both now and in the foreseeable future.

Soil Disturbance

In addition to the threat of habitat loss, soil disturbance activities may degrade habitat quality and can cause direct Casey's June beetle mortality (also see

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

below). Analysis of 2008 aerial photography in Palm Canyon Wash indicates numerous land-disturbance activities affecting occupied wash habitat managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Riverside County FCWCD). In the vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge and Araby Drive, there are road maintenance and flood control activities, as well as unregulated off-road vehicle (ORV) disturbance (based on examination of Google Earth imagery, both current and historical). Cornett (2004, p. 12) noted similar ORV impacts during Casey's June beetle surveys on a nearby site adjacent to Whitewater Wash and the Palm Springs Airport. ORV use impacts desert soils and associated biota by increasing erosion (Snyder

et al.

1976, pp. 29-30; Rowlands 1980, p. 169), reducing both plant and vertebrate diversity (Bury

et al.

1977, Table 4, Figure 6; Rowlands 1980, pp. 63-74; Lathrop 1983, pp. 153-166; Cornett 2004, p. 15), and changing soil density through compaction, which may also influence soil water retention capacity (Adams

et al.

1982, pp. 167-175; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, pp. 144-145; Webb 1983, pp. 51-79). Indirect evidence suggests that land disturbance impacts the species' burrows and larvae that occur in the soil and the flightless females when they rest at the top of the burrows (Cornett 2004, p. 15). Any activities that cause direct adult mortality, compact or disturb soils when adult beetles are active, or affect soils to a depth where immature stages or resting adults are found may affect the species' persistence in those areas or dispersal to adjacent areas. Waste dumping at habitat edges, as discovered through review of digital aerial photography of proposed critical habitat areas and described in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section (see

Comment 12

) below, or frequent use for horseback riding by local riding clubs (as described by Hawks pers. comm. 2011b) can also cause direct mortality of adult females and may have detrimental effects on habitat. Therefore, land disturbance activities likely pose a threat to the species' survival; however, the magnitude of impacts is unknown.

Habitat Fragmentation

Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly fragmented by development in recent years (see above discussion regarding development). Continued fragmentation of already limited, remnant habitat compromises the ability of various species to disperse and establish new, or augment declining, populations (Collinge 2000, pp. 2211-2226; Freemark 2002, pp. 58-83; Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 182-194) and can isolate segments of a population (Picket and White 1986, pp. 189-192). Elimination of dispersal areas and isolation of population segments increase chances of extirpation by stochastic events (Hanski

et al.

1995, pp. 21-28; Collinge 2000, pp. 2211-2226). This process, as it applies to Casey's June beetle, is evident in the development history of the City of Palm Springs and the distribution of Casey's June beetle populations (Cornett 2004, pp. 11, 14). Casey's June beetle is especially impacted by smaller-scale habitat fragmentation because females are flightless and unable to move between fragmented patches (Hovore 1995, p. 7). Although male beetles can move between habitat patches, thereby maintaining genetic mixing on a population scale, fragmented patches that no longer support any female Casey's June beetles may be attractive to male beetles and act as population sinks. The risk of local extinction is widely noted to increase as the fraction of occupied habitat patches, occupied patch area, and density of occupied patches decrease (Forman and Godron, 1986, pp. 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; Hanski

et al.

1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).

Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated that population movement would be “slow and indirect,” and suggested the population structure for Casey's June beetle in any given area could be described as “clusters of individuals around areas of repeated female emergence.” This would, in Hovore's (2003, p. 4) assessment, make the species “susceptible to extirpation resulting from land use changes that would remove or alter surface features” that isolate colonies into non-contiguous habitat fragments. Although fragmentation of habitat occupied by females within a population still allows mixing of genes by males visiting multiple habitat fragments (habitat is not fragmented with regard to male movement), it would preclude recolonization of an area if all flightless females were eliminated from that fragment. Fragmentation of suitable habitat into smaller patches increases the risk of colony loss and decreases the probability of the species' survival.

Current Conservation Measures

Indian Canyons Master Plan

We reviewed the Indian Canyons Master Plan (Master Plan; ACBCI 2007) and the zoning designations in it to determine what type of protective measures it provides Casey's June beetle and its habitat. Upon review of the Master Plan we noted that the planning area encompasses all Casey's June beetle habitat south of Acanto Drive (including some trust, fee, and allotted lands). The majority of this habitat falls within allotted lands owned by tribal members (ACBCI 2007, p. 17). According to acquisition priorities articulated in the Master Plan, some parcels identified as Casey's June beetle habitat (south of the east-west aligned portion of South Palm Canyon Drive) represent the highest priority for acquisition because they contain valuable cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and have the highest potential for future development plans that are incompatible with resource protection goals (ACBCI 2007 pp. 27 and 29). Allotted lands identified as Casey's June beetle habitat within Palm Canyon Wash between Acanto Drive and the east-west aligned portion of South Palm Canyon Drive fall within the Master Plan Low Density Residential (2 single family dwellings per acre (0.4 ha)) land use category (ACBCI 2007 pp. 35 and 37). In summary, the Master Plan provides some protection of some Casey's June beetle habitat on tribal land, but does not assure protection.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prepared and submitted a draft habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the

Service, which has undergone public review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (72 FR 58112; October 12, 2007). The Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they removed Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the draft Tribal HCP; however, they indicated they will “continue to informally coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on the Reservation.” The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service to allow “the Service to take the lead in addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this species” (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a) permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural resources within the Tribe's jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts to conserve Casey's June beetle.

Our analysis indicates that although some tribal environmental policies do exist (ACBCI 2000; ACBCI 2007) that provide some conservation benefit for the species and its habitat, they do not adequately protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat. Therefore, we do not believe that existing tribal regulatory documents ensure conservation of Casey's June beetle. The Service will continue to work with the Tribe to obtain any other information that illustrates how tribal actions or policies would help conserve Casey's June beetle habitat and protect the species. Currently, we do not have information documenting how occupied or potentially occupied habitat for Casey's June beetle is protected from development and other impacts on all tribal reservation lands.

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

Some non-Federal lands within the purported historical range of Casey's June beetle are proposed for management under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley MSHCP). The Service issued a single incidental take permit (Service file: TE-104604-0 (Service 2008)) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees under the Coachella Valley MSHCP for a period of 75 years on October 1, 2008. Although Casey's June beetle was initially considered for coverage under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the 10(a)(1)(B) permit did not include Casey's June beetle as a covered species. Because it is not a covered species, the Coachella Valley MSHCP does not provide specific measures for the protection or conservation of the species and its habitat, nor does the incidental take permit authorize take of the species. We are working with individual permittees within the species' range to address the species' needs in their planned projects. We are engaged in discussions with the City of Palm Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to the species appropriately. However, actions taking place after the effective date of this final rule would require any take associated with their activities be exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act through section 7 consultation (where appropriate) or permitted under an amendment to the Coachella Valley MSHCP or a separate HCP focused on the Casey's June beetle. No such amendment or permit is currently in place.

Summary of Factor A

Within the historical distribution of Casey's June beetle, we estimate that over 97 percent of habitat likely to have been occupied by Casey's June beetle has been converted to development or rendered unsuitable due to impacts of adjacent development. Loss of occupied habitat has continued since the early 1990s. Twenty-eight percent (287 ac (116 ha)) of the 1,018 ac (412 ha) of contiguous suitable habitat for Casey's June beetle identified as extant (based on 1991 aerial photographs) has been lost to development. From 2003 to 2005, the loss of occupied Casey's June beetle habitat occurred at a rate of 3.8 percent per year. Although habitat loss since 2005 has slowed (likely due to the economic downturn), development and habitat impact trends are continuing (see above discussion of Eagle Canyon project approved by the City of Palm Springs), and we anticipate additional upland habitat for the beetle may be impacted or lost in the foreseeable future. Based on recent information and calculations, we estimate the amount of undeveloped habitat currently occupied by the species is approximately 605 ac (245 ha) (including all non-contiguous habitat containing any soil types used by the species). Based on current projected development and habitat impacts, the loss of historically occupied locations, the limited distribution of Casey's June beetle, existing and future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and land use changes associated with urbanization, we find that the threats associated with the present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of Casey's June beetle habitat are significant. These threats are currently ongoing and will continue into the foreseeable future.

