[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53224-53254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21442]
[[Page 53223]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 165
August 25, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 53224]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AX40
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise designated critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we are proposing approximately
25,704 acres (10,402 hectares) as critical habitat for this taxon in
Riverside County, California.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 24, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by October 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064, which
is the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Rd., Ste. 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5902. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate particular
habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) including whether there are threats to the taxon (the
term taxon, as used herein, refers to any taxonomic rank that is not a
species (for example, a genus, a subspecies, or a variety); Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae is a variety) from human activity, the
degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation
such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the taxon, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas, that were not occupied at the time of listing, are
essential for the conservation of the taxon and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts
associated with climate change on Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae and proposed critical habitat.
(5) What areas, extent, and quality of the unoccupied fluvial
(water) sand transport systems in the Coachella Valley and surrounding
hills and mountains are essential to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be included in the designation
and why.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities, families, or
tribes, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit
these impacts.
(7) Which specific areas within tribal lands proposed for critical
habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific
tribal lands outweigh the benefits of including that area, in
particular for tribal lands owned or managed by the Morongo Band of
Mission Indians (formerly the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
of the Morongo Reservation) or the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.
(8) Which specific lands covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
(Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP) proposed as critical habitat should be
considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether
the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area covered by the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP outweigh the benefits of including that
area. We are currently considering all lands covered by the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP and proposed as critical habitat for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
(9) What specific actions the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) has undertaken to meet the objectives and goals set
out in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP specific to Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae since CVAG began implementing the MSHCP/
NCCP.
(10) Whether there are any other lands covered by habitat
conservation plans or other conservation actions that benefit
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, where the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of
including that area.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(12) The validity of our approach for determining the extent of the
fluvial sand transport system, and differentiating between fluvial sand
transport and fluvial sand source areas. We identified fluvial sand
source areas (areas where sediment is eroded from
[[Page 53225]]
parent rock by moving water) as portions of drainages where slope is 10
percent or greater and fluvial sand transport areas (corridors along
which water transports sediment, but little erosion of parent rock
takes place) as portions of drainages where slope is less than 10
percent. This approach was informed by Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 21),
who found that sediment production in the drainage areas supplying sand
to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat is much lower in
areas where the ground slope is less than 10 percent.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section. We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae in this proposed rule. A summary of topics relevant to
this proposed rule is provided below. For more information on A. l.
var. coachellae, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), and the designation
of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). Additionally, information
on this taxon may be found in the 5-year review for A. l. var.
coachellae signed on September 1, 2009, which is available on our Web
site at: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.
Description of the Taxon
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is a member of the Fabaceae
(pea family). It is one of the 36 varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus
that collectively range from desert to timberline in North America
(Barneby 1964, pp. 911-958). Coachella Valley milk-vetch was originally
described by Rupert C. Barneby as A. l. var. coulteri based on a
specimen collected in 1913 by Alice Eastwood in Palm Springs,
California (Barneby 1945, p. 129). However, the name had previously
been published for another milk-vetch, and consequently Barneby
published a new, and currently accepted, name of A. l. var. coachellae
(Barneby 1964, p. 695). It is an erect winter annual or short-lived
perennial, 4 to 12 inches (in) (10 to 30 centimeters (cm)) tall and
densely covered with short, white-silky hairs, giving it a silvery
appearance. The flowers are deep purple to violet, in a loose or dense
13- to 25-flowered raceme (an inflorescence in which stalked flowers
are arranged singly along a central stem). The two-chambered fruits are
greatly inflated (Spellenberg 1993, pp. 597-598).
Taxon Biology and Life History
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae cohorts (a group of
individuals of the same age, recruited into the population at the same
time (Lincoln et al. 2003, p. 64)) may have different life histories,
depending on rainfall and climatic conditions. Occurrences of plants
can consist of both reproductive annuals as well as perennials
(facultative perennial), and the number of individuals in an area can
fluctuate yearly (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6). Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae seeds germinate between fall and early winter (Meinke
et al. 2007, p. 46). Seasonally dormant root crowns (the point at which
the root system and stem of a plant meet) of perennial plants produce
new shoots between December and January. Second-year plants can begin
to flower as early as December, while plants in their first year
usually do not flower until January or February. Flowering continues
into April (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6).
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is an outcrosser (a plant
that typically cross-pollinates) and is dependent on pollinators. While
there are studies that show the plant is able to self-pollinate and
generate viable seeds, A. l. var. coachellae is only marginally
reproductively successful without pollinators and produces seed at very
low rates. Meinke et al. (2007, p. 36) performed a pollinator exclusion
study and found that only 2 fruits containing 11 seeds total were
produced from 144 flowers limited to self-pollination, compared to 72
fruits containing 596 seeds total produced by 138 flowers left open to
insect pollination. Additionally, Mazer and Travers (1992) found that a
related variety, A. l. var. piscinensis, is incapable of autogamy
(self-fertilization) and reliant on pollinators. The presence of
pollinators vastly improves the success of pollination and the
abundance of seed produced by A. l. var. coachellae plants (Meinke et
al. 2007, p. 36).
Based on field observations, the primary pollinators of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae in many instances appear to be nonnative
honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 36). Meinke et al.
(2007, p. 36) observed that less than 1 percent of pollinator visits to
A. l. var. coachellae plants were made by native bees (not identified;
possibly a species of Anthidium); all other pollinator visits were made
by nonnative honeybees. We presume the natural pollinator(s) of A. l.
var. coachellae are native insects, most likely native solitary bees,
because other varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus are known to have
solitary bees as their major or essential pollinators (Burks 1979, p.
850; Mazer and Travers 1992, p. 18).
Fruits of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are inflated
(contain pockets of air as opposed to being flat or compact); this
adaptation makes the fruits suited to dispersal by wind when dry
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 40), which facilitates gene flow between
populations. Insect predation, disease, and mammal herbivory destroy
many seeds, leaving the viable seed set as only about 25 percent of the
total number of fruits produced (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 43). As summer
progresses and seed is set, the plants may die or aerial stems may die
back. Plants may persist through the fall as dormant root crowns
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 6).
Meinke et al. (2007, p. 31) observed that the proportion of plants
surviving the summer and fall is dependent upon climatic conditions.
Although they survive a second year, Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae are generally not long-lived (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 33).
Plants in the northwestern portion of the range, where rainfall is
higher, are more likely than those farther southeast to survive into
their second year or longer. Plants that occur in the southeastern
extent of the range, which receives less rain, are primarily annuals
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 31).
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae populations can survive and
persist in prolonged drought as dormant seeds in the soil (seed bank)
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3). Therefore, visible,
above-ground plants, which may not be evident at a site each year, are
only a partial indication of population size. The
[[Page 53226]]
extent of time that the seeds are viable in the soil is not known,
although studies on A. l. var. micans (freckled milk-vetch) demonstrate
that buried seeds can germinate after a period of up to 8 years (Pavlik
1987, p. 317). Suitable habitat that lacks above-ground individuals may
sustain the taxon through one or more dry years as an undetectable seed
bank and dormant root crowns. Therefore, appropriate habitat that lacks
above-ground individuals may be important to the long-term survival of
A. l. var. coachellae.
Habitat
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is strongly associated with
active, stabilized, ephemeral, and shielded sandy substrates in the
Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Sanders and Thomas
Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3; Barrows and Allen 2007, p. 323). This
taxon is primarily found on loose aeolian (wind transported) or fluvial
(water transported) sands that form dunes or sand fields, and along
margins of sandy washes (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p.
3).
Most of the sand in the northern Coachella Valley is derived from
drainages within the Indio Hills, the San Bernardino Mountains, the
Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Mountains. This
sand is moved into and through the valley by the sand transport system.
The sand transport system consists of two main parts: (1) The fluvial
(water) portion (headwaters, tributaries, and the stream channels
within the various drainages surrounding Coachella Valley), and (2) the
aeolian (wind) portion (predominantly westerly and northwesterly winds
moving through the valley) (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 5-7). The
fluvial and aeolian portions of the systems are capable of moving sand
until the velocity of the water or wind decreases to a point that sand
is deposited. Both portions of the system are subdivided into three
components: source areas, transport areas, and depositional areas.
Fluvial Portion of the Sand Transport System
The water that forms the basis of the fluvial portion of the sand
transport system in the Coachella Valley enters the system as
precipitation during storm events (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). These
storm events cause flash flooding, which facilitates the erosion that
generates sediment, and moves that sediment downstream in ephemeral
streams and washes and eventually into the aeolian transport corridor.
Most flooding events only transport small amounts of sediment to the
valley floor; flooding events large enough to move large amounts of
sediment are very infrequent (for example, the last large flooding
event on the Whitewater River occurred in 1938) (Griffiths et al. 2002,
p. 5).
Fluvial Sand Source Areas
Fluvial source areas are the areas where sediment is generated. In
these areas, sediment is eroded from parent rock or sediment deposits
and is carried downstream by moving water, which continues to erode
rock and generate sediment until it reaches the fluvial transport area.
This process occurs mainly in the hills and mountains surrounding
Coachella Valley in areas of high relief (greater than 10 percent
slope). However, in the Indio Hills/Thousand Palms area (which contains
proposed Unit 4 of critical habitat, as described in the Proposed
Critical Habitat Designation section below), the fluvial source area
consists of alluvial deposits (sand, silt, clay, gravel, or other
matter deposited by flowing water) at the base of the Indio Hills.
Large episodic floods move sediment trapped in the alluvial deposits
into an alluvial fan (a fan-shaped alluvial deposit formed by a stream
where its velocity is abruptly decreased), from which the sediment can
be transported by wind (Lancaster et al. 1993, p. 28). Fluvial sand
source areas do not provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae and therefore are not considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.
Fluvial Sand Transport Areas
The fluvial transport areas are stream channels that convey the
sediment generated in fluvial source areas downstream to fluvial
depositional areas. Very little erosion of parent rock or sediment
deposits takes place in fluvial transport areas compared to fluvial
source areas. Fluvial sand transport areas are generally portions of
drainages where the slope is less than 10 percent. Fluvial transport
channels include portions of the lower reaches of Mission Creek,
Morongo Wash, Whitewater River, San Gorgonio River, and Snow Creek
(upstream portions of these waterways are considered fluvial source
areas because the higher ground slope in these areas allows for
erosion/generation of sediment). Fluvial sand transport areas do not
provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and
therefore are not considered to be within the geographical area
occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.
