Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36635

Dated: June 26, 2007. required to submit a copy of this Report FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Robert E. Roberts, and Order to GAO pursuant to the Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish Regional Administrator, Region 8. Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) [FR Doc. E7–13060 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am] 801(a)(1)(A), because the proposed rule (telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile BILLING CODE 6560–50–P is dismissed.) 760–431–5901). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 (TDD) may call the Federal Information Radio, Radio broadcasting. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. COMMISSION Federal Communications Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: John A. Karousos, Background 47 CFR Part 73 Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 [DA 07–2651; MB Docket No. 05–191; RM– Bureau. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 11243] [FR Doc. E7–12860 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am] any petition to revise the List of BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Radio Broadcasting Services; Elberton the List of Endangered and Threatened and Union Point, GA Plants that contains substantial AGENCY: Federal Communications DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR scientific and commercial information Commission. that listing may be warranted, we make Fish and Wildlife Service ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. a finding within 12 months of the date of our receipt of the petition on whether SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of 50 CFR Part 17 the petitioned action is: (a) Not Proposed Rule Making (‘‘Notice’’), this warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) Report and Order dismisses a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife warranted but the immediate proposal rulemaking petition requesting that and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a of a regulation implementing the Channel 286A, FM Station WEHR, Petition To List the Casey’s June petitioned action is precluded by other Elberton, Georgia, be upgraded to Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as pending proposals to determine whether Channel 286C2 and reallotted to Union Endangered With Critical Habitat any species is threatened or endangered, Point, Georgia, and the license of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and expeditious progress is being made Station WEHR be modified accordingly. Interior. to add or remove qualified species from Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting the Lists of Endangered and Threatened ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition Wildlife and Plants. Such 12-month Company, LLC (‘‘GCR’’), the licensee of finding. Station WEHR, requested Commission findings are to be published promptly in approval for the withdrawal of its SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and the Federal Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) underlying Petition for Rule Making for Wildlife Service (Service), announce a of the Act requires that a petition for MB Docket No. 05–191. GCR filed a 12-month finding on a petition to list which the requested action is found to declaration that neither it nor any of its Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) be warranted but precluded shall be principals has been offered or received as endangered under the Endangered treated as though resubmitted on the any consideration in connection with Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). date of such finding, and requiring a the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule The petition also asked that critical subsequent finding to be made within Making in this proceeding. habitat be designated for the species. 12 months. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal After review of all available scientific Previous Federal Action Communications Commission, 445 12th and commercial information, we find On May 12, 2004, we received a Street, SW., Room TW–A325, that listing is warranted. Currently, petition, dated May 11, 2004, from Washington, DC 20554. however, listing of Casey’s June beetle is David H. Wright, Ph.D.; the Center for precluded by higher priority actions to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Biological Diversity; and the Sierra Club amend the Lists of Endangered and Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) requesting the emergency listing of Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 418–2180. Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) publication of this 12-month petition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a as endangered in accordance with finding, Casey’s June beetle will be synopsis of the Commission’s Report section 4 of the Act. On October 4, 2005, and Order, MB Docket No. 05–191, added to our candidate species list. We the Center for Biological Diversity filed adopted June 13, 2007, and released will develop a proposed rule to list this a complaint against us in the U.S. June 15, 2007. The full text of this species as our priorities allow. Any District Court for the Central District of Commission decision is available for determination on critical habitat will be California challenging our failure to inspection and copying during normal made during development of the make the required 90-day and, if business hours in the FCC’s Reference proposed listing rule. appropriate, 12-month finding on their Information Center at Portals II, 445 DATES: The finding announced in this petition to emergency list Casey’s June 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, document was made on July 5, 2007. beetle under section 4 of the Act. We Washington, DC 20554. The document ADDRESSES: Supporting documents for reached a settlement agreement with the may also be purchased from the this finding are available for inspection, plaintiffs on March 28, 2006, in which Commission’s duplicating contractor, by appointment, during normal business we agreed to submit to the Federal Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Register a 90-day finding by July 27, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006, and to complete and submit to the Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA Federal Register, if a substantial finding 800–378–3160 or http:// 92011. Please submit any new is made, a 12-month finding by June 30, www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is information, materials, comments, or 2007. On August 8, 2006, we published not subject to the Congressional Review questions concerning this finding to the a 90-day petition finding (71 FR 44960) Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not above address. in which we concluded that emergency

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36636 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

listing was not necessary, but that the on the ground and are considered Rosa mountain ranges in the dry petition provided substantial flightless (Duff 1990, p. 4; Frank Hovore Coachella Valley region by the information indicating that listing of and Associates 1995, p. 7; Hovore 2003, overlapping of individual alluvial fans Casey’s June beetle may be warranted, p. 3). La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that (bajada) are indicative of the caseyi and we initiated a status review. This ‘‘Female Dinacoma are very rare in complex habitat (La Rue 2006, p. 1). notice constitutes the 12-month finding collections. Females display an Casey’s June beetle is most commonly on the May 12, 2004, petition to list accentuated sexual dimorphism associated with Carsitas series soil Casey’s June beetle as endangered. characterized by an enlarged abdomen, (CdC), described by the United States reduced legs and antennae, and Department of Agriculture (USDA) Taxonomy metathoracic wing reduction and (USDA on-line GIS database, 2000) as Casey’s June beetle belongs to the venation. These characters are likely gravelly sand on 0 to 9 percent slopes. scarab family (Scarabidae). The genus adaptations to flightlessness and a This soil series is associated with Dinacoma includes two described fossorial biology.’’ During the active alluvial fans, rather than areas of aeolian species, D. caseyi and D. marginata flight season, males emerge from the or windblown sand deposits. Hovore (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 171–176). Delbert ground and begin flying near dusk (2003, p. 2) described soils where La Rue, a researcher experienced with (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Males are reported Casey’s June beetle occurs or occurred the genus Dinacoma and a taxonomic to fly back and forth or crawl on the historically as, ‘‘* * * almost entirely expert stated, ‘‘Dinacoma caseyi is a ground where a female beetle has been carsitas series, of a CdC type, typically distinct species morphologically and detected (Duff 1990, p. 3). Cornett (2003, gravelly sand, single grain, slightly comprises its own species group—the p. 5) theorized that after emergence, effervescent, moderately alkaline (pH caseyi complex—the other [species females remain on the ground and 8.4), loose, non-sticky, non-plastic, group] being the marginata complex release pheromones to attract flying deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes. On which includes the bulk/remainder of males. After mating, females return to alluvial terraces and where they occur the genus’’ (La Rue 2006, p. 1). The their burrows or dig a new burrow and within washes, these soils show light Casey’s June beetle was first collected in deposit eggs. Excavations of adult braiding and some organic deposition, the City of Palm Springs, California, in emergence burrows revealed pupal but [most years] do not receive scouring 1916, and was later described by exuviae (casings) at depths ranging from surface flows.’’ Although Casey’s June Blaisdell (1930, pp. 174–176) based on approximately 4 to 6 in (10 to 16 cm) beetle has primarily been found on CdC male specimens. This species measures (Frank Hovore and Associates 1995, p. soils, the beetle is also associated with 0.55 to 0.71 inches (in) (1.4 to 1.8 6). Riverwash (RA), and possibly Carsitas centimeters (cm)) long, with dusty The larval cycle for the species is cobbly sand (ChC), soils in the Palm brown or whitish coloring, and brown likely 1 year, based on the absence of Canyon Wash area (Anderson and Love and cream longitudinal stripes on the larvae (grubs) in burrows during the 2007, p. 1). Its burrowing habit would elytra (wing covers and back). adult flight season (La Rue 2004, p. 1). suggest the Casey’s June beetle needs Recently, entomologists discovered The food source for Casey’s June beetle soils that are not too rocky or compacted two apparently new species or larvae while underground is unknown, and difficult to burrow in. subspecies of Dinacoma, collected but other species of June beetle are Hovore (2003, p.11) and Cornett respectively from near the city of known to eat ‘‘plant roots or plant (2004, p. 14) hypothesized that upland Hemet, California, and in the northwest detritus and associated decay habitats provide core refugia from portion of Joshua Tree National Park, organisms’’ (La Rue 2004, p.1). La Rue which the species recolonizes wash California, at Covington Flats (La Rue (2006, pp.1–2) stated, ‘‘[Casey’s June habitat after intense flood scouring 2006, p. 2). To date, these specimens of beetle] exhibits no specific host events (approximately every 10 years), Dinacoma have not been formally preferences, and larvae likely consume and are required for long-term survival described in the scientific literature, but any available organic resources— of the species. Most extant upland expert evaluation places them in the including [layered organic debris]— habitat in the range of Casey’s June other Dinacoma species group encountered within the alluvial beetle has been developed as golf (marginata complex) (La Rue 2006, p.1). habitat.’’ Specific host plant courses or suburban housing (Cornett La Rue (2006, p. 2) stated that Dinacoma associations for Casey’s June beetle are 2004, p. 11). Although relatively high caseyi is the most morphologically not known. Although visual surveys numbers of Casey’s June beetles (70 divergent and distinct species in the have detected a concentration of individuals in the first 15 minutes, genus. The new specimens collected emergence burrows in the vicinity of a Powell 2003, p. 4; average 8.5 per night, from the Hemet area are paler than number of species of woody shrub in Simonsen-Marchant and Marchant Casey’s June beetle specimens and Palm Canyon Wash, this may be due to 2000, p. 5; 2001, p. 9) have been possess morphologically different low soil disturbance by vehicles, foot collected downstream from remaining genitalia (Anderson 2006a, p.1). traffic, and horses near woody upland habitat in Palm Canyon Wash, Furthermore, the Little San Bernardino vegetation (Hovore 2003, p. 3). occupancy in this area is likely due to Mountains geographically isolate the movement of sediment and larvae by Habitat new Dinacoma Joshua Tree population water flow as hypothesized by Hovore from all other known Dinacoma species. La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that all (2003, p. 11). Occupied wash habitat Dinacoma populations are ecologically downstream from all occupied upland Biology associated with alluvial sediments. habitats (from Smoke Tree Ranch to Based on surveys conducted to assess Alluvial sediments occurring in or Gene Autry Trail, see distribution the species’ presence, both male and contiguous with coastal scrub, montane discussion below) is likely a long-term female Casey’s June beetles emerge from chaparral, and desert dry washes population ‘‘sink’’ for Casey’s June underground burrows sometime (ephemeral watercourses) are indicative beetle (only receiving female between late March and early June, with of the marginata complex habitat, while immigrants, not producing colonizers abundance peaks generally occurring in bases of desert alluvial fans, and the for upland habitat). Although wash April and May (Duff 1990, p. 3; Barrows broad, gently sloping, depositional habitat isolated from upland refugia 1998, p. 1). Females are always observed surfaces formed at the base of the Santa may contribute relatively little to the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36637