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

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

C. Disease or Predation

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

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for Casey's June beetle include: (1) Federal laws and regulations; (2) State laws and regulations; and (3) local land use processes and ordinances (for example, tribal environmental policies). However, these regulatory mechanisms are not preventing continued habitat modification and fragmentation. There are no regulatory mechanisms that specifically or indirectly address the management or conservation of habitat for Casey's June beetle. However, there are regulatory mechanisms that could provide incidental benefit to Casey's June beetle. The following section discusses these mechanisms.

Federal Laws

All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321

et seq.

) of 1970 for projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1518) state that, in their environmental impact statements, agencies shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the various project alternatives (including the proposed action), any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA itself is a disclosure law that provides an opportunity for the public to submit comments on the particular project and propose other conservation measures that may directly benefit listed species; however, it does not require subsequent

minimization or mitigation measures by the Federal agency involved. Any such measures are typically voluntary in nature and are not required by the statute. Activities are subject to NEPA regardless of ownership if there is a Federal nexus, such as under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251

et seq.

) and tribal lands held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary mechanism in the United States for surface water quality protection. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. It employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct water quality impacts, finance water treatment facilities, and manage polluted run-off. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable water unless a permit was obtained. The EPA's National Pollutant Discharges Eliminations System permit program controls discharges. The EPA determines water quality standards for each State, and the CWA requires States to either adopt this level or determine another with documentation (EPA 2000, p. 31682). Under section 404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States, which include navigable and isolated waters, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). In general, the term “wetland” refers to areas meeting the Corps' criteria of hydric soils, hydrology (either sufficient annual flooding or water on the soil surface), and hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically adapted for growing in wetlands). Any action with the potential to impact waters of the United States must be reviewed under the CWA. These reviews require consideration of impacts to water quality and recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts. Most wash habitat suitable for Casey's June beetle could meet the definition of waters of the United States; thus some impacts to this sensitive taxon and its habitat within the wash could potentially fall under Corps' jurisdiction and be averted. However, the CWA has not proven sufficient to alleviate threats to Casey's June beetle and its habitat to date.

State Laws

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure of potential environmental impacts resulting from public or private projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies in California. The CEQA guidelines require a finding of significance if a project has the potential to “reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species' (CEQA Guideline 15065). As a candidate species for Federal listing, Casey's June beetle is considered rare under CEQA Guideline 15380. The lead agency can either require mitigation for unavoidable significant effects or decide that overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline 21002). Although such overrides are rare, the possibility remains that projects that cause significant environmental damage, such as taking of endangered species or destruction of their habitat, will be approved. Therefore, protection of listed species through CEQA is dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved. Furthermore, because the availability of occupied and suitable Casey's June beetle habitat is extremely limited, regulatory protections such as CEQA that do not prohibit mortality or habitat loss, nor require acquisition of available habitat to mitigate such losses, would not be sufficient to reduce threats or prevent the species' extinction.

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protections for many species of plants, animals, and some invertebrate species. However, insect species, such as Casey's June beetle, are not afforded protection under CESA. Therefore, this existing regulatory mechanism does not provide for the protection of Casey's June beetle or its habitat.

Existing Tribal Regulatory Mechanisms

Based on occurrence of soil types and species collection records, historically (pre-European settlement), Casey's June beetle potentially occupied 5,834 ac (2,361 ha) (18 percent) of tribal land. Lands within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians” reservation encompass 274 ac (111 ha), or approximately 45 percent of the estimated extant Casey's June beetle habitat. All post-1996 development of occupied habitat, with the exception of the Smoke Tree Commons and Cottages projects, has occurred on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians” reservation land. The remaining undeveloped suitable upland habitat on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians” reservation land is relatively flat and adjacent to, or surrounded by, recent development (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3), and some of these lands are approved for development by the City of Palm Springs and will likely be developed (see the discussion of the Eagle Canyon project under

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

section above).

In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's Field Supervisor dated October 10, 2006, the Tribe stated they had “* * * enacted a Tribal Environmental Policy Act to, among other things, ensure protection of natural resources and the environment. See Tribal Ordinance No. 28 at I.B., (2000).” The referenced Tribal Environmental Policy Act (Tribal Act) (ACBCI 2000) states that the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) is the lead for preparing environmental review documents, and that tribal policy is to protect the natural environment, including “all living things.” According to the Tribal Act (ACBCI 2000, p. 4), the Tribe will consult with any Federal, State, and local agencies that have special expertise with respect to environmental impacts. In a second letter dated April 29, 2010, the Tribe further stated they have chosen not to delegate land use authority to a local agent (such as the City of Palm Springs) in the area of the reservation south of Acanto Drive. Instead, the Tribe stated they directly regulate land use in this area through the Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning designation.

Several projects implemented on tribal reservation lands since the enactment of the Tribal Act have impacted Casey's June beetle habitat. Casey's June beetle occupancy of the Bogert Trail site in the vicinity of South Palm Canyon Drive on tribal land (Duff 1990, pp. 2-3, 4; Hovore 1997b, p. 4; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Hovore 2003, p. 4; Cornett 2004, p. 3) has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by development since our receipt of the petition to list the Casey's June beetle in 2004 (see

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

above). The Alta and Monte Sereno development projects eliminated most of the species' upland habitat estimated to have been occupied in 2003 outside of Smoke Tree Ranch. Hovore (2003, p. 4) estimated that grading for the Alta project near South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in May 2003 reduced the known extant Casey's June beetle population size by “about one-third.”

No Federal, State, or local agencies that have special expertise with respect to environmental impacts to Casey's June beetle were consulted and no review documents were prepared by the Tribe prior to the recent development of the Alta and Monte Sereno projects in occupied Casey's June beetle habitat. Therefore, our conclusion is that the

Tribal Act does not effectively protect the species” habitat. The Chief Planning and Development Officer for the Tribe (Davis, pers. comm. 2007) affirmed that the Tribal Act does not apply to all tribal reservation lands; for example, the currently planned Alturas development project (see

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

above) is not covered, because it is “fee land.” Although State environmental review documents (CEQA Environmental Impact Reports) were prepared by private consultants and reviewed by the City of Palm Springs for the Eagle Creek development project, the Tribe did not participate in the review or comment with regard to Casey's June beetle (Davis, pers. comm. 2007). Summary of Factor D

Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect Casey's June beetle or its habitat. Occupied habitat continues to be lost to development projects, such as those in the Bogert Trail area, which were constructed without any Casey's June beetle mitigation. Because existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate protection for this species or its habitat throughout its range, we believe this presents a significant threat to the survival of Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.

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

The Casey's June beetle population may be impacted by other natural or anthropogenically influenced factors, such as changing environmental conditions resulting from climate change, increased intensity and frequency of scouring events in wash habitat, and indirect effects associated with adjacent development. However, there are no species-specific, scientific, published models describing or predicting the magnitude of these threats, and this should be the subject of future research.

Stream Channelization

Past and ongoing development adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash, channelization of the wash to protect development, and development of associated flood-control levees are all likely to increase Casey's June beetle mortality during flood events. Urban development adjacent to natural creek beds or washes concentrates stream flow by constraining channel width, thereby increasing the speed of water flowing past a given location (Poff

et al.

1997, p. 772). Therefore, scouring events that cause species mortality are likely to occur more frequently today than they did prior to development. Scouring events may temporarily eliminate Casey's June beetles within Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003, p. 9; Cornett 2004, p. 14). After scouring or long-term inundation events, depopulated wash habitats would be slowly repopulated by females from neighboring occupied, higher elevation habitat. However, if scouring events increase in frequency, there may be insufficient time for females to emigrate from higher elevation refugia between scouring flow events. We do not know how far or how fast females can emigrate from upland refugia; however, we expect that travel across land would be relatively slow and occur over short distances compared to males that can fly. Should these recolonization events fail, Casey's June beetles may become extirpated from Palm Canyon Wash, which comprises a significant portion of the known occupied habitat area. We believe the increased frequency of scouring events due to indirect effects of development adjacent to the Wash poses at least a moderate threat to Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.