Fluvial Sand Depositional Areas
The fluvial sand depositional areas are broad, flat, depositional
plains or channel terraces where sediment carried by fluvial transport
channels is deposited (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). During larger
flood events, sediment can be deposited on bajada (large, coalescing
alluvial fans) surfaces as floodplain deposits. There are four main
fluvial sand depositional areas in the Coachella Valley: (1) In the
Snow Creek/Windy Point area, which receives sediment from the San
Gorgonio River and Snow Creek; (2) in the Whitewater Floodplain area,
which receives sediment from the Whitewater River; (3) in the Willow
Hole area, which receives sediment from Mission Creek and Morongo Wash;
and (4) in the Thousand Palms area, which receives sediment from washes
associated with drainages originating in the Indio Hills. These four
main fluvial sand depositional areas do provide habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, are currently occupied, and were occupied
by the taxon at the time of listing.
Aeolian Portion of the Sand Transport System
The aeolian portion of the sand transport system begins where the
fluvial portion of the system ends. Northerly and northwesterly winds
pick up sand-sized grains of sediment accumulated in fluvial
depositional areas, and carry them south/southeast through the valley
and into aeolian depositional areas where they form sand fields and
dunes (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 7).
Aeolian Sand Source Areas
Aeolian sand source areas are the portions of the fluvial
depositional areas that are subject to wind erosion. Winds erode these
sediment accumulations and carry sand across aeolian sand transport
areas. Between flooding events, which replenish the sediment in fluvial
depositional areas, sand available for aeolian transport can be
depleted by wind erosion. Figure 6B in Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 25)
shows the aeolian sand source areas (fluvial depositional areas)
associated with the San Gorgonio River, the Whitewater River, and
Mission Creek and Morongo Wash. Aeolian sand source areas provide
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, are currently
occupied, and were occupied by the taxon at the time of listing.
[[Page 53227]]
Aeolian Sand Transport Areas
Sand eroded from the aeolian sand source areas is blown into and
across the aeolian sand transport areas. Sand may accumulate in aeolian
transport areas when ample sand is available in upwind source areas;
conversely, aeolian transport areas may be depleted of sand when sand
is lacking upwind. Figure 6B in Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 25) shows
the aeolian sand transport areas for the portions of the sand transport
system associated with the San Gorgonio River, the Whitewater River,
and Mission Creek and Morongo Wash. Aeolian sand transport areas
provide habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, are
currently occupied, and were occupied by the taxon at the time of
listing.
Aeolian Sand Depositional Areas
Sand carried by wind through the sand transport areas is deposited
when the velocity of the wind decreases sufficiently. This occurs
mainly where wind is slowed by vegetation (for example, honey mesquite
in the Willow Hole area), other objects, or geological features. In
general, sand formations (for example, sand dunes and sand fields)
persist in depositional areas, whereas sand accumulations in transport
areas are more ephemeral. Aeolian sand depositional areas provide
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, and support,
currently and at the time of listing, the highest numbers of the taxon.
The fluvial and aeolian processes discussed above have been
disrupted in many areas by development, alteration of stream flow, and
the proliferation of nonnative plants. These threats to the persistence
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat are discussed
further in the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
below.
Sand Formations
Sand is found in various types of formations within the Coachella
Valley, including but not limited to: Active sand dunes, stabilized or
partially stabilized dunes, active sand fields, stabilized sand fields,
shielded sand dunes and fields, ephemeral sand fields, and alluvial
sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes. Each of these
sand deposit formations provides habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae to varying degrees. A discussion of threats that are
degrading the quality of A. l. var. coachellae habitat by impacting
these sand formations (for example, development, unauthorized off-
highway vehicle use, nonnative plants, and groundwater pumping) is
included below in the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section.
Active and Stabilized or Partially Stabilized Sand Dunes
Active sand dunes are almost barren expanses of moving sand with
sparse, if any, perennial shrub cover. For Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae, active sand dunes provide suitable habitat. Active sand
dunes may intermix with stabilized or partially stabilized dunes or
become stabilized over time; stabilized sand dunes have similar sand
accumulations and formations but are stabilized by shrubs, scattered
low annuals, and perennial grasses. Stabilized or partially stabilized
dunes are less vulnerable to loss of sand due to wind and therefore
provide more stable habitat for long-term A. l. var. coachellae
persistence (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 6-8).
Active Sand Fields
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in active sand
fields that are similar to active sand dunes, but are smaller,
shallower sand accumulations of insufficient depth to form dunes. Sand
fields may form hummocks, which are local accumulations of sand that
form when sand accumulates around, and is held in place by, shrubs or
clumps of vegetation (for example, Prosopis spp.-mesquite hummocks).
Shrubs that form hummocks are important for the maintenance of A. l.
var. coachellae habitat where the plants occur because they prevent
sand from being removed from depositional areas faster than it can be
replaced by natural sand transport processes. In areas where mesquite
plants are being lost (such as Willow Hole and Thousand Palms), aeolian
processes are removing sand faster than it can be replenished (see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section below for
further discussion of loss of mesquite hummocks due to groundwater
pumping).
Stabilized Sand Fields
Stabilized sand fields are similar to active sand fields but
contain sand accumulations that are stabilized by vegetation or are
armored, a process where the wind picks up and moves smaller particles
and leaves behind larger grains and gravels, forming an ``armor'' that
prevents wind from moving additional smaller particles trapped below
(Sharp and Saunders 1978, p. 12). Armored sand fields are temporarily
stable, becoming active when the armor is disturbed over large areas
(such as by flood, severe wind events, or human activities), or new
sand is deposited from upwind fluvial depositional areas (Sharp and
Saunders 1978, p. 12).
Shielded Sand Dunes and Fields
Shielded sand dunes and fields are similar to the sand formations
described above, except that sand source and transport systems that
would normally replenish these areas have been interrupted or the dunes
are otherwise shielded by human development (CVAG 2007, p. 4.7-5).
These shielded areas support large occurrences of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae that may contribute to the conservation of
the taxon; however, the natural processes sustaining the habitat have
been permanently removed.
Ephemeral Sand Fields
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in ephemeral
sand fields, which occur in areas where the rate at which sand is
transported out of the area by wind exceeds the rate at which sand is
replenished by upwind flood deposition events, resulting in a transient
aeolian sand habitat that pulses after significant flood events deliver
new sand to the aeolian transport corridor (Barrows and Allen 2007, p.
323; USFWS GIS data). This type of formation generally occurs at the
western end of the Coachella Valley, where wind velocities are the
highest (Barrows and Allen 2007, p. 323).
Alluvial Fans or Flood Plains
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae can also occur on alluvial
soils or on flood plain terraces (with little aeolian sands) in large
alluvial fans, such as along Morongo Wash in Desert Hot Springs (J.
Avery, USFWS Biologist, pers. obs. 2004-2009). Some of these formations
have moderate amounts of diffuse disturbances and still support A. l.
var. coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 21). Although the taxon can
tolerate low levels of disturbance, plants do not typically persist
into their second year in these conditions. Additionally, Meinke et al.
(2007, p. 63) found that low levels of disturbance may help to promote
seed germination. Therefore, the early stages and first-year plants of
A. l. var. coachellae may be capable of surviving low-level
disturbances that occur in these formations (Meinke et al. 2007, p.
63).
Suitable habitat may be transitory, and consequently currently
unoccupied areas may become suitable following fluvial or aeolian
events, and vice versa
[[Page 53228]]
(Lancaster 1995, p. 231). Conservation of the variety of sandy
substrate types that may support the taxon is important for the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because of the
dynamics of the aeolian sand transport processes. The life history of
A. l. var. coachellae is uniquely suited to the transitory nature of
its habitat, and the occurrences of the taxon will likely be impacted
to the extent that the fluvial or aeolian sand transport systems are
disrupted.
Plant Associations
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae commonly occurs in
association with Desert Dunes or Creosote bush--white burr sage-scrub
vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 566-569, 876-877). These vegetation
types are associated with rainfall patterns, shifting from west to east
across the Coachella Valley. The vegetation generally consists of
dispersed perennial shrubs, with intervening shrubless tracts providing
space for wind dispersal of A. l. var. coachellae fruits.
Woody perennials, such as Lepidospartum squamatum (California
broomsage), Hymenocela salsola (cheesebush), Ambrosia dumosa
(burrobush), and Psorothamnus arborescens (California dalea) are
typically associated with Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in
the western and relatively high-rainfall areas near the San Gorgonio
Pass (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 21). These perennial taxa along with
Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) and annuals such as Rafinesquia
neomexicana (California chicory) and Camissonia pallida (pale sun cup)
are characteristic of the sandy wash habitat at Snow Creek (Meinke et
al. 2007, pp. 22-24). This habitat type is associated with the fluvial
sand deposits on floodplain terraces (discussed above).
In the southeastern extent of the range, where rainfall is the
lowest, Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae occurs with annuals
such as Abronia villosa (desert sand verbena), Oenothera deltoides
(dune primrose), Geraea canescens (desert sunflower), Oligomeris
linifolia (leaved cambess), Astragalus aridis (annual desert milk-
vetch), and Baileya pauciradiata (Colorado Desert marigold) (Meinke et
al. 2007, p. 21) on primary dunes at the Coachella Valley National
Wildlife Refuge (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 17). This habitat type is
associated with active sand dunes or partially stabilized sand dunes
(discussed above). Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is variously
found with Larrea tridentata (creosote bush), Psorothamnus emoryi
(Emory dalea), Atriplex canescens (fourwing saltbush), Dicoria
canescens (desert dicoria), Achnatherum (as Oryzopsis) hymenoides
(Indian ricegrass), Croton californicus (California croton), and
Petalonyx thurberi (sandpaper plant) on low-shifting dunes; sand
fields; and small, isolated dunes (Meinke et al. 2007, pp. 22-24).
Salsola tragus (Russian thistle), Schismus barbatus (Mediterranean
grass), Tamarix spp. (salt-cedar), and Brassica tournefortii (Sahara
mustard) are nonnative plants known to occur with and threaten
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae via competition for resources
such as water and nutrients (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 26). The latter is
considered to pose the most serious threat by competitive exclusion and
by restricting natural movement of sand (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 24).
Further discussion of nonnative plants is presented in the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section below.
Spatial Distribution, Historical Range, and Population Size
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a distribution limited
to the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, in the southern California
portion of the Colorado Desert. At the time of listing, the
distribution of the taxon was equivalent to the historical geographic
range of the taxon. The range of A. l. var. coachellae has remained
effectively the same since the taxon was listed as endangered in 1998
(63 FR 53596; October 6, 1998); however, the spatial distribution
within that range has changed as development has eliminated
occurrences. At the time of listing, there were an estimated 25 extant
occurrences of A. l. var. coachellae, and the quantity of suitable
habitat was considered to be decreasing due to continuing direct and
indirect impacts associated with development (63 FR 53596; October 6,
1998). Additional occurrences have been detected within the historical
geographic range of the taxon since 1998; however, it is likely that
these occurrences existed at the time of listing and we are aware of
them now because of increased survey efforts. Throughout this rule we
refer to all occurrences as ``occupied at the time of listing''
regardless of whether the areas were documented before or after the
taxon was listed.