species’ long-term survival under Drive (1987, 1988, and 1989). The detected. The University of California– current circumstances, it is still Bogert Trail/South Palm Canyon Drive Riverside (UCR) conducted more than important because it is apparently collections were made within the Agua 10 years of year-round surveys for a occupied by a relatively large Caliente Tribe of Cahuilla Indians variety of species, including Casey’s proportion of the remaining population, (Tribe) Reservation. Recently, numerous June beetle, at the Boyd Deep Canyon and would be an important source of collections and observations have been Preserve in Palm Desert, California (also individuals for future reintroduction made within Smoke Tree Ranch and near Indian Wells, and including and augmentation activities. other areas in, or adjacent to, Palm portions of Dead Indian Canyon). No With regard to current habitat Canyon Wash south of Gene Autry Trail, Casey’s June beetles were found during conditions, Cornett (2004, p. 14) offered in the City of Palm Springs. The Bogert any of the UCR surveys (Anderson a hypothesis based on higher number of Trail site and Smoke Tree Ranch have 2006a, p. 1). Although the May 11, 2004, specimens collected or observed during been commonly used as reference sites petition references a ‘‘Snow Creek’’ surveys within the more developed by surveyors (Duff 1990, p. 7; Hovore collection site northwest of Palm areas compared to undeveloped areas 1997a, p. 3; 1997b, p. 1; Barrows and Springs, we were not able to obtain any within the gated Smoke Tree Ranch Fisher 2000, p. 1; Cornett 2000, p. 9; substantiating records for that location. residential community (Smoke Tree Cornett 2003, p. 5; Hovore 2003, p. 4; A single-night survey conducted by Ranch). Cornett (2004, p. 14) Cornett 2004, p. 3). Hovore (Frank Powell (2003, p. 1) near Snow Creek hypothesized that the unique landscape Hovore and Associates 1995, p. 3) stated failed to find the species, although the of Smoke Tree Ranch may increase that the Casey’s June beetles collected beetle was confirmed to be active at habitat quality of Casey’s June beetle in by University of California-Long Beach Smoke Tree Ranch in Palm Springs at this drier upland area with widely (UCLB) students ‘‘within the past 20 the time. spaced homes, abundant native years’’ were labeled ‘‘Dead Indian La Rue (2006, p. 1) has collected and vegetation on vacant lots, and some Canyon’’ (near the cities of Palm Desert worked extensively with Dinacoma spp. irrigation. This hypothesis, if supported and Indian Wells, south of Palm in southern California since the 1980s, by future research, may hold the key to Springs); however, Hovore (2006b, p. 1) but has not collected Casey’s June beetle effective management for Casey’s June subsequently explained that this outside of its current known range in beetle in remaining, less suitable upland information is questionable due to the City of Palm Springs. La Rue (2006, habitat where the species may have incomplete specimen label information p. 2) stated: been extirpated. Alternate hypotheses, and contradictory information provided such as increased collection sizes due to Many collectors, researchers, ecologists, by the former UCLB curator. Because and others * * * have surveyed for D. caseyi attraction of males to residential lights, Palm Canyon (in Palm Springs) is joined throughout the Coachella Valley for years should also be investigated. Considering by the smaller Murray, Andreas, and without finding additional populations other Cornett’s (2004, p. 14) above hypothesis, Wentworth Canyons, collectively than those still extant in and around Palm and the potential for high species referred to as the ‘‘Indian Canyons,’’ (for Springs. There are several factors that density (however temporary) in Palm example, Barrows 1998, p. 1), we contribute to this isolation, a few being: (1) Canyon Wash, all remaining habitat believe this may be the correct Topographically, the City of Palm Springs is areas with CdC or RA type soils in collection locality for the UCLB protected from high wind events (dessication southern Palm Springs are considered [sic] of necessary substrate) [by] the specimens. precipitous San Jacinto [Santa Rosa important for species’ conservation. The historical range of Casey’s June Mountains]; (2) the area where D. caseyi beetle cannot be determined with any Range and Extant Distribution occurs in the City of Palm Springs receives certainty, given the lack of specific a higher amount of annual precipitation Most locality information on Casey’s locality information for many of the because of its proximity to the base of the June beetle specimens in collections collection records. Frank Hovore and San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mtns [Mountains]. specifies ‘‘Palm Springs,’’ or simply Associates (1995, p. 4) described the Orographic lift [when an air mass is forced Riverside County (Duff 1990, p. 2; possible extent of the species’ historical from low to higher elevations, it expands, O’Brian 2007, p.1; Ratcliff 2007, p. 1; range as ‘‘somewhere around Chino cools, and can no longer hold moisture] will deplete most moisture from winter storms Wall 2007, p.1). Nineteen of 21 Canyon floodplain (or at most northwest specimens in the Los Angeles County originating from the Pacific; what little to the Snow Creek drainage), south to remains falls in the Palm Springs area and Natural History Museum (LACNHM; around Indian Wells.’’ Within this rarely further into the Coachella Valley. 1940 to 1989) were labeled as being general geographic area from north to Summer monsoonal patterns are from the city of Palm Springs. Other south of Palm Springs (Riverside insignificant. (3) As mentioned above, early collection records identify ‘‘Palm County, California), the species is Dinacoma are restricted to alluvial Desert’’ (‘‘old record’’; Duff 1990, p. 3), assumed to have occurred on alluvial sediments. Re: D. caseyi; these conditions ‘‘Indian Wells’’ (2 specimens in the fan bases flowing from the Santa Rosa only occur at the base of steep narrow LACNHM from 1953), and ‘‘Palm Mountains, at or near the level contour canyons of the San Jacinto/Santa Rosa [Mountains]. Canyon’’ (‘‘old record’’; Duff 1990, p. 3), line, where finer silts and sand are all in the western Coachella Valley. Duff deposited. However, this purported Cornett (2004, p. 8) sampled more (1990, p. 2) described two primary areas range is ‘‘based on inference and than 60 locations in Palm Springs to where the beetle was extant in Palm fragmentary data’’ (Frank Hovore and determine the current range of Casey’s Springs, west of the city near Tahquitz Associates 1995, p. 4). June beetle. Light traps were used to Creek (‘‘specific localities: Jct. Palm Given the lack of collection records, attract flying males and placed in Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Way; Jct. efforts have been made to determine the relatively undisturbed flatlands likely to Palm Canyon Drive and Sunny Dunes extant (remaining) distribution of support Casey’s June beetle. Traps were Road’’) and south of the city near the Casey’s June beetle in its purported opened by 6:30 p.m. and remained open intersection of Bogert Trail and South historical range. Barrows and Fisher until at least 10 p.m. Eight traps were Palm Canyon Drive. Seven specimens in (2000, p.1) conducted trapping on two opened each evening, and each trapping the LACNHM were labeled as having separate evenings in Dead Indian station was used at least two times. To been collected near the intersection of Canyon in Palm Desert, southeast of gauge trapping success, at least one trap Bogert Trail and South Palm Canyon Palm Springs, but the species was not was opened at Smoke Tree Ranch each

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36638 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

trapping session, where beetles have from the lot at Bogert Trail and South Although recent surveys have not been reliably collected since occupancy Palm Canyon Drive east into, and recorded Casey’s June beetles in extant was documented in 1998 (Barrows 1998, across, Palm Canyon wash onto the habitat west of South Palm Canyon p. 1). Based on the survey results, upland terrace adjacent to the wash, and Drive or south of Acanto Drive in Palm Cornett (2004, p. 13), in agreement with then downstream [northeast] within the Springs (Barrows 1998, p. 1; Simonsen- Hovore (2003, p. 7), concluded that wash and on the upland terrace deposits Marchant and Marchant 2000, p. 5 and Casey’s June beetle is currently (CdC soils) through [Smoke Tree] Ranch 2001, p. 6; Cornett 2004, pp. 8 and 13), restricted to southern Palm Springs in to Highway 111, and then just within low-density populations may be hard to the vicinity of Palm Canyon and Palm the wash through Seven Lakes Country detect. Barrows (1998, p. 1) reported Canyon Wash. Club to at least Gene Autry [Trail] observing numerous Casey’s June beetle Despite recent attempts to document ***.’’ For the remainder of this emergence holes ‘‘* * * just beyond the Casey’s June beetle in areas throughout finding, our discussion of the species’ entrance gate to the Indian Canyons, the purported historic range, all recent current distribution will not consider a indicating with some probability their (1990s or later) Casey’s June beetle greater ‘‘range,’’ and will be limited to recent occurrence there.’’ Hovore collection locations are from sites near the amount of remaining undeveloped (1997a, p. 2) also reported ‘‘a few’’ South Palm Canyon Drive, Bogert Trail, habitat (occupancy distribution) that potential Casey’s June beetle emergence Smoke Tree Ranch, and portions of does not include residential areas where holes ‘‘in a small CdC soil area along the Palm Canyon Wash south of Gene Autry soils have been graded, developed, or toll road.’’ Hovore (Frank Hovore and Trail in Palm Springs (Duff 1990, pp. 2– landscaped. Such areas are not currently Associates 1995 p. 5; Hovore 1997a, p. 3; Simonsen-Marchant and Marchant habitable by the species. 