Climate Change

Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors, such as increased windspeed and temperatures (that dry alluvial soils and disperse female pheromones), and increased catastrophic flood events (Noss

et al.

2001, p. 42; LaRue pers. comm. 2006). As discussed above, increased intensity and frequency of flooding and scouring events from habitat modification in Palm Canyon Wash is of particular concern for Casey's June beetle. However, this increased flooding and scouring may also result from changes in climatic conditions. The global frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased since 1960, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapor, and it is “very likely” (90 percent confidence) that heavy precipitation will generally become even more frequent over most land areas (IPCC 2007, pp. 2 and 8-9). A review of literature and historic climate data specific to the area of Casey's June beetle (Anderson 2007, pp. 1-6) indicated temperature, precipitation, peak stream flow (NWIS 2008), and other weather patterns since 1950, are consistent with global patterns described and predicted by the IPCC (2007 p. 2, pp. 8-9, and 15). General Circulation Models predict a 1 to 3 °Fahrenheit (°F) (0.5 to 1.7 °Celsius (°C)) rise in temperature and at least a 25 percent increase in precipitation by 2050, to as much as a 50 percent increase in precipitation as early as 2030 for California (Giorgi

et al.

1994, pp. 375-399; Field

et al.

1999, pp. 5-10), and increasing intensity of flood and drought events (Giorgi

et al.

1994, pp. 375-399; Dessens 1995, pp. 1241-1244). Downscaled average climate model predictions for Casey's June beetle habitat calculated using Climate Wizard (Maurer

et al.

2007; medium A1 scenario for 2050) predict an increase in temperature of 5 °F (2.8 °C) and a 5 percent increase in annual precipitation. Increased temperatures, combined with concentration of total annual precipitation into more extreme storm events with associated high wind speeds should cause soil drying, as a result of increased evaporation and runoff, regardless of an increase in total annual precipitation (Field

et al.

1999; pp. 9 and 20). Therefore, per Field

et al.

(1999, pp. 9 and 20) and the above Climate Wizard predictions, drought frequency, soil dryness, and the frequency of flash flood scouring events over saturated winter soils are expected to increase in the future. Alternating drought and flash flood events may exacerbate threats already facing the species as a result of its small population size and threats to its habitat.

The Application of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index (NatureServe 2010) ranked Casey's June beetle as extremely vulnerable (abundance and range extent within geographical area assessed extremely likely to substantially decrease or disappear by 2050) based primarily on climate model predictions, dependence on a moisture regime, vulnerability to disturbance regime change, restricted mobility, historical reduction of occupied habitat, and its narrow endemic status (Anderson 2010, p. 1). Therefore, the best available science indicates ongoing changing environmental conditions resulting from climate change effects pose a significant threat to Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.

Artificial Light

Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey's June beetles traveling up to 328 ft (100 m) to artificial light sources (Osborne, Osborne Biological Consulting, pers. comm. 2008a). Such artificial light sources as black lights or mercury vapor lights may draw males in a line-of-sight radius from existing habitat (Hovore 2003, p. 3). As males fly in search of female pheromone plumes (Domek

et al.

1990, pp. 271-276), they may become distracted by light sources that attract

them to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where they are preyed upon, or to local swimming pools, that are also an unnatural source of light even if it is only reflected, where they end up in pool skimmers and often drown. Swimming pools are one common source for male Casey's June beetle specimens (Barrows 1998, p. 1; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Cornett 2004, p. 5) and may serve as a genetic sink for this species. If large numbers of male Casey's June beetles are lost as a result of these indirect effects of development, there could be reduced genetic diversity in males available for mating. Male beetles located at habitat patch edges closer to light sources would be more susceptible to distraction than those located at the center of patches. The loss of large numbers of these male Casey's June beetles would diminish the overall genetic diversity of the population. We believe that loss of male beetles due to unnatural light sources attracting beetles into development adjacent to upland habitat poses at least a moderate threat to Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.

Soil Disturbing Activities

Foot, vehicle, and horse traffic and other soil disturbing activities from adjacent developed areas are likely to cause direct mortality of adults because adult female Casey's June beetles are flightless. It is also likely that vehicle traffic could compress or compact soils to a depth deep enough to kill Casey's June beetle larvae. Discing, grading, soil removal, and soil filling all have the potential to harm individuals below the soil surface. These activities are a common occurrence, as evidenced by eyewitness accounts (Anderson 2006, pp. 17, 20, 22; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b) and aerial imagery from multiple years.

Small Population Size and Restricted Range

As stated above, Casey's June beetle is part of a genus of beetles that have naturally restricted ranges, and it is adapted to specialized habitat and soil types within the eastern foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains from the City of Palm Springs south to the community of Indian Wells. Casey's June beetle occupies only a portion of this area, and the majority of the occupied area is threatened by development, habitat fragmentation, or other anthropogenic or natural factors. In addition to having a restricted range and small population size, the species also has limited dispersal capabilities (Hovore 2003, p. 3). These conditions most likely increase the degree of threat due to chance events, such as floods or drought, that are beyond the natural variability of the ecosystem (Lande 1993, p. 912). The risk of local extinction is widely noted to increase as the fraction of occupied habitat patches, occupied patch area, and density of occupied patches decrease (Forman and Godron, 1986, pp. 87-91; Hanski 1991, pp. 17-38; Hanski

et al.

1995, pp. 21-28; Hokit and Branch 2003, pp. 1060-1068).

Summary of Factor E

Casey's June beetle is negatively affected by increased intensity and frequency of catastrophic flood events; environmental effects resulting from changing climatic patterns; loss of individuals due to foot, vehicle, horse traffic and other soil disturbing activities; and loss of individuals due to attraction to light sources. We conclude from available information that climate change is likely to reduce Casey's June beetle population densities by increasing scouring events and decreasing water retention in the soil. Additional development within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat will likely increase traffic into habitat areas and include external lighting and swimming pools, all of which may result in additional losses and will continue to adversely affect the existing population. Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade factors in total pose a significant threat to the continued existence of Casey's June beetle, both now and in the foreseeable future.

Determination

Section 3 of the Act, defines the term “endangered species” to mean any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term “threatened species” is defined as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

We carefully assessed the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Casey's June beetle. We also consulted with recognized Casey's June beetle experts on the species' status and trends. Although quantification of population numbers has not been possible, given the cryptic nature of this species and limited historical survey data, this species' highly restricted geographic range relative to its historical distribution (as evidenced by documented loss of occupied habitat; see above discussion), ongoing habitat impacts and losses, and slow female dispersal rate make it particularly susceptible to extinction from random events such as flood scouring or isolation through habitat fragmentation.

As described in detail above, projections for human population growth extend out to 2030 in Palm Springs (SCAG 2004). Such projections frame our analysis as they help us understand what factors can reasonably be anticipated to meaningfully affect the species” future conservation status. We updated our original analysis by Anderson and Love (2007, pp. 1-2) to determine rates of habitat loss in southern Palm Springs from 1991 to 2008. During that time, Casey's June beetle experienced an approximate 22 percent reduction in contiguous, undeveloped habitat from 1,001 ac (405 ha) in 1991 to 794 ac (321 ha) in 2008. Habitat loss was greatest in the 2003 to 2005 time period, and impacts have continued to occur. Habitat has been lost at a rate of 1.6 percent per year from 1991 to 1996, 0.6 percent per year from 1996 to 2003, 3.8 percent per year from 2003 to 2005, and 0.7 percent per year from 2005 to 2008. These habitat loss estimates do not include the area west of South Palm Canyon Drive that we determined is not likely suitable habitat (see

New Species Information

section above and Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule section below).

In summary, the most significant threat to Casey's June beetle, as described in the Factor A discussion, is loss of its habitat. This species faces immediate and continuing threats from development of habitat and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Additionally, a variety of other threat factors (which fall under Factor E) continue to negatively affect the species (including changes in environmental conditions resulting from climate change impacts, attraction to artificial light sources, swimming pools, and other sources of direct mortality). Furthermore, as described in the Factor D discussion, existing regulatory mechanisms provide insufficient protection of Casey's June beetle habitat, the loss of which is the most significant threat to the species. The threats described above for Casey's June beetle occur uniformly across its entire range, resulting in a negative impact on the species' distribution, abundance, and survivability. As discussed in the July 9, 2009, proposed rule (74 FR 32859), what we believe is a single remaining Casey's June beetle population (fragmented into several areas) may already have reached the point where it is not naturally sustainable.