The majority of verified historical and extant occurrences of
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are found in the northern
Coachella Valley, from just east of the community of Cabazon eastward
to the dunes off Washington Street, in the city of Thousand Palms,
north and west of the city of Indio, within approximately 3 miles (mi)
(5 kilometers (km)) of Interstate 10 (Barrows 1987 (map); CNDDB 2011).
Collections northeast of Desert Center in the Chuckwalla Valley, east
of the Coachella Valley, were thought at the time of listing to
represent disjunct occurrences of A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53598).
However, these have since been determined to most likely be A. l. var.
variabilis (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 1).
Periodic surveys and observations indicate that the extent and
success of germination events and surviving reproductive population
sizes may differ widely from year to year, depending on climatic and
environmental conditions (for example, Barrows 1987, pp. 1-2).
Densities of standing plants can vary considerably among occurrences
across the taxon's range in any given year. This makes meaningful
assessment of total numbers of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
plants (that is, population size) difficult. Additionally, as discussed
above, the number of standing plants at any given time is only a
partial indication of population size because seeds can persist in the
ground (seed bank) for a number of years (Sanders and Thomas Olsen
Associates 1996, p. 3). The number of individuals present may also be
underestimated if surveys are conducted at a time or place where aerial
stems have died back and broken off leaving the root crown, which could
be overlooked. The historical abundance of A. l. var. coachellae plants
is unknown (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3).
Previous Federal Actions
The following section summarizes the previous Federal actions since
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed as endangered on
October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596); please refer to this final listing rule
for a discussion of Federal actions that occurred prior to the taxon's
listing.
At the time of listing, we determined that designation of critical
habitat was ``not prudent'' (63 FR 53596). On November 15, 2001, the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior
and the Service challenging our ``not prudent'' determinations for
eight plant taxa, including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
(Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, case number 01-cv-
2101 (S.D. Cal.)). A second lawsuit asserting the same challenge was
filed on November 21, 2001, by the Building Industry Legal
[[Page 53229]]
Defense Foundation (Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v.
Norton, case number 01-cv-2145 (S.D. Cal.)). The parties in both cases
agreed to remand the critical habitat determinations for the eight
plant taxa at issue to the Service for reconsideration. On July 1,
2002, the Court directed us to reconsider our not prudent determination
and if we determined that designation was prudent, submit to the
Federal Register for publication a proposed critical habitat
designation for A. l. var. coachellae by November 30, 2004, and to
submit to the Federal Register for publication a final rule designating
critical habitat by November 30, 2005. The proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468). The final rule designating
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112).
The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit on January 14,
2009, claiming the Service failed to designate adequate critical
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (CBD v. Kempthorne,
case number ED-cv-09-0091 VAP(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.)). In a settlement
agreement dated November 14, 2009, we agreed to reconsider the critical
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae. The settlement requires
the Service to submit a proposed revised critical habitat designation
for A. l. var. coachellae to the Federal Register by August 18, 2011,
and submit a final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal
Register by February 14, 2013.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features.
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
must contain physical or biological features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify,
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an area that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type).
Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical or biological
features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement to provide for a species' life-history processes, are
essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may,
however, be essential for the conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we determine which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
[[Page 53230]]
Climate Change and Critical Habitat
``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather
statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), including
the mean and variation of surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation, and wind, whereas ``climate change'' refers to a change
in the mean or variability or both of climate properties that persists
for an extended period (typically decades or longer), whether due to
natural processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur
continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at an
accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: A
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North America
and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia; an
increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic
since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in annual average
temperature of more than 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) across the United States
since 1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (GCCIUS)
2009, p. 27). Examples of observed changes in the physical environment
include: An increase in global average sea level; declines in mountain
glaciers and average snow cover in both the northern and southern
hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); substantial and accelerating
reductions in Arctic sea-ice (e.g., Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1); and a
variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the distribution of species,
and the timing of seasonal events (e.g., GCCIUS 2009, pp. 79-88).
The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis),
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in
similar projections of global temperature change across the different
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All models (not just those involving climate change) have some
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models.
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios,
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p.
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios,
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of
Arctic sea ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797),
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a
key influence on climate change, have been occurring at the mid- to
higher levels of the various emissions scenarios developed in the late
1990s and used by the IPPC for making projections (e.g., Raupach et al.
2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Pielke et al. 2008, entire; Manning et al.
2010, Figure 1, p. 377). Also, the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that average global surface air temperature is
increasing and several climate-related changes are occurring and will
continue for many decades even if emissions are stabilized soon (e.g.,
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412;
Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats.
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a
species, occurring individually or in combination, may affect the
status of a species. Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a
function of sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes,
and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22).
As described above, in evaluating the status of a species, the Service
uses the best scientific and commercial data available, and this
includes consideration of direct and indirect effects of climate
change. As is the case with all potential threats, if a species is
currently affected or is expected to be affected by one or more
climate-related impacts, this does not necessarily mean the species is
an endangered or threatened species as defined under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, this knowledge regarding
its vulnerability to, and impacts from, climate-associated changes in
environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate
strategies for its recovery.
While projections from global climate model simulations are
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific
information available, various downscaling methods are being used to
provide higher-resolution projections that are more relevant to the
spatial scales used to assess impacts to a given species (see Glick et
al., 2011, pp. 58-61). With regard to the area of analysis for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, downscaled projections are not
available.
Critical Habitat Dynamics
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be
required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
[[Page 53231]]
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae from studies of this
taxon's habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in the final listing rule published
in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), and the 5-
year review for A. l. var. coachellae signed on September 1, 2009
(Service 2009). We have determined that the following physical and
biological features are essential to A. l. var. coachellae:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a limited distribution.
Within its limited range, A. l. var. coachellae requires space for the
natural fluvial and aeolian transport and deposition of the sandy
substrates on which it grows. Protection of aeolian and fluvial
processes is crucial to maintain habitat for A. l. var. coachellae.
These processes are responsible for transporting and depositing sand
that is the foundation of habitat for A. l. var. coachellae.
Disturbance or curtailment of these processes can result in a lack of
adequate amounts of sand to produce the different formations that
support habitat (for example, active dunes and sand fields). Protecting
aeolian sand transport corridors between A. l. var. coachellae
occurrences is also important for the dispersal of the wind-blown
fruits into temporally unoccupied habitat to reestablish reproductive
occurrences (metapopulation structure). Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae is also dependent upon insect pollinators (Meinke et al.
2007, p. 37). Protecting aeolian sand transport corridors also provides
space for pollinator movement between occurrences, which is important
for the long-term maintenance of occurrences. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify fluvial and aeolian sand transport and
deposition processes, and aeolian sand transport corridors for seed
dispersal and pollinator movement, to be physical or biological
features for this taxon.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is primarily found on
various types of sand formations including active sand dunes,
stabilized or partially stabilized dunes, active sand fields,
stabilized sand fields, shielded sand dunes and fields, ephemeral sand
fields, and alluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active
washes. Each of these sand deposit formations provides habitat for A.
l. var. coachellae to varying degrees (see Habitat section above for
further discussion of sand formations that support the taxon). The
taxon also requires moving water and air to transport sand from sand
source areas to occupied habitat areas as discussed above. Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae can be found in abundance on shielded sand
fields, and the A. l. var. coachellae plants in these areas are
important for the conservation of the taxon. However, we do not
consider shielded habitat to contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the taxon, because these
areas are permanently cut off from the sand transport system. Shielded
areas, although they currently contain sand formations, will eventually
lose these formations as the winds remove sand over time. Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify the other above-mentioned
sand formations to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
The physiological and soil nutritional needs of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae are not known at this time. The taxon
shows variation in productivity and life-history patterns that appear
to coincide with local or temporal variations in precipitation (wetter
years result in higher levels of seed germination (e.g., Barrows 1987,
p. 2)) and across its range (plants in the northwestern portion of the
range where rainfall is higher are more likely to grow larger and
survive into their second year or longer (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 25)).
However, the specific optimal soil moisture range for the taxon is
unknown.
Additionally, the taxon does not grow in some areas that appear to
contain suitable habitat. For example, Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae grows on some portions of the alluvial sand deposits on
floodplain terraces of Morongo Wash, but not others, and it does not
grow in the bed of the wash when the bed is dry even though the bed
contains sandy substrates (J. Avery, USFWS Biologist, pers. obs. 2004-
2009). These apparent inconsistencies may be due to microsite
differences (such as nutrient availability, soil microflora or
microfauna, soil texture, or moisture). Research is needed to determine
the specific nutritional and physiological requirements of A. l. var.
coachellae.
Sites for Reproduction
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae plants, like most plants,
do not require areas for breeding or reproduction other than the areas
they occupy and any area necessary for pollinators and seed dispersal.
Reproduction sites accommodate all phases of the plant's life history.
Seeds likely require certain soil conditions to germinate (for example,
moisture and nutrient levels within a certain range, or close proximity
to the soil surface), but as discussed above, we do not yet know what
those requirements are. In addition, wind is important for the
dispersal of the wind-blown fruits into temporally unoccupied habitat
(metapopulation structure) of A. l. var. coachellae.
The primary visitors of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
appear to be nonnative honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Meinke et al. 2007,
p. 36). These bees appear to be flexible in their choice of nesting
sites. For example, bee nests were found in discarded tires, in Tamarix
spp. trees, and under a bridge near A. l. var. coachellae occurrences
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 36).
[[Page 53232]]
Native solitary bees, which may be the natural pollinators of
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, utilize several plant species
as pollen and nectar sources (Karron 1987, p. 188). Maintaining
adequate populations of these bees likely depends on the presence of a
variety of native plant species in sufficient numbers within or near A.
l. var. coachellae occurrences, as well as between A. l. var.
coachellae occurrences, to facilitate gene flow between occurrences. We
do not know, however, why native bees have not yet been observed
pollinating A. l. var. coachellae. Until specific pollinators for A. l.
var. coachellae are identified, we are unable to consider protection of
their specific habitat explicitly via this critical habitat
designation. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
aeolian sand transport corridors for seed dispersal and pollinator
movement to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Taxon
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is primarily found on loose
aeolian (wind-transported) or fluvial (water-transported) sands that
are located on dunes or sand fields, and along disturbed margins of
sandy washes. Within active, stabilized, and ephemeral sand fields and
dunes, A. l. var. coachellae tends to occur in coarse sands in the
margins of dunes, but not in most active windswept sand areas
(Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, pp. 9-27) (see Habitat section above
for more detailed description of active and stabilized sand fields and
dunes). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
substrate components and conditions suitable to support A. l. var.
coachellae to be a physical or biological feature for this taxon.