3 and 1997b, p. 4) also documented 2000, p. 5 and 2001, p. 8; Hovore 2003, To define the current distribution of occupancy in currently undeveloped p. 7; Powell 2003, p. 1; Cornett 2000, p. extant Casey’s June beetle habitat within habitat west of South Palm Canyon 13 and 2004, p. 8; Yanega 2007, pp. 1– our revised range description above, we Drive. Hovore (Frank Hovore and 3). For example, one group of collectors used GIS soil data from the USDA Associates 1995, p. 5) specifically associated with UCR who checked ‘‘as (USDA on-line GIS database, 2000; CdC described Casey’s June beetle occupancy many sites as possible’’ for Casey’s June and RA soil series; see Habitat section distribution on the west side of South beetle in Palm Springs, were apparently above), 2005 satellite imagery, field Palm Canyon Drive as, ‘‘* * * in a only able to collect specimens in the surveys (Anderson 2006b, pp. 1–35), narrow strip along the west side of vicinity of Smoke Tree Ranch stables, and collection data from Cornett (2000, South Palm Canyon Drive from about adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash (Porcu the junction with Bogert Trail to 2003, p. 8). Localized distributions are p. 9; 2004, p. 8), Powell (2003, p. 1), Simonsen-Marchant and Marchant [Acanto Drive], and extends only about typical for species of June beetles 20–30 meters away from the roadway.’’ (superfamily Scarabaeoidea) with (2000, p. 5; 2001, p. 6), Barrows (1998, flightlessness in one or both sexes p. 1), and Hovore (2003, p. 7; 1997a, p. Status and Trends (Hovore 2006a, p. 1). We believe only 2; 1997b, p. 4). All undeveloped CdC We do not have population estimates one Casey’s June beetle population and RA soils within the area described for the beetle or information showing remains, occupying the extant, above were considered extant habitat. decline in numbers. Surveys conducted contiguous habitat in southern Palm To account for potential occupancy in for this species have been site-specific Springs. undeveloped lots within the otherwise or primarily conducted to demonstrate Cornett (2004, p. 11) estimated the developed suburban housing area at presence or absence. For this reason, we range of Casey’s June beetle to cover Smoke Tree Ranch (Cornett 2004, p. 14; focused our analysis of the decrease in approximately 800 acres (ac) (324 see Habitat section above), we included the amount of extant habitat and the hectares (ha)). As discussed in our half the total area of the Smoke Tree documented habitat loss over specific August 8, 2006, 90-day finding (71 FR Ranch development block (65 ac (26 time periods. 44960), based on our GIS mapping of ha)) in our extant habitat area estimate. Cornett’s (2004, p. 13) distribution map, Smoke Tree Ranch is the only suburban Summary of Factors Affecting the his estimated Casey’s June beetle range area within the distribution of Casey’s Species was approximately 707 ac (286 ha) as June beetle that contains scattered Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) opposed to approximately 800 ac (324 undeveloped lots throughout the and implementing regulations at 50 CFR ha) (Cornett 2004, p. 11). To this we development. Our final analysis 424 set forth procedures for adding added another 51 ac (21 ha) of north resulted in an estimate of 576 ac (233 species to the Federal List of Palm Canyon Wash between East Palm ha) of extant undeveloped habitat in Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In Canyon Drive and South Gene Autry 2006 (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1– making this finding, we summarize Trail, resulting in an approximately 758- 2). Extant habitat is limited to Palm below information regarding the status ac (307-ha) range for Casey’s June beetle Canyon Wash, Smoke Tree Ranch, and and threats to this species in relation to in the Palm Springs area (71 FR 44960). CdC soils in Palm Canyon south of East the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Subsequent analysis for this 12-month Murray Canyon Drive. Based on 1995 or Act. In making our 12-month finding, finding (see discussion below) indicates more recent collection data (Cornett we considered all scientific and additional CdC and RA soils in Palm 2000, p. 9 and 2004, p. 8; Powell 2003, commercial information in our files, Canyon should also have been included p. 1; Simonsen-Marchant and Marchant including information received during in this range estimate. Because Cornett’s 2000, p. 3 and 2001, p 6; Barrows 1998, the comment period that ended October (2004, p. 11) 800-ac (324-ha) range p. 1; Hovore 2003, p. 7 and 1997a p. 2 10, 2006 (71 FR 44960). estimate included such large, and 1997b, p. 4), and CdC or RA soils peripheral, non-habitat features as the that were contiguous as recently as 1995 Factor A. The Present or Threatened entire golf course between East Murray with habitat where Casey’s June beetle Destruction, Modification, or Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail, a more was collected (Anderson and Love 2007, Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or useful ‘‘range’’ description is the pp. 1–2), we consider all extant habitat Range qualitative, habitat-based description within the species’ distribution to be We analyzed suburban development given by Hovore (2003, p. 7): ‘‘*** occupied or likely occupied. within southern Palm Springs from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36639