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

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.

Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by agencies such as the Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; leases on Tribal Trust lands that require Bureau of Indian Affairs approval; construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration. We are engaged in discussions with Caltrans (designated non-Federal representative for the Federal Highway Administration) to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to Casey's June beetle as part of projects funded by that agency.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife a permit must be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. We are engaged in discussions with the City of Palm Springs, Riverside County FCWCD, and Caltrans to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to the species resulting from activities undertaken by those entities under an amendment to the Coachella Valley MSHCP or a separate HCP focused on the Casey's June beetle, but no such amendment or permit is currently in place.

Critical Habitat Designation for Casey's June Beetle

Critical Habitat Background

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle in this section of the final rule.

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or

critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed must contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat), focusing in on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species.

Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. According to regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require such additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, (published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any potential recovery planning for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties for this or similar species, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.

Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah

et al.

2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying (Field

et al.

1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe

et al.

2004, p. 12422; Cayan

et al.

2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin

et al.

2002, p. 6074; Cook

et al.

2004, p. 1015; Golladay

et al.

2004, p. 504). See discussion regarding climate change and impacts on Casey's June beetle and its habitat under

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

above.

We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:

(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

We derive the specific physical or biological features required for Casey's

June beetle from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule published in the

Federal Register

on July 9, 2009 (74 FR 32857).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

Casey's June beetle is associated with native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert vegetation located on desert alluvial fans and bajadas (compound alluvial fans) at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Sonoran desert habitat is characterized as scattered assemblages of broad-leaved microphyll shrubs with an open canopy (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, p. 114). The open canopy provides space for male beetles to fly in search of females and fulfill normal life-history activities. Disturbed and altered habitats harboring nonnative species that are dominated by native vegetation also support the species (see Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule section below). This habitat also provides the micro-habitat space inhabited by Casey's June beetle. Individual shrubs provide refugia for the underground stage of the beetle's life history, protecting emergence holes from anthropogenic disturbance and enhancing survival of individuals.

Habitats utilized by Casey's June beetles experience varying levels and types of anthropogenic disturbance. In general, the species uses soil surfaces to burrow and deposit eggs. After beetles emerge, emergence holes are easily detectable beneath shrub canopies where they are protected from human activity. Many emergence holes do occur in the open, but are apparently destroyed or disturbed by “equestrians, vehicles, and other human activities” (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Therefore, the habitat where subterranean larvae, and females waiting on the surface for mates, are protected from human impacts is clustered around trees and shrubs where there is intact crustal soil (Hovore 2003, p. 3). These individual shrubs are refugia for the underground and reproductive stages of the beetle's life history, which protect them from anthropogenic disturbance. The emergence holes in undisturbed soil do not reflect the entire distribution of the emergence holes (the primary indicator of occupancy) because disturbance easily destroys evidence of the hole, but instead represent the remaining intact holes observable following a disturbance (Hovore 2003, p. 3; Hawks pers. comm. 2011b). Driscoll and Weir (2005, pp. 182-194) reported that flightless or subterranean beetle species that lived in disturbed, fragmented habitats were at greater risk of extirpation compared to those in intact, less-disturbed habitats. See the

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

section for more specific information on soil characteristics and nutritional requirements.

In addition to anthropogenic disturbance, Casey's June beetle habitat undergoes natural disturbance. Palm Canyon Wash experiences intense flooding and scouring about once every 10 years (Cornett 2004, p.14), with turbulence that can excavate and unearth sand where the species may occur (Wright, independent biological consultant, pers. comm. 2003; NWIS 2008). These events are likely to extirpate Casey's June beetles from locations within the wash; however, these areas may subsequently be recolonized by beetles from surrounding upland areas or local refugia. It is hypothesized that the wash serves as a sink area (an area where the rate of immigration exceeds emigration and the population segment is dependent on immigration to maintain a nonnegative growth rate) for Casey's June beetle (Cornett 2004, p.14), but wash habitat may also serve as a source area when population densities are high between flooding events. If correct, these concepts indicate the need to conserve both upland and wash habitat to achieve conservation of the species.

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

Vegetation, soil, and climate contribute to the nutritional and physiological requirements of Casey's June beetle. It is hypothesized that beetle larvae feed on organic matter and detritus below ground (Hovore 2003, p. 2; LaRue pers. comm. 2004). Observations of adult Casey's June beetles feeding underground have not yet occurred (Hovore 1995, p. 2); however, accumulation of leaves around shrubs contribute to surface litter and subsurface detritus. Additionally, annual plants and grasses growing in association with these desert scrubs also contribute to surface litter and likely provide an additional food source such as radiculum (plant rootlets) (Simpson 1968, p. 500; LaRue, pers. comm. 2004). Hill and O'Maly (2009, p. 1) found that the frass pellets of larvae of another endangered June beetle (Mount Hermon June Beetle) contained a variety of plant species and fungi material demonstrating that they are not specialist host plant feeders but are microhabitat specialists. Hawk's (2010, p. 2) observations at Smoke Tree Ranch indicate Casey's June beetle may be similar, “We did not observe females at Smoke Tree [Ranch], but many hundreds of emergence holes associated with native vegetation, irrigated tamarisk, fan palms, oleander, and olive. We still are not sure what plants of any sort mean to [Casey's June beetle] grubs * * *.” Therefore, the hypothesis that Casey's June beetles feed on organic matter and detritus below ground is supported by the best available scientific information.

The Palm Springs area has slightly higher precipitation than surrounding areas in the eastern Coachella Valley, due to its proximity to the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains (LaRue pers. comm. 2006). This precipitation keeps the underlying soil damp, which is an important component for Casey's June beetle life history because they, like many other subterranean scarab beetles, prefer the interface between surface soil and damp subsoil (Hovore 1995, p. 6; LaRue pers. comm. 2008). The depth of the damp soil is generally between 4 inches (in) (10 centimeters (cm)) to 8 in (20 cm) (Hovore 1995, p. 5) and averages 72 to 78 °F (22 to 26 °C) (USDA 1980, p. 11). This depth coincides with the depth at which larvae are usually found (2 in (5 cm) to 8 in (20 cm)) (LaRue pers. comm. 2004). Individual scrub plant architecture has developed for maximum capture of precipitation, channeling water along stems to the central root system. Moisture in the soil layer prevents desiccation of larvae and eggs and maintains a constant temperature (LaRue pers. comm. 2008). Additionally, areas with higher soil moisture are associated with a higher density of vegetation and microorganisms, such as fungi and bacteria believed to provide a more diverse food source for beetle larvae (LaRue pers. comm. 2008).

The Sonoran desert plant community endemic to the Palm Canyon Wash and adjacent terraces also serves to maintain habitat consistency. The Carsitas series soils have a water table located from 2 to 6 ft (0.6 to 1.9 m) deep. Shrubs are important in water and nutrient cycling in desert ecosystems (Sala

et al.

1989, pp. 501-505; McAuliffe 1994, pp. 111-148). Desert shrubs have deeper root systems that bring water from lower levels up to higher levels, cycle nutrients through the soil, and mediate diurnal temperature variations. Midday temperatures are lower near the center of desert scrub patches than in areas outside the canopy (Weins 1985, pp. 174-176). The combination of moisture

cycling, diurnal temperature variation, and seasonal climate variation (Rosenburg 1974, pp. 66-74) may provide beetle larvae with a gradient of micro-environments to inhabit in the subsoil through the year, thereby allowing them to maintain optimal body temperature and humidity levels. Therefore, the precipitation within the Palm Canyon area, and its influence on the local plant community, may be a unique factor required for Casey's June beetle.

Soils associated with known occurrences of Casey's June beetles are described by Hovore (2003, p. 2) as almost entirely of the Carsitas Series (CdC), typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly effervescent, moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky and non-plastic, and deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes. These soils show light braiding and some organic deposition on alluvial terraces and where they occur within washes, although they generally do not receive scouring surface flows (Hovore 2003, p. 2). Additionally, Casey's June beetle is associated with RA and ChC soils (Anderson 2007, p.1), usually occurring in these soils when they are contiguous with CdC soil. The CdC type soils may also contain small inclusions of fine or coarse soils, such as MaB and CpA (USDA 1980, pp. 11-12, 16, and 23).