The sandy substrates that are suitable for Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae are dynamic in terms of spatial mobility and tendency
to change back and forth from active to stabilized (Lancaster 1995, p.
231). This has significant consequences for A. l. var. coachellae
because the plant's population densities vary with different types of
sandy substrates. Conserving the dynamics of the fluvial and aeolian
sand transport processes is important for the conservation of A. l.
var. coachellae because those dynamics create a variety of substrate
types that support occurrences of the taxon.
The dynamics of the sandy substrates in the Coachella Valley are
controlled by two main factors: (1) The supply of sand-sized sediment
released, transported, and deposited by the fluvial system (water-
transported); and (2) the rate of aeolian (wind-blown) transport
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 4-8). The latter is affected primarily by
wind fetch (the length of unobstructed area exposed to the wind).
Most of the suitable sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley are
generated from several drainage basins in the San Bernardino, Little
San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills (Lancaster et
al. 1993, pp. i-ii; Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 10). Sediment is eroded
and washed from fluvial source areas (hill slopes and channels in the
local hills and alluvial deposition areas in the Thousand Palms area
(Unit 4)), and is transported downstream in stream channels and within
alluvial fans during infrequent flood events (Griffiths et al. 2002, p.
7). Fluvial transport is the dominant mechanism that moves sediment
into fluvial depositional areas in the Coachella Valley (Griffiths et
al. 2002, p. 7). The largest depositional area in the Coachella Valley
is in the Whitewater River floodplain, northwest of the City of Palm
Springs (Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 5). For sufficient fine-grained
sands to reach the aeolian system on the valley floor and support
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, it is necessary to protect
major fluvial channels that transport source sand from the surrounding
drainage basins as well as bajadas and depositional areas. The
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP identifies the protection of the above-
mentioned essential ecological processes, including sand source/
transport systems, as a species conservation goal.
The San Gorgonio Pass is between the two highest peaks in southern
California: San Gorgonio Mountain (11,510 feet (ft) (3,508 meters (m)))
to the north and San Jacinto Mountain (10,837 ft (3,303 m)) to the
south. Westerly winds funneling through San Gorgonio Pass are the
dominant mechanism by which aeolian sands are transported from bajadas
and fluvial depositional areas to aeolian deposits in the Coachella
Valley (Sharp and Saunders 1978, p. 12; Griffiths et al. 2002, p. 1).
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is associated with various
types of sand formations that are formed by these aeolian deposits
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, p. 3). In order to maintain
adequate replenishment of sands into aeolian depositional areas, it is
important that sand-transport corridors between fluvial and aeolian
depositional areas remain unobstructed for wind passage. The strong
wind energy in this region can also erode sands from wash margins and
suitable A. l. var. coachellae habitat, temporally shifting A. l. var.
coachellae habitat into other areas, and thereby allowing the taxon to
be dispersed and to colonize new areas or recolonize previously
occupied areas. As a result, it is also necessary to protect sufficient
space to allow for these dynamic aeolian sand deposits to shift in
their distribution.
Primary Constituent Elements for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in areas
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary
constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements (PCEs)
to be the specific elements of physical or biological features that
provide for a species' life-history processes essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the taxon's
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
element specific to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is:
Sand formations associated with the sand transport system in
Coachella Valley, which:
(a) Include active sand dunes, stabilized or partially stabilized
sand dunes, active or stabilized sand fields (including hummocks
forming on leeward sides of shrubs), ephemeral sand fields or dunes,
and fluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes.
(b) Are found within the fluvial sand depositional areas, and the
aeolian sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand
transport system.
(c) Are comprised of sand originating in fluvial sand source areas
(unoccupied by the taxon at the time of listing) in the hills
surrounding Coachella Valley, which is moved into the valley by water
(fluvial transport) and through the valley by wind (aeolian transport).
We consider the fluvial sand depositional areas and the aeolian
sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand transport
system described in (b) to be within the geographical area occupied by
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae at the time the taxon was
listed, whereas the fluvial sand source areas referenced in (c) are
considered to be outside the geographical area occupied by the taxon at
the time of
[[Page 53233]]
listing. The sand formations provide substrate components and
conditions suitable for growth. The aeolian sand transport corridor
also provides space for seed dispersal and pollinator movement needed
to maintain sand movement and genetic diversity of the taxon.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this taxon
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: direct and indirect effects of urban and
recreational (e.g., golf course) development, nonnative plant species,
unauthorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) impacts, mining and other
activities or structures that alter streamflow, and groundwater
pumping.
Development
The Coachella Valley continues to attract increasing human
populations and associated urban development pressure. Urban and
recreational development can impact Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae directly by converting suitable, often occupied, habitat to
structures, infrastructure, landscaping, or other non-natural ground
cover that does not support the growth of the taxon. Structures and
landscaping can also impact A. l. var. coachellae habitat indirectly by
altering local wind and fluvial regimes. Such alterations can result in
degraded A. l. var. coachellae habitat downstream or downwind of
developed areas by inhibiting the movement of loose, unconsolidated
sands needed for the formation and maintenance of suitable habitat
vital to the growth and reproduction of the taxon. If the sand
transport system is altered, sand cannot move through the valley to
replace sands lost from the system downstream/downwind as a result of
ongoing fluvial and aeolian processes.
Special management considerations or protection are needed within
critical habitat areas to address the threats posed to Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by urban and recreational
development. Management activities that could ameliorate these threats
include, but are not limited to: Protection of lands that support
suitable habitat and associated sand transport, and siting future
development such that disruption of fluvial and aeolian sand transport
processes is minimized and deposition areas are preserved. These
management activities will protect the physical or biological features
for the taxon by decreasing the direct loss of habitat to development
and by helping to maintain the sand transport system and sand
deposition areas that together provide the sand formations that are
necessary components of A. l. var. coachellae habitat.
Preserving large areas of suitable habitat with intact wind and
depositional regimes and preserving areas vital to the maintenance of
the sand transport system are important to prevent further habitat
loss. Preserving a variety of different habitat types (e.g., sand
dunes, sand fields) throughout the range of the taxon should help
maintain the genetic and demographic diversity (individuals in
different age classes at any given time) of Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae.
Designing and orienting structures and landscaping such that they
minimize the blockage of sand movement will also help to prevent the
disruption of the sand transport system and further habitat loss. For
example, orienting a building so that the face of the building is at an
oblique angle with the prevailing wind direction may allow more sand to
move around the building than would occur if the face of the building
were at a right angle with the direction of sand movement. Planning
development such that structures and landscaping are located outside of
areas vital to sand transport will also help lessen the degradation of
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat.
Nonnative Plant Species
Invasive nonnative plant species, such as Brassica tournefortii
(Saharan mustard), Schismus barbatus (Mediterranean grass), and Salsola
tragus (Russian-thistle), can impact Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae habitat by stabilizing loose sediments and reducing
transport of sediment to downwind areas, thus making habitat unsuitable
for A. l. var. coachellae. Additionally, Tamarix spp. (salt cedar) can
create wind breaks in the aeolian transport system that can decrease
the movement of sand through the valley. Dense cover of nonnative taxa
may also impede the natural wind dispersal of the mature fruits of A.
l. var. coachellae. This will curtail natural reproduction within a
given site and natural dispersal to repopulate temporally unoccupied
sites.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to: Active weeding of nonnative plant species and
targeted herbicide application. These management activities will
protect the physical or biological features for the taxon by helping to
control nonnative plants, which can degrade Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae habitat.
Unauthorized Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Impacts
Unauthorized OHV use may impact Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae habitat by making substrate conditions unsuitable for growth
through the alteration of the fluvial sand transport system, changes in
plant community composition, and disruption of the substrate, which can
cause soils to lose moisture and may also impact soil microflora or
microfauna (Service 2008, p. 8766). The native plant community
associated with A. l. var. coachellae habitat allows for sand movement
and does not inhibit dispersal. Disturbance from OHV use can affect the
plant composition of the native plant community. Management activities
that could ameliorate the threat of unauthorized OHV use include
fencing and signage of habitat areas to assist in educating the public
and engaging local authorities to improve the enforcement of laws
prohibiting OHV trespass. Control of unauthorized OHV use in habitat
occupied by A. l. var. coachellae has recently improved through
increased local law enforcement in some areas, including lands managed
by Bureau of Land Management (BLM), although it remains an issue on
many privately owned lands.
Alteration of Stream Flow
The construction and operation of water percolation ponds, sand and
gravel mines, and, to a lesser degree, dikes and debris dams can
negatively impact Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat if
they prevent the fluvial transport of sand to habitat areas through
diversion, channelization, or damming (Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 13,
23). For example, the percolation ponds constructed on BLM and
Coachella Valley Water District lands in the Whitewater River
floodplain have substantially altered the transport of sand to habitat
areas downstream and downwind, resulting in the severe degradation of
sand and loss of A. l. var. coachellae habitat in these areas
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 6, 42).
Management activities that could ameliorate the threats posed to
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by alteration of stream
flow include, but are not limited to: Working with concerned parties to
find and
[[Page 53234]]
implement alternatives that allow for the removal or reconfiguration of
existing barriers to fluvial sand transport, restoring sand transport
to a more natural state, and working with concerned parties to design
and implement future projects to maximize conservation/restoration of
natural sand transport. These management activities will protect the
physical or biological features for the taxon by helping to maintain
the sand transport system that provides the sand that constitutes A. l.
var. coachellae habitat.
Groundwater Pumping
Hummocks formed by Prosopis spp. (mesquite) and other shrubs
contribute to the creation and stabilization of sand dunes and sand
fields by anchoring dunes and making them less vulnerable to wind
erosion. Wind-blown sand accumulates in areas where wind speed is
reduced (by topographical features, rocks, shrubs, or other objects)
near the ground (Fryberger and Ahlbrandt 1979, p. 440). The shrubs in
the hummock help to stabilize and support sand deposits around the
hummock, which support Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
occurrences and its sand dune and field habitat. The mesquite shrubs in
the Banning Fault/Willow Hole area are senescent and appear to be
dying, likely due to ongoing artificial lowering of groundwater levels
in the sub-basin to provide water for human use (Mission Springs Water
District 2008, p. 4-97). Similar mesquite hummocks that existed
historically have already been lost in and near the Thousand Palms
Reserve (in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area), likely due to
groundwater withdrawals (based on water well log data, field
observation, and aerial photos) (J. Avery, pers. obs. 2006). Loss of
the anchoring mesquite shrubs will lead to the loss of the associated
hummocks over time by the erosion of sand deposits, therefore affecting
A. l. var. coachellae habitat created or maintained by the trapping of
sand.