Riverwash (RA) soil is also an important component of Casey's June beetle habitat because organic matter and vegetation is uprooted, redistributed, and buried in the wash during flood events. Debris deposited by these hydrological processes and periodic flooding are essential to maintain alluvial soils in Palm Canyon Wash and may serve as new or re-conditioned habitat.

Cover or Shelter

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

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

Casey's June beetle breeding and dispersal mechanisms require specific habitat important to species” reproduction. During breeding, adults of the species are most active at dusk. Females emit pheromones to attract males to burrows for the purposes of mating. Breeding success depends on males” ability to detect pheromones and ability to maneuver to remain in contact with the pheromone plume (Domek

et al.

1990, pp. 271-276). The southern Palm Springs area is surrounded by mountains and ridges that protect the area from the high winds that are frequent in the Coachella Valley (Wright pers. comm. 2004), thus providing conditions that are conducive to successful male flight, and pheromone detection and tracking. Therefore, successful reproduction depends on shelter provided by the surrounding mountains and ridges.

Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a and b) noted that RA soil in the Palm Canyon Wash above approximately 580 ft (177 m) in elevation (just below the dam) becomes too disturbed, likely by natural scouring, to support Casey's June beetle. These data indicate suitable habitat associated with the wash is likely limited to soils contiguous with the wash up to 580 ft (177 m) in elevation (this includes some CdC soils contiguous with the wash at 580 ft (177 m) that extend up to approximately 620 ft (189 m) in elevation). These data also indicate relatively small patches of CdC soil that are only contiguous with more disturbed portions of the wash above 580 ft (177 m) in elevation in Palm Canyon are not likely to support Casey's June beetle occupancy because they appear isolated with regard to female immigration and are especially vulnerable to flood scouring. Hawks (pers. comm. 2011a) also noted that he had never observed emergence holes in ChC soil and expressed doubt that ChC soil not distributed as an inclusion in CdC soil provided habitat for Casey's June beetle.

Dispersal of Casey's June beetle is also limited by the flightlessness of females. This adaptation significantly hinders this species' ability to disperse or recolonize an area. Because female Casey's June beetles are flightless, the species' breeding system and the ability of females to disperse over land (which is uncertain but much reduced compared to flight-capable males) is restricted geographically to a relatively small area. Females appear to emerge from burrows and remain on the surface nearby and then either re-enter these burrows or dig new burrows to lay eggs. If an isolated portion of the population were extirpated it would be difficult if not impossible for females to recolonize that area depending on the nature and extent of isolating factors (de Vries

et al.

1996, pp. 332-342; Driscoll and Weir 2005, pp. 192-193) because flightless females disperse only by crawling and likely by water flow in wash areas (although it is unclear what the survival rate would be under water-flow dispersal). Because male Casey's June beetles cannot repopulate an area by themselves, and females are flightless, habitat fragmentation and isolation are significant threats to gene flow in this species. Therefore, connectivity of suitable habitats that provides for dispersal over multiple generations is essential to the conservation of the species.

Minimally disturbed suitable habitat is also essential to Casey's June beetle. As stated above, the adults of this species burrow in alluvial soils to lay eggs and the larval stages are known to live out this life stage in alluvial soil as well. Surfaces such as highly manipulated nonnative ornamental landscaping do not serve the same function as native or minimally disturbed habitat. Although Casey's June beetles are documented to occur in abundance within the residential community of Smoke Tree Ranch (Cornett 2004, Table 1; Hawks pers. comm. 2010), it is likely that breeding and female movement is largely restricted to the relatively undisturbed natural areas within the Smoke Tree Ranch property, and species abundance is primarily the result of: (1) Minimal past disturbance within a regulated and gated community; (2) a relatively large, contiguous, occupied, minimally disturbed, upland habitat area dominated by native plants; and (3) supplemental soil moisture from landscape watering.

Primary Constituent Elements for Casey's June Beetle

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

elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements (PCEs) specific to Casey's June beetle are:

(1) Soils of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand and Riverwash (RA) series, or inclusions of Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) series soils, or inclusions of Myoma fine sands (MaB) or Coachella fine sands (CpA) within CdC soils, at or below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation, associated with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes to provide space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food sources; and

(2) Predominantly native desert vegetation, to provide shelter from traffic-related mortality and food for the species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Special management of the physical or biological features is required in these areas to reduce threats to habitat. Major threats to Casey's June beetle habitat include: (1) Habitat disturbance; (2) habitat loss and fragmentation associated with development (such as grading, building roads and other infrastructure, and constructing commercial and residential structures); and (3) recreational activities (for example, ORV use and equestrian activities) as described in the Factor A and Factor E discussions in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section above.

Anderson and Love (2007) examined the rate of habitat loss since 1996, and additional analyses identified continuing habitat loss over the last 2 years. Because Casey's June beetle is now restricted to a relatively small area compared to its known historical range, and habitat loss and fragmentation are threats to the long-term viability of Casey's June beetle, special management considerations or protection of the PCEs are needed to address development or urban expansion impacts. Urban expansion should be avoided within or adjacent to Casey's June beetle habitat and linkage corridors between habitat patches should be provided to address the protection necessary for this species at this time. Preserving habitat and corridors linking habitat patches have been shown, in general, to be vital for the conservation of many species, and it stands to reason this is true for a species such as Casey's June beetle that has flightless females.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of this species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing—is necessary to ensure the conservation of the species.

We designated critical habitat in areas we determined are within the species” present range and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. When determining the possible distribution of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle, we considered all possibly suitable habitat patches remaining within the species” historical range, from the northeastern San Jacinto Mountain foothills, south to the City of Palm Desert. For Casey's June beetle, we limited critical habitat to the known present population distribution of the species (occupied habitat), because the only potentially suitable habitat patches outside that area occur primarily in small, fragmented, disjunct parcels, and many are highly disturbed. In this designation we have included both upland and wash habitats as well as connecting habitats which we determined are essential to the conservation of the species. Additional potential habitat outside the species” known present range (unoccupied areas) is relatively remote in relation to the likely flight movement distances of male beetles or terrain through which female beetles are likely to travel from occupied areas. Based on the best scientific information currently available, including recent negative surveys (see New Species Information section above), it is unlikely that these disjunct habitat patches would be capable of supporting reintroduced populations or remain viable due to their isolated, fragmented, and sometimes disturbed nature.

We consider all known occurrences of Casey's June beetle to constitute a single population based on currently available data. Because of the limitations of surveys to detect insect occupancy, the population level is the appropriate scale at which to determine occupancy of areas designated as critical habitat. We assume all known occupied areas are within the same population distribution based on the potential for male movement among sites that contain the physical or biological features (see

New Species Information

section above). We determined all existing CdC and RA soils, and inclusions (all relatively small) of ChC, MaB, or CpA soils within CdC soils, that are contiguous with soils containing Casey's June beetle observation locations are occupied. We made this determination because larval and adult male and female occupancy of CdC and RA soils, and the likelihood of adult female and male movement within all these PCE soils defines occupancy appropriately for this species with regard to the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, we have determined all areas we are designating as critical habitat are currently occupied.

We used the following factors to delineate critical habitat: All areas (1) comprised of contiguous CdC or RA soils containing recent occurrence locations (1995 to present), or within the flight range of adult male Casey's June beetles from these recent locations; or (2) comprised of ChC, MaB, and CpA soils contiguous with these CdC or RA soils; and (3) that were not denuded, graded or landscaped; and (4) that are below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation; and (5) that were not otherwise determined to be unsuitable due to development-associated degradation (

e.g.

, isolation, soil compaction). The designated critical habitat is designed to encompass the estimated Casey's June beetle population distribution and the soils and native vegetation needed for its long-term conservation. Changes to the PCEs from those described in the proposed rule (see Summary of Changes from the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule, below) did not affect our criteria, because areas containing the revised PCEs were already included in proposed critical habitat.

We delineated the critical habitat boundaries using the following steps:

(1) We mapped observations of Casey's June beetles from Bruyea (2006), Cornett (2004), Hovore (1997), Hovore (1995), Powell (2003), and Simonsen-Marchant (2000, 2001). These records were initially mapped over digital aerial photographs of the Palm Canyon area in the City of Palm Springs, California, acquired in June 2005 with a ground resolution of 3.28 ft (1 m). We believe these surveys are the best available data

on Casey's June beetle current distribution and provide a logical starting point for the delineation of critical habitat.

(2) We incorporated digital soil data produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for all soils in the Palm Canyon area (USDA 2000). These data delineated CdC, RA, ChC, MaB, and CpA soils. We included areas where CdC soils were within the likely flight range of adult male Casey's June beetles from recent occurrence locations (1995-present). This mapping delineated the soils that are suitable for, and occupied by, the beetle.

(3) After mapping the soils, we examined the elevations of all Casey's June beetle observations. We determined the highest elevation of an occurrence was 580 ft (177 m), and we extended the boundary elevation 40 ft (12 m) to account for gradients between soil types and to include CdC soils contiguous with portions of the wash that are known to be occupied. As a result, we are limiting designation of critical habitat to areas below the 620-ft (189-m) contour.

(4) We utilized digital aerial photographs acquired in April 2008 with a ground resolution of 6 in (15 cm) to closely examine remaining areas to ensure they captured the physical or biological features necessary to support Casey's June beetle life-history functions. Specifically, we removed areas that did not have appropriate soils (such as golf course greens) or that contained large denuded or graded areas to eliminate areas that likely do not and could not support Casey's June beetles.

(5) We reviewed new scientific information regarding the species' southern population distribution limits and determined some areas were not likely to support occupancy now or in the foreseeable future and therefore did not meet the definition of critical habitat. Based on Hawk's (pers. comm. 2011a) observation that wash habitat soil suitability and occupancy ended at approximately 580 ft (177 m) in elevation, and did not extend south of the small dam in Palm Canyon, we determined that non-contiguous patches of CdC soils at the southern extreme of the area proposed as critical habitat are not likely within the current population distribution of the species, and are not likely to support occupancy in the future (see

New Species Information

and

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of Offspring that are Protected from Disturbance

sections above). We further determined that the western isolated fragments of formerly occupied habitat associated with South Palm Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail in the southern portion of the species' distribution were no longer occupied, and were too isolated by development and disturbed to support occupancy in the future (see

New Species Information

section above). Therefore, these areas were removed.

(6) Based on Hawks' (pers. comm. 2011a) observation that no burrow holes have ever been observed in ChC soil (see

New Species Information

section above), we removed all patches of ChC soil not completely surrounded by CdC and RA soils.

When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, because such lands lack physical or biological features for Casey's June beetle. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this designated critical habitat are excluded by text in this final rule. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action may affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.

We are designating as critical habitat lands that we consider to be occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient physical or biological features to support life-history processes essential to the conservation of Casey's June beetle.

Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule

Based on comments received during the public comment periods (see

Comments 2

and

4

in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section below), and new survey information, we added explanations in the

New Species Information

and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections above to better characterize our knowledge of the species' present range and the potential for occupied habitat outside the known present range.

The most significant changes from the 2009 proposed critical habitat rule to this final rule include:

(1) We determined two areas included in the proposed critical habitat designation do not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, do not meet the definition of critical habitat (see Critical Habitat Background section above for the definition of critical habitat). We determined the easternmost proposed critical habitat polygon located on State Route 111 between Broadmoor Drive and Golf Club Drive did not contain areas mapped as Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand soil series (PCE 1). Based on new information submitted by a commenter and examination of digital aerial photography, we also determined a portion of land in the vicinity of Araby Drive was composed of elevated fill dirt and, therefore, did not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations section,

Comment 12,

below). The edge of the elevated fill dirt correlated with the parcel map boundary. Based on recent survey and habitat information (see

New Species Information

and

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

sections above) we determined that formerly occupied CdC and associated soils adjacent to and west of South Palm Canyon Drive are no longer likely to be occupied or to support occupancy in the future, and are therefore not essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, these areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat. We further determined that the southernmost non-contiguous patches of CdC soil in Palm Canyon and two areas of ChC soil (in Palm Canyon and near Araby Drive) not completely surrounded by CdC and RA soil do not meet the definition of critical habitat. See

New Species Information

and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections above for further discussion. Removal of these lands that were determined not to meet the definition of critical habitat resulted in a total reduction of 179 ac (73 ha) from the areas proposed for critical habitat designation in 2009.

(2) Per peer reviewer

Comment 2

in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section below (see also

Comment 10

), satellite image assessment, and field survey information provided by David Hawks (pers. comm. 2010), we modified PCE 2 to include other Sonoran vegetation types and disturbed habitat. In the proposed rule it specified “Intact, native Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub vegetation and native desert wash vegetation that provide shelter and food for the species.” In this rule, we specify PCE2 as, “Predominantly native desert vegetation, to provide shelter from

traffic-related mortality and food for the species.” This change to PCE 2 did not change areas identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat. The altered PCE more accurately characterized lands we had already determined met the definition of critical habitat.

(3) In the 2009 proposed rule, we stated we were not considering or proposing for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act tribal lands owned or managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Following review of tribal comments and an evaluation of our partnership with the Tribe, we determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for tribal trust reservation lands (

i.e.

, non-fee, non-allotted lands), and that exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the species. We believe that excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands from this final critical habitat will preserve our partnership with the Tribes and foster future development of habitat management plans with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and other tribes, thus positively affecting other listed species. Therefore, the Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude a total of approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of non-fee, non-allotted tribal lands owned or managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in this final critical habitat designation. For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see

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

below.

Of the approximately 777 ac (314 ha) of land proposed for critical habitat designation in 2009, approximately 587 ac (237 ha) are included in this final critical habitat designation. Our decision to not designate all of the proposed critical habitat does not imply that these non-designated areas are unimportant to Casey's June beetle. Projects with a Federal nexus that occur in these areas, or other areas potentially occupied by Casey's June beetle, which may affect the beetle must still undergo section 7 consultation. Our decision to not designate critical habitat in these areas does not reduce the consultation requirement for Federal agencies participating in, funding, permitting, or carrying out activities in these areas.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating one unit as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. The critical habitat area described below constitutes our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.

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

Table 1—Designated Critical Habitat for Casey's June Beetle

Location

Federal and

state lands

ac (ha)

Local

government

ac (ha)

Tribal

allotment and

fee lands

ac (ha)

Private

ac (ha)

Total

ac (ha)

Palm Springs

0 (0)

141 (57)

152 (62)

301 (122)

587 (237)

Total Area Final Critical Habitat

0 (0)

141 (57)

152 (62)

301 (122)

587 (237)

Note:

Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

Palm Springs Unit

The unit consists of 587 ac (237 ha) and is located in Riverside County, California, and extends from the confluence of Andreas Canyon Wash with Palm Canyon Wash northward along the toe of slope northeastward (downstream) along Palm Canyon Wash, crossing East Palm Canyon Drive to south and east of Gene Autry Trail. The unit includes Palm Canyon Wash and contiguous suitable soils from the entrance of Indian Canyons north to Calle Arriba, and one area south of and adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive (SR 111) west of Gene Autry Trail.

The entire critical habitat unit is considered occupied by Casey's June beetle and contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, including alluvial soils of the CdC, RA, ChC (if mapped as completely surrounded by CdC and RA soils), MaB, and CpA soil series at or below 620 ft (189 m) in elevation, associated with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes (PCE 1), and predominantly native desert vegetation (PCE 2).

Habitat in the unit is threatened by development, soil disturbance, fragmentation, effects of stream channelization, and effects of climate change. Specifically, urban expansion, in-fill development, and recreational activities continue to result in the loss and degradation of habitat. Therefore, the features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts resulting from these threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section above).

Approximately 25 percent of this unit (152 ac (62 ha)) is on Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reservation land. As described above (see Factor D), the Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they removed Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the draft Tribal HCP; however, they indicated they will “continue to informally coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on the Reservation.” The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service to allow “the Service to take the lead in addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this species” (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). We continue to work with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to encourage management of Casey's June beetle habitat. We determined that at this time it is appropriate to exclude 11 ac (4 ha) tribal trust reservation lands (

i.e.