Management activities that could ameliorate the threats posed to
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat by groundwater pumping
include, but are not limited to: Subsurface irrigation of existing
mesquite plants, and the planting, restoring, and irrigating of
mesquite in areas where groundwater levels have fallen and caused the
degradation or loss of the mesquite plants that hold sand in place, and
which will ultimately result in the loss of the taxon's essential
substrate. These management activities will protect the physical or
biological features for A. l. var. coachellae by helping to maintain
much of the extant mesquite hummocks within the range of the taxon and
by restoring an undetermined acreage of historical mesquite hummocks
that maintain (or will maintain) portions of A. l. var. coachellae
habitat.
In summary, threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
habitat include urban and recreational development, nonnative plant
species, OHV impacts, alteration of stream flow, and groundwater
pumping. We find that the occupied areas proposed as revised critical
habitat contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of A. l. var. coachellae, and that these features may
require special management considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate,
or reduce to a negligible level, the threats affecting each unit or
subunit and to preserve and maintain the essential features that the
proposed critical habitat units and subunits provide to A. l. var.
coachellae. Additional discussions of threats facing individual sites
are provided in the individual unit descriptions in the Proposed
Critical Habitat Designation section below.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. For example,
drainage areas that provide source material for the aeolian sand in the
habitat (fluvial sand source areas) are necessary for the survival of
this taxon.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We relied on information in articles in
peer-reviewed journals, the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, survey reports
and other unpublished materials, and expert opinion or personal
knowledge. We also used the model developed by the Coachella Valley
Mountains Conservancy to help identify A. lentiginosus var. coachellae
habitat (CVMC 2004). Finally, we used information from the proposed (69
FR 74468; December 14, 2004) and final (70 FR 74112; December 14, 2005)
critical habitat rules, the 5-year status review that was signed on
September 1, 2009 (Service 2009), and other information in our files.
We are proposing to designate revised critical habitat in areas within
the geographical area occupied by A. l. var. coachellae at the time of
listing in 1998. We are also proposing to designate specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of
listing, because such areas support sand transport processes that are
vital to maintaining suitable habitat, and therefore are essential for
the conservation of the taxon.
Suitable habitat may be occupied by the taxon even if no plants
appear above-ground. Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
populations can survive drought periods through dormant seeds (seed
bank) and root crowns, and as a consequence, the number of above-ground
plants at any given time is only a limited temporal indication of
population size (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 39). It is not known how long
A. l. var. coachellae seeds may remain viable, but studies on A. l.
var. micans demonstrate that buried seeds may remain viable for at
least 8 years (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 31). Therefore, we also
considered areas as occupied where suitable habitat did not contain
above-ground individuals, but likely contain seed banks and dormant
root crowns of A. l. var. coachellae.
Unoccupied areas that provide for the fluvial transport of sand
from fluvial sand source areas to fluvial depositional areas occupied
by Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae are also proposed for
designation. These areas are essential for the conservation of A. l.
var. coachellae because they maintain A. l. var. coachellae habitat
(see criteria numbers 4, 5, and 6 below).
We defined the boundaries of each unit based on the criteria below:
Occupied Areas
(1) Potential suitable habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae was first identified using areas included in the Coachella
Valley Mountains Conservancy (CVMC) species distribution model for the
taxon (CVMC 2004). The CVMC model was developed using survey data for
A. l. var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data
2001), habitat variables, and expert opinion, and was created to assist
in the design of preserves and to evaluate the potential benefits of
the (then) proposed Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP for the plant (CVMC
2004). Environmental variables associated with A. l. var.
[[Page 53235]]
coachellae occurrence locations were identified and maps containing
those variables were combined with Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
land use and habitat data to create the model. Eight types of habitats
were used in the model: (1) Margins of active dunes, (2) active
shielded desert dunes, (3) stabilized desert dunes, (4) stabilized sand
fields, (5) stabilized shielded sand fields, (6) ephemeral sand fields,
(7) active sand fields, and (8) mesquite hummocks. The habitat types
used to create the model represented conditions that result from the
dynamic process of sand movement in the Coachella Valley floor; these
habitat types are found in fluvial sand depositional areas and aeolian
sand source, transport, and depositional areas (see Habitat section
above for a detailed discussion of these habitat types). During our
analysis for the 2005 critical habitat designation for A. l. var.
coachellae, we reviewed the validity of the environmental variables
used to create the model with occurrence data and information about the
plant's ecology. We found documentation of A. l. var. coachellae
occurrences in all of the natural communities used to create the model,
and concluded that the model was reasonably capable of identifying
suitable habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. We mapped the modeled
habitat using GIS software, and refined the map to only include areas
that we believe either contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the taxon or are otherwise essential
for the conservation of the taxon.
(2) We analyzed lands covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP,
and determined that A. l. var. coachellae habitat within the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas sufficiently provides for the
conservation of the taxon within areas covered by the Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP (Conservation Areas are a group of specific areas in which
the bulk of the habitat conservation mandated by the HCP is to take
place). We have determined that the modeled A. l. var. coachellae
habitat outside of the Conservation Areas does not contain the physical
or biological features considered essential to the conservation of the
taxon, nor are these areas otherwise essential for the conservation of
the taxon because these areas exist as small, disjunct patches, other
larger areas where sand transport has been blocked, or they do not
contain documented occurrences of the taxon.
The modeled Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat areas
that are covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP and are within the
Conservation Areas are connected to the fluvial portion of the sand
transport system. Each element of the PCE can be found in these areas
(fluvial sand transport within Conservation Areas is discussed below).
Modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat areas that are covered by the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP but are outside of the Conservation Areas
may contain some elements of the PCE, but for reasons discussed above
we do not consider these areas to meet the definition of critical
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. Therefore, in areas covered by the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, we have confined the proposed critical
habitat to lands that are within the Conservation Areas.
(3) We added areas that are not covered under the Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP, but have been determined by biologists familiar with the
taxon, its habitat, and its distribution, to contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon (see
Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat section
below for further discussion regarding these areas). The biologists
used aerial map coverages, Service GIS data, and personal knowledge to
determine these areas.
Unoccupied Areas
We determined that designating only those areas occupied at the
time of listing (also identified as the occupied depositional areas and
intervening areas needed for aeolian sand transport, seed dispersal,
and pollinator movement) would not sufficiently provide for the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, because
fluvial transport of sand from hills (fluvial sand source areas) into
occupied areas is vital to the maintenance of habitat for the taxon. It
will be impossible to conserve or recover this taxon if fluvial sand
transport processes are lost; therefore, we determined that fluvial
sand transport areas should be proposed for inclusion in the critical
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae regardless of the fact
that these areas are outside the geographical area occupied by A. l.
var. coachellae at the time the species was listed. We used the
following steps to determine which portions of the fluvial sand
transport system are essential for the conservation of A. l. var.
coachellae:
(4) Based on studies of the geomorphological processes of sediment
movement in the Coachella Valley by Lancaster et al. (1993) and
Griffiths et al. (2002), we identified and mapped drainage basins that
provide sediment for the four major sand transport systems in the
Coachella Valley (San Gorgonio/Snow Creek, Whitewater River, Mission
Creek/Morongo Wash, and Thousand Palms). Based on Griffiths et al.
(2002, p. 10), the drainages in eastern San Bernardino, western Little
San Bernardino Mountains, northern San Jacinto Mountains, and Indio
Hills that contribute sediment to the Coachella Valley include the: San
Gorgonio River; Whitewater River; Snow Canyon; San Jacinto 1 and 2;
Stubbes Canyon; Cottonwood Canyon; Garnet Wash; Mission Creek; Dry
Morongo; lower Little Morongo Creek; lower Big Morongo south of Morongo
Valley; and drainages in the southern flank of Indio Hills west of
Thousand Palms Canyon. We used GIS data obtained from Peter Griffiths
(United States Geological Survey 2002) to determine drainage
boundaries. We used these drainage boundaries to ensure we did not
include portions of stream channels that did not contribute sediment to
occupied areas.
(5) We then used aerial imagery to determine where the main stream
channels conveying sand to the fluvial depositional areas (San Gorgonio
River, Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Mission Creek, and Morongo Wash)
are located, and used our GIS software to draw polygons that define the
extent of these streams. Griffiths et al. (2002) found that very little
of the sand reaching the valley floor areas originates from portions of
the mountain drainages where the ground slope is less than 10 percent.
We considered only the lower reaches of main stream channels (fluvial
sand transport areas) that receive sediment from source areas in the
surrounding mountains and hills and convey that sediment to the fluvial
depositional areas on the valley floor essential for the conservation
of the taxon. These channels have upstream portions and numerous
tributaries within areas with 10 percent slope or greater (sand source
areas); therefore, we believe there is enough redundancy among these
tributaries and the areas that they drain that only the lower reaches
of main stream channels (where ground slope is less than 10 percent)
are essential for the conservation of the taxon. If the lower reaches
of any of the main stream channels are lost, sand transport to portions
of the occupied A. l. var. coachellae habitat downstream and downwind
will be lost as well. Using GIS data, we determined where the ground
slopes of the main stream channels become greater than 10 percent. We
believe that where the main streams exceed 10 percent slope, they too
become redundant with the numerous tributaries and washes
[[Page 53236]]
feeding into them. Therefore, we have only identified those fluvial
sand transport areas as essential for the conservation of the taxon
where portions of the main stream channels have a slope of less than 10
percent.
(6) The occupied areas in the Thousand Palms area (proposed Unit 4)
depend on large flooding events to wash sands stored in channels on
alluvial fans to the north at the base of the Indio Hills (fluvial sand
source areas) southward into fluvial depositional areas where the sand
can be moved by aeolian processes. Therefore, in the Thousand Palms
area, we used aerial imagery to determine the extent of the alluvial
fans where the sand is stored, and used our GIS software to create a
GIS polygon to encompass this area.
In this proposed revised critical habitat designation for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, we selected areas based on the
best scientific data available that possess those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon and that
may require special management considerations or protection, and other
areas essential for the conservation of the plant. When determining
proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid
including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement,
and other hard structures because such lands lack physical or
biological features for A. l. var. coachellae. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed revised rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential to the conservation of the taxon, and lands
outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that
we have determined are essential for the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae.
Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat
The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed
revision to the critical habitat rule for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae published on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). In cases where
we have new information or information that was not available for the
previous designation, we are proposing changes to the critical habitat
designation for A. l. var. coachellae to ensure that this rule reflects
the best scientific data available. We modified our description of the
primary constituent elements and the criteria used to identify critical
habitat, which resulted in modification of the boundaries of previously
proposed critical habitat units to more accurately reflect areas that
include the features that are essential to the conservation of A. l.
var. coachellae. The Secretary will also consider whether to exercise
his discretion to exclude specific areas from the final designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, including reconsidering areas
excluded in the prior designation; we are seeking public comment
regarding this matter (see Public Comments section of this rule).