, non-fee and non-allotted lands) from the critical habitat unit (see

Tribal Reservation Lands

under Exclusions section below).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

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

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see

Gifford Pinchot Task Force

v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and

Sierra Club

v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al.,

245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain those physical or biological features that relate to the ability of the area to periodically support the species) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

Federal activities that may affect Casey's June beetle or its critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251

et seq.

) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.

As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or

(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “Reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:

(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,

(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,

(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and

(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the “Adverse Modification” Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species. Generally, the conservation role of Casey's June beetle's critical habitat unit is to support a viable, self-sustaining population of the species.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.

Examples of activities that, when authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore should result in consultation for Casey's June beetle include, but are not limited to, actions that would cause disturbance, loss, or fragmentation of critical habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, development, grading, building roads and other infrastructure, constructing commercial and residential structures, and recreational activities (for example, ORV use and equestrian activities). These activities could permanently destroy critical habitat, compact soil, or alter soil moisture levels. Compacted or dry soils do not allow the species to burrow into, move, and feed in the soil as needed during the time they are underground. Please see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section above for a more detailed discussion of the impacts of these actions to the listed species.

Exemptions

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:

(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;

(2) A statement of goals and priorities;

(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and

(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.

Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”

There are no Department of Defense lands within the designation. Therefore, we are not exempting lands from this critical habitat designation for Casey's June beetle pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species.

When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.

When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would provide.

Tribal Reservation Lands

In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (June 5, 1997); the President's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); President's Memorandum of November 5, 2009, “Tribal Consultation” (74 FR 57881); Executive Order 13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are more appropriately managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. In most cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat provides very little additional conservation benefit to endangered or threatened species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance, and may negatively impact a positive government-to-government relationship between the Service and tribal governments essential to achieving a mutual goal of successfully managing ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. When conducting our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider our existing and future partnerships with tribes and existing conservation actions that tribes have implemented or are currently implementing. We also take into consideration conservation actions that are planned as a result of ongoing government-to-government consultations with tribes.

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

A Federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, Executive Order, or Federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the Federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of a tribe. The Agua Caliente Indian Reservation consists of a checkerboard of parcels found primarily in the City of Palm Springs, and the Cities of Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage, and unincorporated Riverside County, California. Lands within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation boundary include Tribal trust land, allotted trust land, Tribe-owned fee land, privately owned (Tribal members and non-Indians) fee land, and public land. Individual sections of Agua Caliente Indian Reservation land are interspersed with public land owned or under the control of various Federal and State agencies, and privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County and/or one of the three municipalities (ACBCI 2010b p. 1-1). Tribal trust reservation lands are those lands that are under the sovereign control of the Tribe. Through our ongoing coordination with the Tribe, we have established a partnership that has benefitted natural resource management on tribal lands. For our 4(b)(2) balancing analysis we considered our partnership with the Tribe and, therefore, analyzed the benefits of including and excluding those lands under the sovereign control of the Tribe (tribal trust reservation lands) that met the definition of critical habitat. Because Tribe-owned fee, private fee, or allotted lands are potentially subject to other jurisdictions and not under the sovereign control of the Tribe, we did not include these lands in our exclusion analysis.

Based on the detailed analysis presented below, the Secretary is exercising his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal

trust reservation lands (

i.e.

, non-fee, non-allotted land held in trust by the Federal government for the Tribe) from this final critical habitat designation for Casey's June beetle.

Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

The principle benefit of including an area in a critical habitat designation is the requirement for Federal agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects of a proposed project on critical habitat is separate and different from that of the effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The jeopardy analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the destruction or adverse modification analysis evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution to conservation. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. This will, in many instances, lead to different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone. However, for some species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species. All lands considered for exclusion are currently considered occupied by Casey's June beetle and will be subject to the consultation requirements of the Act in the future. Although a jeopardy and adverse modification analysis must satisfy two different standards, because any modifications to proposed actions resulting from a section 7 consultation to minimize or avoid impacts to Casey's June beetle will be habitat-based, it is not possible to differentiate any measures implemented solely to minimize impacts to the critical habitat from those implemented to minimize impacts to the beetle. Additionally, this species' highly restricted geographic range relative to its historical distribution (as evidenced by documented loss of occupied habitat), ongoing habitat impacts and losses, and slow female dispersal rate, increase the likelihood an action that adversely affects Casey's June beetle will jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Therefore, in the case of Casey's June beetle, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation are very similar to the benefits of listing, and in some respects would be indistinguishable from the benefits of listing.

Public education is often cited as another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat as it may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high value for certain species. Partnership efforts with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to conserve Casey's June beetle and other federally listed species addressed in their draft tribal HCP have resulted in heightened awareness about the species. However, we believe there is little, if any, educational benefit attributable to critical habitat beyond those achieved from listing of Casey's June beetle under the Act, and the Tribe's efforts to develop a HCP. The Service is conducting ongoing coordination with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and other southern California tribes. Service coordination includes attending meetings with tribal representatives to discuss ongoing projects, management plans, and other issues as they arise. We believe our continuing coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians will further promote awareness of the species and its conservation needs, and will facilitate development of additional management plans (beyond those already in existence), as well as address Casey's June beetle conservation on tribal lands.

We believe existing tribal regulations, the Indian Canyons Master Plan, and current management of Heritage Park will ensure any land use actions, including those funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies, are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of all lands considered for exclusion. For example, in a letter dated April 29, 2010 (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3), the Tribe stated that, rather than delegating land use authority to a local agent such as the City of Palm Springs in the Planning Area (

i.e.

, in Casey's June beetle habitat south of Acanto Drive), the Tribe will directly regulate land use in this area through its Indian Canyons Master Plan and tribal zoning. The Tribe indicated they would use their existing regulatory structure and active role in regulating land use and development in this area to protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). Furthermore, all lands being excluded are included in Heritage Park (ACBCI 2007, p. 5), an area within Indian Canyons acquired with funds from the 1988 California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act (1988 Bond Act) (ACBCI 2007, p. 2). The 1988 Bond Act requires Heritage Park to be managed to preserve Indian heritage and native palms and other plants. The 1988 Bond Act further stipulated that: “[a]fter that acquisition, the state shall convey title to all those lands to the United States in trust for the [Tribe] as part of the [Agua Caliente Indian Reservation] on the conditions that * * * the lands be open to the public, subject to reasonable restrictions * * * and the lands be used for protection of wildlife habitat and other resources.” Any potential impacts to Casey's June beetle from future proposed activities on the tribal trust reservation lands will be addressed through the Indian Canyons Master Plan or through a section 7 consultation using the jeopardy standard, and such activities would also be subject to the take prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. As a result we believe the regulatory benefits of critical habitat designation on tribal trust reservation land would largely be redundant with the combined benefits of listing and existing tribal regulations.

The designation of Casey's June beetle critical habitat may strengthen or reinforce some Federal laws, such as NEPA or Clean Water Act. These laws analyze the potential for projects to significantly affect the environment. Critical habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could otherwise be missed in the review process for these other environmental law; however, the listing process, HCP planning efforts, and consultations (which included conferencing on effects to Casey's June beetle) that have already occurred will provide this benefit. Therefore, in this case we view this benefit as redundant with the benefit the species will receive from listing under the Act.

In summary, we do not believe that designating critical habitat within Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands will provide additional benefits for Casey's June beetle. Projects on these lands with a Federal nexus (

e.g.

, funded, approved, or carried out by Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) will require section 7 consultation with the Service (regardless of critical habitat designation) because the habitat is occupied (see

New Species Information

section above) by Casey's June beetle. Furthermore, a high level of protection is already provided to tribal trust reservation lands that meet the

definition of critical habitat by existing conservation, regulations, and management. The ongoing coordination between the Service and the Tribe has already raised the level of awareness about the species, and we believe our ongoing coordination with the Tribe will facilitate development of species-specific management actions for these lands to address the conservation of Casey's June beetle.