Finally, we divided what was previously Unit 1 (Whitewater River
System) into two units (Unit 1--San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System,
and Unit 2--Whitewater River System) to more accurately reflect the
structure of the sand transport system in the Coachella Valley; these
changes are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Unit Number and Name Changes From the 2005 Critical Habitat Designation to This Proposed Rule, and
Reasons for Name Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous unit No. Previous unit name New unit No. New unit name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1............................... Whitewater River System Unit 1................. San Gorgonio River/Snow
Creek System.
Unit 2................. Whitewater River
System.
Unit 2............................... Mission Creek/Morongo Unit 3................. Mission Creek/Morongo
Wash System. Wash System.
Unit 3............................... Thousand Palms System.. Unit 4................. Thousand Palms System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in Designation Process
In the 2004 proposed critical habitat rule for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae (69 FR 74468, December 14, 2004), we
determined that 20,559 acres (ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) were essential
to the conservation of the taxon. In that proposed rule, we excluded
16,976 ac (6,870 ha) from the designation. In the 2005 final critical
habitat rule (70 FR 74112, December 14, 2005), we identified 17,746 ac
(7,182 ha) as containing features essential to the conservation of A.
l. var. coachellae. Of this area, we excluded 14,091 ac (5,703 ha)
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on their coverage under
the draft Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and removed 3,655 ac (1,480 ha)
of Service Refuge and BLM lands from the designation because we
determined that these lands did not meet the definition of critical
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because these lands already
received special management considerations due to their inclusion and
management within the Coachella Valley Preserve System under the
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard HCP. The final 2005 critical
habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae was 0 ac.
In this 2011 revised critical habitat proposal, we determined that
25,704 ac (10,402 ha) meet the definition of critical habitat; this
entire area is being proposed as critical habitat for the taxon. The
footprint of lands deemed essential in 2005 is very similar to the
footprint of the current proposal; however, the 2005 essential lands
did not include fluvial sand transport areas or any lands outside of
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas. This 2011 proposal
includes fluvial sand transport areas as well as Tribal areas and areas
in the City of Desert Hot Springs that are outside of the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Conservation Areas.
In the 2011 proposal we made the following specific changes, based
on the best available scientific and commercial information:
(1) We refined the primary constituent elements (PCEs) for clarity
and to more accurately define the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae.
[[Page 53237]]
(2) We have proposed unoccupied areas we believe are essential for
the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae. These areas consist of lower
reaches of main channels (fluvial sand transport areas) that move the
sands necessary for A. l. var. coachellae habitat from fluvial sand
source areas in the surrounding hills and mountains to the depositional
areas on the floor of the Coachella Valley. These areas were identified
as important in the 2004 proposed critical habitat designation (69 FR
74473; December 14, 2004), but were not proposed for inclusion in the
critical habitat designation at that time, and were not included in the
final designation because they are not occupied, they do not contain
suitable habitat, and because the (then draft) Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP was proposing to protect sand source areas in a way that was
anticipated to benefit the taxon (70 FR 74122; December 14, 2005).
After reconsidering the best available information, we now consider
these unoccupied areas to be essential for the conservation of the
taxon.
(3) We revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat based
on the best scientific and commercial data currently available, and re-
evaluated all lands within the taxon's range (including tribal lands
and lands within the City of Desert Hot Springs, which is not currently
a permittee under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP) in light of this
best available information. As a result, some areas are included in
this proposed rule that were not identified as containing the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of A. l. var.
coachellae in the 2005 critical habitat designation. As in 2005, we
determined that of the lands covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP, only lands within the Conservation Areas contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon. We
outline the steps that were used to identify and delineate the areas
that we are proposing as critical habitat in this revised proposed
critical habitat designation compared to the 2005 critical habitat
designation in order to ensure that the public better understands why
the areas are being proposed as critical habitat (see the Criteria Used
to Identify Critical Habitat section).
(4) In the 2004 proposed rule and the 2005 final rule, we excluded
or did not include areas under sections 4(b)(2) or 3(5)(A) of the Act,
respectively, within the planning boundaries for the (then draft)
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP and areas covered under the Coachella
Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard HCP (which has since been subsumed by the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and effectively no longer exists) (see the
discussion above for the specific areas previously excluded or not
included). We note that the Service does not now interpret the
definition of critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) of the Act) to mean
that areas receiving protection or management do not meet the
definition of critical habitat. In this proposed rule, we are
considering for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act the areas
covered under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP that we believe meet the
definition of critical habitat (see the Habitat Conservation Plan
Lands--Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section). Exclusions
that may occur in the final rule resulting from this proposed rule
could differ from the exclusions made in the 2005 critical habitat
designation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing four units as critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae. The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae. The four
areas we propose as critical habitat are the San Gorgonio/Snow Creek
system (Unit 1), the Whitewater River system (Unit 2), the Mission
Creek/Morongo Wash fluvial system (Unit 3), and the Thousand Palms
system (Unit 4). Each of these units consists of fluvial sand transport
areas, which are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, and occupied
areas (i.e., fluvial and aeolian depositional areas, as well as aeolian
sand source areas and aeolian sand transport areas). The two types of
areas are intimately associated in time and space. The approximate area
of each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 53238]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.011
[[Page 53239]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.012
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae,
below.
Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System
Unit 1 consists of 1,149 ac (465 ha) of Federal land, 164 ac (66
ha) of State land, 95 ac (38 ha) of local government-owned land, 1,791
ac (725 ha) of private land, 316 ac (128 ha) of tribal land, and 39 ac
(16 ha) of water district land in the
[[Page 53240]]
Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Within Unit 1, 158 ac (64 ha) are
part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, however, Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a covered species under this plan.
Unit 1 contains approximately 1,039 ac (420 ha) of unoccupied fluvial
sand transport area associated with the San Gorgonio River and Snow
Creek drainages. The remainder of Unit 1 consists of approximately
2,515 ac (1,018 ha) of occupied suitable habitat extending
approximately from the eastern edge of the community of Cabazon to just
west of Whitewater River, and is approximately bound by State Route 111
to the north, and the foot of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south.
In total, Unit 1 consists of 3,553 ac (1,438 ha) of land.
Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active
washes associated with San Gorgonio River and Snow Creek, which carry
substrates created by fluvial erosion of the surrounding hills to
occupied fluvial deposition areas in Unit 1 on the valley floor
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 1
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including
active sand dunes, sand fields, and stabilized and partially stabilized
sand fields that provide substrate components and conditions suitable
for the growth of A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP
2007, Table 10-1a), and areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand
transport can occur.
The occupied areas in Unit 1 meet the definition of critical
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the taxon. These features may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative, invasive plants and unauthorized OHV activity in the
occupied areas and threats from alteration of stream flow that impact
habitat in the occupied areas. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this proposed rule for a
discussion of the threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
habitat and potential management considerations.
The unoccupied areas in Unit 1 are essential for the conservation
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain habitat
within the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area identified by the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core Habitat
areas for A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, p. 9-21),
and because they contain portions of the San Gorgonio River and Snow
Creek that support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to the
transport and deposition of sand that provides the foundation of
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae in the occupied areas of Unit 1, and
these fluvial sand transport areas support the westernmost occurrences
of the taxon. Because of their geographic location, these plants and
their habitat receive more rainfall than occurrences and suitable
habitat farther east, which allows many individuals to survive more
than 1 year, grow larger, and produce more seed, all of which promote
the stability and reduce the chance of extirpation of the occurrences
in this unit (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 33). Also, due to strong winds
moving through this area from the west to east, the occupied habitat in
Unit 1 likely acts as a source of seed (and hence, a source of genetic
diversity) for areas of suitable habitat to the southeast (Meinke et
al. 2007, p. 40). Unit 1 likely also contributes to the maintenance of
genetic diversity in other occupied areas through the movement of
pollinators (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 37).
Unit 2: Whitewater River System
Unit 2 consists of 1,941 ac (786 ha) of Federal land, 20 ac (8 ha)
of State land, 328 ac (133 ha) of local government-owned land, 1,286 ac
(520 ha) of private land, 580 ac (235 ha) of tribal land, and 3,143 ac
(1,272 ha) of water district land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside
County. Unit 2 contains approximately 954 ac (386 ha) of unoccupied
fluvial sand transport areas associated with the Whitewater River
watershed. The remainder of Unit 2 consists of approximately 6,344 ac
(2,567 ha) of occupied suitable habitat and is approximately bound by
State Route 111 to the west, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north
and east, and dense urban development in the cities of Palm Springs and
Cathedral City to the south. In total, Unit 2 consists of 7,298 ac
(2,953 ha) of land.
Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active
washes associated with Whitewater River, which carry substrates created
by fluvial erosion of the surrounding hills (fluvial sand source areas)
to occupied fluvial deposition areas in Unit 2 on the valley floor
(Griffiths et al. 2002, pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 2
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including
active and ephemeral sand fields, and stabilized and partially
stabilized sand fields that provide substrate components and conditions
suitable for the growth of A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a), and areas over which unobstructed
aeolian sand transport can occur.
The occupied areas in Unit 2 meet the definition of critical
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in Unit 2 may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plants, urban development, alteration of stream
flow, unauthorized OHV activity in the occupied depositional areas, and
threats from alteration of stream flow that impact habitat in occupied
areas. Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section of this proposed rule for a discussion of the threats to
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat and potential
management considerations.
The unoccupied areas in Unit 2 are essential for the conservation
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain Core
Habitat within the Whitewater Floodplain Habitat Area, identified by
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core
Habitat areas for A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP,
p. 9-21); because they contain portions of the Whitewater River that
support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to transport and
deposit sand that provides the foundation of habitat for A. l. var.
coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of Unit 2; and because
they serve as a corridor between the habitat and occurrences to the
west in Unit 1 and the habitat and occurrences to the east in Unit 3.
Although Unit 2 does not serve as a substantial source of aeolian sand
to Unit 3 relative to the onsite fluvial sand transport areas in Unit 3
(Mission Creek and Morongo Wash), it may serve as a corridor for gene
flow by means of pollen and seed dispersal between Units 1, 2, and 3
due to dispersal of seeds from Unit 1 into Unit 2 and from Unit 2 into
Unit 3 combined with movement of pollinators among the three units
(Meinke et al. 2007, p. 37).
Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System
Unit 3 consists of 501 ac (203 ha) of Federal land, 199 ac (81 ha)
of State land, 1,541 ac (624 ha) of local government-owned land, 5,275
ac (2,135 ha) of private land, and 288 ac (117 ha) of water district
land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Unit 3 contains
approximately 2,722 ac (1,101 ha) of mostly unoccupied fluvial sand
[[Page 53241]]
transport area associated with the Mission Creek watershed and a
portion of the Morongo Wash watershed (sand deposits on the floodplain
terraces of Morongo Wash south of Pierson Boulevard support occurrences
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae). The remainder of Unit 3
consists of approximately 5,083 ac (2,057 ha) of occupied habitat and
includes sand deposits on the floodplain terraces of Morongo Wash south
of Pierson Boulevard, and fluvial depositional areas and aeolian
transport and depositional areas approximately bound (clockwise from
the western boundary) by Little Morongo Road, 18th Avenue, Palm Drive,
20th Avenue, Artesia Road, and Mihalyo Road, in or near the City of
Desert Hot Springs. In total, Unit 3 consists of 7,805 ac (3,158 ha) of
land.
Unoccupied fluvial sand transport areas in this unit contain active
washes associated with Mission Creek and Morongo Wash (north of Pierson
Boulevard), which carry substrates created by fluvial erosion of the
surrounding hills (fluvial sand source areas) to occupied fluvial
deposition areas in Unit 3 on the valley floor (Griffiths et al. 2002,
pp. 10-11). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 3 contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae including stabilized and partially
stabilized sand dunes, active and ephemeral sand fields, stabilized and
partially stabilized sand fields, and mesquite hummocks that provide
substrate components and conditions suitable for the growth of A. l.
var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a). The
fluvial sand deposits on the floodplain terraces in certain areas of
Morongo Wash also provide substrate components and conditions suitable
for growth of A. l. var. coachellae and support occurrences of the
taxon. Unit 3 also contains areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand
transport can occur.
The occupied areas in Unit 3 meet the definition of critical
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in Unit 3 may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plants, urban development, alteration of stream
flow, OHV use in the occupied depositional floodplain terrace areas,
and threats from alteration of stream flow that impact habitat in
occupied areas. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this proposed rule for a discussion of the
threats to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat and
potential management considerations.
The unoccupied areas in Unit 3 are essential for the conservation
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain habitat
within the Willow Hole Conservation Area identified by the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP Planning Team as one of four Core Habitat areas for
A. l. var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, pp. 9-21--9-22),
because they contain portions of Mission Creek and Morongo Wash that
support the fluvial sand transport process crucial to transport and
deposit sand that provides the foundation of habitat for A. l. var.
coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of Unit 3, and because
they support the northernmost extent of the taxon's range and large
occurrences containing high densities of the taxon. Each of these
factors contributes to the overall genetic diversity of A. l. var.
coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 35) and the maintenance of genetic
diversity via the movement of seeds and pollinators (Meinke et al.
2007, p. 37). The large numbers of individuals also likely contribute
numerous seeds to the soil seed bank. Unit 3 also contains the only
area where A. l. var. coachellae is known to occur in large numbers on
floodplain terraces of an active wash (Morongo Wash).
Unit 4: Thousand Palms System
Unit 4 consists of 3,667 ac (1,484 ha) of Federal land, 1,698 ac
(687 ha) of State land, 279 ac (113 ha) of local government-owned land,
1,247 ac (505 ha) of private land, and 157 ac (63 ha) of water district
land in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Unit 4 contains
approximately 2,146 ac (868 ha) of unoccupied fluvial sand source and
alluvial sand deposition areas associated with drainages originating in
the Indio Hills. The remainder of Unit 4 consists of approximately
4,902 ac (1,984 ha) of occupied habitat area in the Thousand Palms
Preserve along Ramon Road. In total, Unit 4 consists of 7,048 ac (2,852
ha) of land.
Unoccupied fluvial sand source and alluvial sand deposition areas
in this unit contain active ephemeral washes that carry substrates from
alluvial deposition areas (sand source areas) in Unit 4 to alluvial fan
areas where they can be transported to occupied habitat areas via wind
(Lancaster et al. 1993, p. 28). Occupied habitat areas of Unit 4
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae including
active dunes, active sand fields, and mesquite hummocks that provide
substrate components and conditions suitable for the growth of A. l.
var. coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, Table 10-1a), and
areas over which unobstructed aeolian sand transport can occur.
The occupied areas in Unit 4 meet the definition of critical
habitat because they contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the taxon. The features in the
occupied portion of Unit 4 may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plants.
According to Meinke et al. (2007, p. 18), this area supports
infestations of Brassica tournefortii; researchers observed thousands
of acres of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat inundated
with dense populations of this nonnative species. Existing suburban
development may require active management measures (for example,
collection of sand from developed areas for redistribution within the
wind movement corridor). The expansion of new urban development in sand
source areas is also a threat to occupied habitat in this unit that may
require special management considerations or protection, as are
unauthorized OHV activity and a proposed flood control project that
could disrupt or permanently destroy the sand transport system in the
Thousand Palms area by diverting drainages that provide sand to
occupied areas during large flooding events. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to A. l. var. coachellae habitat and
potential management considerations.
The unoccupied areas in Unit 4 are essential for the conservation
of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae because they contain the
Thousand Palms Habitat Area identified by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP Planning Team as one of four areas of Core Habitat for A. l. var.
coachellae (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, p. 9-22), and because they
contain alluvial sand deposits that serve as sand source for occupied
areas of Unit 4 and that support the fluvial and aeolian sand transport
processes crucial to transport sediment that provides the foundation of
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae in the occupied depositional areas of
Unit 4. Unit 4 is also essential because it supports occurrences
containing large numbers of the taxon that contribute to the overall
genetic diversity of A. l. var. coachellae (Meinke et al. 2007, p. 35),
and because it is located in the southeasternmost portion of the
taxon's range that is hydrologically independent and physically
isolated from the other
[[Page 53242]]
units. As such, this unit is important to help buffer excessive losses
in other parts of the range.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the taxon and provide for the
conservation of the taxon.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. These
activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would interrupt the fluvial or aeolian transport
of sand to depositional areas occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
(2) Actions that would damage or kill plants that trap sand,
thereby creating unsuitable habitat (such as hummocks that contain
Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana) for A. l. var. coachellae.
(3) Actions such as channelization of waterways, which could
decrease the sediment load of those waterways and thus decrease the
amount or the deposition location of sand entering the sand transport
system.
(4) Actions that contribute to the introduction or proliferation of
nonnative plants, such as Saharan mustard, which may compete with A. l.
var. coachellae for resources and interfere with the movement of sand.
(5) Actions such as development and landscaping that convert
suitable A. l. var. coachellae habitat to groundcover that does not
support the taxon.
(6) Actions such as OHV use that cause sufficient alteration of
substrates supporting A. l. var. coachellae occurrences to make the
habitat unsuitable to support the taxon.
[[Page 53243]]
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands within the proposed
critical habitat designation and as a result no lands are being
exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and determine
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
In the case of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, the
benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of A. l. var.
coachellae presence and the importance of habitat protection, and in
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for A.
l. var. coachellae due to the protection from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be
adapted in the future in response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat Units 1-4 are
appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may
exercise his discretion to exclude the lands from the final
designation.
We are currently considering excluding the following areas from the
critical habitat designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae under section 4(b)(2) of the Act: tribal lands in Units 1
and 2, lands in all four units that are covered under the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP, and lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs (if the
City is added to the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP permit before we
finalize the critical habitat designation).
We are considering excluding these areas because we believe that
they are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant factor''
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we specifically
solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas. In the
paragraphs below, we provide information we will consider in our
[[Page 53244]]
analysis of the potential exclusion of these or other lands under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are not considering for exclusion any
areas within the Western Riverside County MSHCP (all occur within Unit
1) because Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a covered
species under the plan.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
An analysis of the economic impacts for our previous proposed
critical habitat designation was conducted and made available to the
public on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56434). This economic analysis was
finalized for the final rule to designate critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae as published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112). The previous economic
analysis found potential economic impacts of the designation to include
administrative costs associated with engaging in section 7
consultations, and project modification costs associated with
management efforts taken to protect the taxon or its habitat. The
potential economic impacts were expected to affect the following
sectors: Residential and commercial development, flood control, water
supply, energy development, public lands management, and
transportation. After excluding land from the proposed critical
habitat, the economic impact was estimated to be $7.78 million in
undiscounted dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a 3
percent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20
years. Based on the 2005 economic analysis, we concluded that the
designation of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae, as proposed
in 2004, would not result in impacts to small businesses or the energy
industry. This analysis is presented in the notice of availability for
the economic analysis as published in the Federal Register on September
27, 2005 (70 FR 56434).
We will announce the availability of the current draft economic
analysis on this revised designation of critical habitat as soon as it
is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for
downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During the development of a final
critical habitat designation, we will consider economic impacts, public
comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we
determined that there are no lands within the proposed designation of
critical habitat that are owned or managed by the DOD, and, therefore,
we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, the
Secretary does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas
from the final designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Table 3 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that
meet the definition of critical habitat that we are considering for
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
critical habitat rule.
Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area considered for exclusion
Unit Basis for exclusion -------------------------------- Percent of
ac ha unit total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1............................ Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. 2,089 845 59
Tribal Lands (Morongo)...... 316 128 9
-----------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Total............. 2,405 973 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2............................ Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. 4,777 1,933 65
Tribal Lands (Agua Caliente) 580 235 8
-----------------------------------------------
Unit 2 Total............. 5,357 2,168 73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3............................ Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. 5,515 2,232 71
City of Desert Hot Springs.. 1,788 724 23
-----------------------------------------------
Unit 3 Total............. 7,303 2,956 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4............................ Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. 3,381 1,368 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 18,446 7,465 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53245]]
Tribal Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under tribal
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe
that, in most cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat
provides very little additional benefit to endangered and threatened
species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance, thus
compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon
which the viability of endangered and threatened species populations
depend. We will take into consideration our partnerships and existing
conservation actions that tribes have or are currently implementing
when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final revised critical
habitat designation. If the Secretary decides to exercise his
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering lands
covered by the tribes identified below for possible exclusion from
final critical habitat.
We are considering the exclusion of 316 ac (128 ha) of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat proposed in Unit 1 under section
4(b)(2) of the Act on tribal lands that are owned or managed by the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians (formerly the Morongo Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation), and 580 ac (235 ha) of A.
l. var. coachellae habitat proposed in Unit 2 that are owned or managed
by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente
Indian Reservation (Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians) on the
basis of our partnership with these tribes and their ongoing
conservation and wildlife management efforts. The Morongo Band of
Mission Indians has not completed a management plan that specifically
provides for conservation of A. l. var. coachellae on their lands. The
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has been working with our office
on developing a draft HCP that includes conservation measures for A. l.
var. coachellae. Although the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
notified us in a letter dated October 6, 2010, that they suspended
their pursuit of a Section 10(a) permit for their draft HCP (ACBCI
2010a, p. 1), they are continuing to implement the draft HCP and will
continue to protect and manage natural resources within their
jurisdiction (ACBCI 2010b, p. ES-1). We are seeking public comment
regarding whether the conservation needs of A. l. var. coachellae can
be achieved by limiting the designation to non-tribal lands and the
appropriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of these lands from the
final revised critical habitat designation (see Public Comments
section).
Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act
When evaluating a current land management or conservation plan
(HCPs as well as other types) and the habitat management or protection
it provides, we consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the plan is complete and provides the same or better
level of protection from adverse modification or destruction than that
provided through a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
(2) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
Habitat conservation plans often cover a wide range of species,
including listed plant species and species that are not State or
federally listed and would otherwise receive little protection from
development. Many HCPs take years to develop, and upon completion, are
consistent with recovery objectives for listed species that are covered
within the plan area. Many HCPs also provide conservation benefits to
listed and unlisted sensitive species through conservation measures and
management and preservation of land in perpetuity.
The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs that cover
listed plant species from critical habitat designation include
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional
regulatory burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. A related
benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability it gives us to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. By excluding lands with
approved HCPs, we preserve the integrity of our current partnerships
and encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is a covered species under
the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. The Secretary is considering
exercising his discretion to exclude lands covered by this plan
(including lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs, which are not
covered presently by the HCP, but which we expect to be added to the
HCP in the near future; continued consideration for exclusion from this
designation is contingent upon Desert Hot Springs becoming a permittee
under the HCP). In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the
stakeholders in this HCP and from the public on lands that the
Secretary should consider for exclusion from the final designation of
critical habitat. Below is a brief description of the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella
Valley MSHCP)
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP is a large-scale, multi-
jurisdictional habitat conservation plan encompassing about 1.1 million
ac (445,156 ha) in the Coachella Valley of central Riverside County.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP is also a ``Subregional Plan'' under
the State of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) Act, as amended. An additional 69,000 ac (27,923 ha) of tribal
reservation lands distributed within the plan area boundary are not
included in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP. The Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP addresses 27 listed and unlisted ``covered species,''
including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. On October 1, 2008,
the Service issued a single incidental take permit (TE-104604-0) under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees under the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP for a period of 75 years. Participants in the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP include eight cities (Cathedral City,
Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs,
and Rancho Mirage); the County of Riverside, including the
[[Page 53246]]
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and Riverside County
Waste Management District; the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments; Coachella Valley Water District; Imperial Irrigation
District; California Department of Transportation; California State
Parks; Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy; and the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission (the created joint powers regional authority).
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP was designed to establish a multiple-
species habitat conservation program that minimizes and mitigates the
expected loss of habitat and incidental take of covered species,
including A. l. var. coachellae (USFWS 2008, pp. 1-207, and Appendix A,
pp. 10-50).
The permit covers incidental take resulting from habitat loss and
disturbance associated with urban development and other proposed
covered activities. These activities include public and private
development within the plan area that requires discretionary and
ministerial actions by permittees subject to consistency with the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP policies. An associated Management and
Monitoring Program is also included in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP
and identifies specific management actions for the conservation of
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.
Approximately 36,398 ac (14,730 ha) of modeled habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae occurs in the Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP Plan Area (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP 2007, pp. 9-25).
Under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, approximately 15,706 ac (6,356
ha) of modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat will be lost to
development. To mitigate this loss, the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP
will preserve 7,176 ac (2,904 ha) of modeled habitat for the taxon in
perpetuity. Another 4,497 ac (1,820 ha) are anticipated to be conserved
through complementary and cooperative efforts by Federal and State
agencies and non-governmental organizations. Additionally, 7,707 ac
(3,118 ha) of A. l. var. coachellae modeled habitat within the Plan
Area were preserved prior to completion of the Coachella Valley MSHCP/
NCCP (acres which coincidentally occur on three Coachella Valley
fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) reserves in the Coachella Valley
Preserve System). These lands and the 11,650 ac (4,715 ha) of lands yet
to be conserved under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP will total 19,357
ac (7,833 ha) of A. l. var. coachellae modeled habitat within the
Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Reserve System. As habitat areas are
acquired under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, they are legally
protected within the Reserve System and the direct impacts of
development are precluded. This protection, as well as implementation
of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and management
and monitoring programs identified in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP,
will reduce impacts to this taxon compared to what would have occurred
otherwise.
We are considering the exclusion of lands covered by the Coachella
Valley MSHCP/NCCP from the critical habitat designation to preserve the
integrity of our partnerships with the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP
permittees and because of the protections afforded to the taxon and its
habitat by the HCP, which may provide protection whether or not a
Federal nexus exists and, therefore, may provide greater protection to
the taxon and its habitat than critical habitat designation, especially
on non-Federal lands (Unit 1: 2,089 ac (845 ha); Unit 2: 4,777 ac
(1,933 ha); Unit 3: 7,303 ac (2,956 ha); Unit 4: 3,381 ac (1,368 ha);
see Table 3 above). These lands include 1,788 ac (724 ha) of land in
the City of Desert Hot Springs, which is not presently a permittee
under the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, but which may be added to the
HCP before we finalize this revised critical habitat designation.
Consistent with the terms of the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP
Implementing Agreement, the Secretary is considering exercising his
discretion to exclude 17,550 ac (7,102 ha) of Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae habitat on permittee-owned or controlled land in Units
1, 2, 3, and 4 that meet the definition of critical habitat for A. l.
var. coachellae within the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. The 1998 final listing rule for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae attributed the primary threat from present
or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat
or to urban development, development of wind energy parks, and
degradation by off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (63 FR 53598; October 6,
1998). The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP helps to address these threats
through a regional planning effort, and outlines specific objectives
and criteria for the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae. We intend
to exclude critical habitat from areas covered by the Coachella Valley
MSHCP/NCCP based on the protections outlined above and per the
provisions laid out in the Implementing Agreement, to the extent
consistent with the requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage
any public comment in relation to our consideration of the areas in
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 for inclusion or exclusion (see Public Comments
section above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical
habitat.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
[[Page 53247]]
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of
the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
At this time, we lack the updated and complete economic information
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA
finding. Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the
draft economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
An analysis of the economic impacts for our previous proposed
critical habitat designation was conducted and made available to the
public on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56434). This economic analysis was
finalized for the final rule to designate critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. During that previous proposed
rulemaking process, we certified that the proposed designation of
critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that the
proposed rule did not meet the criteria under SBREFA as a major rule.
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not required.
In summary, we reasoned that probable future land uses in a subset of
the areas proposed for designation were expected to have a Federal
nexus or require section 7 consultation (for example, development
projects or projects that alter stream flow). We determined that the
most likely Federal involvement would be associated with activities
involving Federal Highways Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Land Management, and that
the critical habitat designation might result in project modifications
when proposed Federal activities would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. We concluded that, while this might occur, it was not
expected frequently enough to affect a substantial number of small
entities, and even when it did occur, it was not expected to result in
a significant economic impact because we expected that most proposed
projects, with or without modification, could be implemented in such a
way as to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat, as the measures
included in reasonable and prudent alternatives must be economically
feasible and consistent with the proposed action.
This economic analysis was finalized for the final rule to
designate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
as published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR
74112). The previous economic analysis found potential economic impacts
of the designation to include administrative costs associated with
engaging in section 7 consultations, and project modification costs
associated with management efforts taken to protect the taxon or its
habitat. The potential economic impacts were expected to affect the
following sectors: residential and commercial development, flood
control, water supply, energy development, public lands management, and
transportation. After excluding land from the proposed critical
habitat, the economic impact was estimated to be $7.78 million in
undiscounted dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a 3
percent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20
years. Based on the 2005 economic analysis, we concluded that the
designation of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae, as proposed
in 2004, would not result in impacts to small businesses or the energy
industry. This analysis is presented in the notice of availability for
the economic analysis as published in the Federal Register on September
27, 2005 (70 FR 56434).
We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect this action to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use because, based on the economic
analysis performed for the previous designation, we do not anticipate
that designation of the areas proposed as critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae will impact the energy
industry. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
[[Page 53248]]
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) A
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because this proposed rule would not
substantially change the impacts associated with current management
guidelines within Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP areas. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment if appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from
a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency. Due to current public knowledge of the species
protections both within and outside of the proposed areas, we do not
anticipate that property values would be affected by the critical
habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed the economic
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as
warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae may
impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in
place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and
local governments and their activities. The designation may have some
benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
taxon are more clearly defined, the elements of the features of the
habitat necessary to the conservation of the taxon are specifically
identified, and the areas that are otherwise essential for the
conservation of the taxon are also identified. This information does
not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur.
However, it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather
than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions to define the
critical habitat boundaries and identifies the elements of physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae within the proposed areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the taxon.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule would not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
[[Page 53249]]
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
We are currently coordinating with affected tribes regarding this
proposed critical habitat designation, and have included tribal lands
in this revised proposal. We are requesting public comment on the
appropriateness of including or excluding these lands in the final
rule. We will continue to coordinate with the tribal governments during
the designation process.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entry for ``Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae'' under ``Flowering Plants'' in the List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
---------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When Critical Special
Scientific name Common name listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Astragalus lentiginosus var. Coachella Valley milk- U.S.A. (CA).......... Fabaceae............. E 647 17.96(a) NA
coachellae. vetch.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by revising the entry for ``Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley Milk-Vetch)'' under
Family Fabaceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Fabaceae: Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella
Valley milk-vetch)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside County,
California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of A. l.
var. coachellae consists of
(i) Sand formations associated with the sand transport system in
Coachella Valley, which
(A) Include active sand dunes, stabilized or partially stabilized
sand dunes, active or stabilized sand fields (including hummocks
forming on leeward sides of shrubs), ephemeral sand fields or dunes,
and fluvial sand deposits on floodplain terraces of active washes.
(B) Are found within the fluvial sand depositional areas, and the
aeolian sand source, transport, and depositional areas of the sand
transport system.
(C) Are comprised of sand originating in fluvial sand source areas
(unoccupied by the taxon at the time of listing) in the hills
surrounding Coachella Valley, which is moved into the valley by water
(fluvial transport) and through the valley by wind (aeolian transport).
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
(such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas)
and the land on which they are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Astragalus
lentiginosus var.
[[Page 53250]]
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.013
[[Page 53251]]
(6) Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System, Riverside County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1: San Gorgonio
River/Snow Creek System, Riverside County, California].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1: San Gorgonio River/Snow Creek System,
Riverside County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.014
[[Page 53252]]
(7) Unit 2: Whitewater River System, Riverside County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2: Whitewater River
System, Riverside County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2: Whitewater River System, Riverside
County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.015
[[Page 53253]]
(8) Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System, Riverside County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3: Mission Creek/
Morongo Wash System, Riverside County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3: Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System,
Riverside County, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.016
[[Page 53254]]
(9) Unit 4: Thousand Palms System, Riverside County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4: Thousand Palms
System, Riverside County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4: Thousand Palms System, Riverside County,
California follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AU11.017
* * * * *
Dated: August 15, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-21442 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C