Benefits of Exclusion—Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Under Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, we recognize that we must carry out our responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes and tribal sovereignty while striving to ensure that tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation. In accordance with the Presidential memorandums of April 29, 1994, and November 9, 2009, we believe that, to the maximum extent possible, tribes are the appropriate governmental entities to manage their lands and tribal trust resources, and that we are responsible for strengthening government-to-government relationships with tribes. Federal regulation through critical habitat designation will adversely affect the tribal working relationships we now have and which we are strengthening throughout the United States. Maintaining positive working relationships with tribes is key to implementing natural resource programs of mutual interest, including habitat conservation planning efforts. In light of the above-mentioned orders and for a variety of other reasons described in their comment letters and communications, critical habitat designation is typically viewed by tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance. In comments submitted during the public comment periods on this proposed rule, and in comments submitted on other proposed critical habitat rules (such as the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat designation for arroyo toad (

Anaxyrus californicus

) (74 FR 52611; October 13, 2009)), several tribes stated that designation of critical habitat would negatively impact government-to-government relations.

In the case of the Casey's June beetle proposed critical habitat, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians submitted comments indicating they are opposed to critical habitat designation and believe reservation lands should be excluded. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians cited Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, and the President's Memorandum on Tribal Consultation (74 FR 57881; November 9, 2009) in their comments to the Service and their interpretation of these Federal enactments as meaning “no Federal agency, and especially not any agency of the Department of the Interior, such as the Service, will inflict regulatory, economic, or governmental burdens on tribes and their members when adequate alternatives exist, such as avoidance, cooperation on a government-to-government basis, or reliance on tribal measures” (ACBCI 2010c, p. 4). In their comments to the Service on the proposed rule, the Tribe indicated they would use their existing regulatory structure and active role in regulating land use and development in this area to protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). These communications clearly indicate that designation of tribal trust reservation lands as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle would impact future conservation partnership opportunities with the Tribe. Therefore, a critical habitat designation could potentially damage our relationship with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

We believe significant benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of critical habitat on tribal trust reservation (

i.e.

, non-fee, non-allotted) lands managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. These benefits include:

(1) Continuing and strengthening of our effective relationship with the Tribe to promote conservation of Casey's June beetle and its habitat;

(2) Allowing continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward recovering this species, including conservation actions that might not otherwise occur; and

(3) Encouraging other tribes to complete management plans in the future on other reservations for other federally listed and sensitive species and engage in meaningful collaboration and cooperation.

Because the Tribe is the entity that enforces protective regulations on tribal trust reservation land, and we have a working relationship with them, we believe exclusion of these lands will yield a significant partnership benefit. There has been a substantial amount of government-to-government consultation between the Tribe and Service on developing the draft Tribal HCP and this rulemaking process for Casey's June beetle. Although the Tribe informed us in an October 28, 2008, letter that they removed Casey's June beetle from the list of species addressed in the draft Tribal HCP, they indicated they will “continue to informally coordinate with the Service regarding this species where it occurs on the Reservation.” The Tribe stated they are deferring to the Service to allow “the Service to take the lead in addressing how to effectively conserve and protect this species” (ACBCI 2008, p. 1). Although the Tribe has suspended their pursuit of a section 10(a) permit (ACBCI 2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft HCP and will continue to protect and manage natural resources within the Tribe's jurisdiction (ACBCI, 2010a, p. 1; ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on efforts to conserve Casey's June beetle. Therefore, excluding these lands from critical habitat provides the significant benefit of maintaining and strengthening our existing conservation partnerships and the potential of fostering new tribal partnerships.

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands as critical habitat for Casey's June beetle. We believe past, present, and future coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has provided and will continue to provide sufficient education regarding Casey's June beetle habitat conservation needs on tribal trust lands, such that there would be no additional educational benefit from designation of critical habitat. Further, because any potential impacts to Casey's June beetle from future projects will be addressed through the Indian Canyons Master Plan or through a section 7 consultation with us under the jeopardy standard, we believe critical habitat designation on tribal trust reservation land would largely be redundant with the combined benefits of listing and existing tribal regulations and management. Therefore, the benefits of designating critical habitat on tribal trust reservation lands are not significant.

On the other hand, the benefits of excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands from critical habitat are significant. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help preserve and strengthen the conservation partnership we have developed with the Tribe, reinforce those we are building with other tribes, and foster future partnerships and development of

management plans; whereas inclusion will negatively impact our relationships with the Tribe and other southern California tribes. We are committed to working with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to further the conservation of Casey's June beetle and other endangered and threatened species. The Tribe will continue to use their existing regulatory structure and active role in regulating land use and development in this area to protect Casey's June beetle and its habitat (ACBCI 2010c, p. 3). The Tribe continues to provide for some indirect conservation of Casey's June beetle by implementing provisions of the draft HCP. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to our partnership and our government-to-government relationship with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the ongoing conservation management practices of the Tribe and our current and future conservation partnerships with other tribes, we determined the significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion in the critical habitat designation.

In summary, we find that excluding Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal trust reservation lands from this final critical habitat will preserve our partnership and may foster future habitat management and species conservation plans with the Tribe and with other tribes now and in the future. These partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the insignificant additional regulatory and educational benefits of including these lands in final critical habitat for Casey's June beetle.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species—Tribal Lands

We determined that the exclusion of 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust reservation lands from the designation of Casey's June beetle critical habitat will not result in extinction of the species. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process due to Casey's June beetle occupancy and protection provided by the Indian Canyons Master Plan provide assurances that this species will not go extinct as a result of excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. Therefore, based on the above discussion the Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of tribal trust reservation lands managed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians from this final critical habitat designation.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2010A, pp. 1-75). The DEA, dated February 22, 2010, was made available for public review from March 31, 2010, through April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046). Following the close of the comment period, a final analysis (dated June 1, 2010) of the potential economic effects of the designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments and any new information (IEc 2010b, pp. 1-84). Substantive comments and information received on the DEA are summarized in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section below.

The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Casey's June beetle; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (

e.g.

, under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks at baseline impacts expected to occur due to listing and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur with the designation of critical habitat.

The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following listing and the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information was available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA quantifies economic impacts of Casey's June beetle conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Residential and commercial development, and (2) flood damage reduction. Baseline impacts include the potential economic impacts of all actions relating to the conservation of the Casey's June beetle, including costs associated with sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Act. Baseline impacts also include the economic impacts of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation in the area evaluated in the DEA. In other words, baseline impacts include those impacts associated with the listing of the species and not associated with critical habitat. Incremental impacts are those potential future economic impacts of conservation actions relating to the designation of critical habitat; these impacts would not be expected to occur without the designation of critical habitat.

Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from listing and other conservation efforts for Casey's June beetle. Conservation efforts related to development activities constitute the majority of total baseline costs to areas proposed for critical habitat (approximately 86 percent). Impacts to flood control activities compose the remaining approximately 12 percent of impacts. Total future baseline impacts are estimated to be $19,242,100 in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate over the next 20 years (2010 to 2029) in the areas proposed as critical habitat.

Approximately 100 percent of incremental impacts attributed to the critical habitat designation are expected to be related to development activities. The FEA estimates total potential

incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20 years (2010 to 2029) to be $6,173,340 in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate, equivalent to $582, 320 in annualized economic impact over the analysis timeframe. This value is based on an assumption of total avoidance of designated acres and thus represents the upper-bound potential cost for each project. As such, it likely overstates the expected absolute cost of future actions to protect critical habitat.

The FEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The FEA estimates lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the critical habitat designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.

Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the Secretary has determined not to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle based on economic impacts.

A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES

) or by downloading from the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public and contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule to list Casey's June beetle as endangered and designate critical habitat during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of the proposed rule (74 FR 32857) opened on July 9, 2009, and closed on September 8, 2009. We also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated draft economic analysis during a comment period that opened March 31, 2010, and closed on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 16046). We did not receive any requests for a public hearing, with the exception of one that specified it be conducted only in the event their property was not excluded from critical habitat (see response to

Comment 18

below). During the comment periods, we requested all interested parties submit comments or information related to the proposed revisions to critical habitat, including (but not limited to) the following: Unit boundaries; species occurrence information and distribution; land use designations that may affe

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.