2003 to 2007 to determine habitat referred to as Eagle Canyon) is currently Autry Trail have been converted to golf impacts of completed and pending planned on Tribal lands (Davis 2007, p. course landscaping (Anderson and Love projects as cited in the petition and 1; Park 2007, p. 1) in the area containing 2007, p. 3). La Rue (2006, p. 2) referenced in the August 8, 2006, 90-day CdC soils west of South Palm Canyon emphasized the magnitude of finding (71 FR 44960). We were not able Drive, and near Bogert Trail and Acanto development threats to Dinacoma to identify all projects cited in the Drive. This project has completed the population survival: ‘‘Most Dinacoma petition (and the 90-day finding), as the environmental review process (CEQA), have a limited range because of petitioners did not provide specific and is in the process of obtaining a unprecedented habitat destruction and geographic descriptions, and cited grading permit (tentative tract number modification for recreational, residential acreages did not exactly match 30047). Our analysis (Anderson and and urban development resulting in calculations in our most recent analysis. Love 2007, pp. 1–3) determined that this serious distributional fragmentation However, based on site visits and project would alter the drainage system throughout [their] former range. satellite imagery, we identified at least maintaining soil moisture levels in Consequently, several populations [of five projects that have removed or approximately 54 ac likely to be the genus Dinacoma] have been impacted occupied and likely occupied occupied by Casey’s June beetle, extirpated, especially those that once habitat, within the distribution including extant habitat near the section existed in Los Angeles County (e.g., described above, in the past 3 years: (1) of Bogert Trail and South Palm Canyon Glendale, Eaton Canyon).’’ The 39-ac (16-ha) Monte Sereno project Drive where occupancy was Analysis of aerial photography in north of Bogart Trail adjacent to Palm documented by Hovore (Frank Hovore Palm Canyon Wash indicates numerous Canyon Wash (Tribal lands); (2) the 2- and Associates 1995, p. 5; Hovore land-disturbance activities affecting ac (1-ha) Desert Water Agency wells and 1997a, p. 2 and 1997b, p. 4). The Alturas occupied wash habitat managed by the pipeline project in the Smoke Tree project would also directly impact CdC Riverside County Flood Control and Ranch development; (3) at least 7-ac (3- soils likely to be occupied, and by Water Conservation District. In the ha) of the Smoke Tree Ranch Cottages disrupting the water source maintaining vicinity of the State Route 111 bridge development (‘‘Casitas’’ development suitable soil moisture levels, potentially and Araby Drive, there appears to be cited in the 90-day finding); (4) the 17- decrease the 576 ac (233 ha) of road maintenance and flood control ac (7-ha) Smoketree Commons shopping remaining extant, suitable habitat by 9 activities, as well as unregulated off- area; and (5) the 34-ac (14-ha) Alta percent. Surveys are currently being road vehicle disturbance. Cornett (2003, project north of Acanto Drive and west conducted adjacent to the Alturas p. 12) noted similar off-road vehicle of Palm Canyon Wash (Tribal lands). project, where occupancy was impacts during Casey’s June beetle These projects have resulted in the loss previously documented, to determine surveys on a nearby site adjacent to of, or impacts to, approximately 99 ac likelihood of current habitat occupancy Whitewater Wash and the Palm Springs (40 ha) of occupied and likely occupied (Osborne 2007, p. 1; Park 2007, p. 1). Airport. Any activities that compact or All habitat loss calculations above Casey’s June beetle habitat from 2003 to disturb soils when adult beetles are included wash habitat where Casey’s 2006. Hovore (2003, p. 4) hypothesized active, or affect soils to a depth where June beetle may not be able to maintain that the destruction and isolation of immature stages or resting adults are occupied habitat caused by projects 1 occupancy following severe flood events found, may affect the species’ and 5 above ‘‘* * * overall may reduce (Cornett 2004, p. 14; Hovore 2003, p.11). persistence in such areas. the known range and extant population Of the total 576 ac (233 ha) estimated of the species by about one third.’’ remaining habitat, only 328 ac (133 ha) Casey’s June beetle habitat in Palm We conducted an additional analysis is upland habitat (excluding habitat that Springs has been increasingly (Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1–2) will be impacted by the Alturas project). fragmented by development in recent using available aerial photographs (from According to Coachella Valley General years (see above development 1991), satellite imagery (from 1996, Plan data (Riverside County 1999), all discussion). Fragmentation of habitat 2003, and 2005), and 2006 field surveys remaining upland habitat within Smoke compromises the ability of the species (Anderson 2006b, pp. 1–36) to Tree Ranch and on Tribal land north of to disperse and establish new, or determine rates of habitat loss in Acanto Drive was projected to be augment declining, populations, southern Palm Springs over the past 16 developed at a density of 2 homes per because females are flightless and males years. From 1991 to 2006, Casey’s June acre by the year 2020. Although the alone cannot establish new populations beetle experienced an approximate 25 projected land use designation code (Frank Hovore and Associates 1995, p. percent reduction in contiguous, (‘‘58’’) for undeveloped habitat south of 7). Hovore (2003, p. 3) indicated that undeveloped habitat from 770 ac (312 Acanto Drive was not defined in the population movement would be ‘‘slow ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in 2006. documents available to us (Riverside and indirect,’’ and suggested the Habitat loss has been greatest in recent County 1999), they have the same code population structure for Casey’s June years: at a rate of 2 percent per year as adjacent, already developed land beetle in any given area could be from 1991 to 1996, at a rate of 1 percent (that is, East Bogert Trail area). Land use described as multiple mini-colonies or per year from 1996 to 2003, and at a rate projections (Riverside County 1999) ‘‘clusters of individuals around areas of of 5 percent per year from 2003 to 2006. indicate most of the 328 ac (133 ha) repeated female emergence.’’ This At this recent rate, all habitat remaining remaining upland Casey’s June beetle would, in Hovore’s (2003, p. 4) for Casey’s June beetle would disappear habitat could be eliminated by assessment, make the species in about twenty years (the foreseeable development within 12 years. susceptible to extirpation resulting from future). The development threat is greatest in land use changes that would remove or Since publication of the August 8, upland CdC soil habitat areas that are alter surface features. Although 2006, 90-day finding (71 FR 44960), we believed to be key refugia for Casey’s fragmentation of habitat within a have become aware of another project June beetle (see Habitat section above); population distribution still allows that will destroy or impact extant however, development threats are not mixing of genes by male flight, it would Casey’s June beetle habitat. The 80- to limited to upland habitat. For example, preclude recolonization of a site should 100-ac (32- to 40-ha) Alturas residential entire sections of Palm Canyon Wash all flightless female individuals be sub-division development project (also east of occupied habitat near Gene eliminated.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36640 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Summary of Factor A incidental benefit to Casey’s June beetle. Examples of the limitation of CEQA to Since 1991, urban development and We discuss existing regulatory protect Casey’s June beetle can also be construction have removed 25 percent mechanisms below. found with Smoke Tree Ranch properties. In 2006, the City of Palm of remaining habitat. From 2003 to National Environmental Policy Act 2006, habitat loss for the beetle has Springs issued a mitigated negative The National Environmental Policy occurred at a rate of 5 percent per year. CEQA declaration for Smoke Tree Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– Because development trends are Ranch Cottages (see specific project 4347), as amended, requires Federal continuing (see above discussion of description (3) under Factor A above) agencies to describe the proposed Alturas project approved by the City of (City of Palm Springs 2006, p. 2), action, consider alternatives, identify Palm Springs, 9 percent loss in 2007), finding ‘‘no significant impact’’ to and disclose potential environmental additional habitat for the beetle will be Casey’s June beetle, even though at least impacts of each alternative, and involve lost. The estimated amount of 7 ac (3 ha) of habitat was to be the public in the decision-making contiguous, undeveloped habitat developed that Cornett’s study (2004, process. The resulting documents are currently available for the species is pp. 18–27) identified as occupied. primarily disclosure documents, and approximately 576 ac (233 ha) with Another example includes the NEPA does not require or guide some of these areas serving as biological Smoketree Commons shopping center mitigation for impacts. Projects that are ‘‘sinks’’ for the species. Based on (see specific project description (4) covered by certain ‘‘categorical development trends, the most important under Factor A above). The project’s exclusions’’ are exempt from NEPA habitat for species persistence (alluvial Environmental Impact Review (EIR; biological evaluation. However, Federal uplands with CDC soil), is the habitat Pacific Municipal Consultants 2005, p. agencies are not required to select the most likely to be lost to future 9) stated that the City of Palm Springs alternative having the least significant development. Therefore, projected was responsible for enforcing and environmental impacts. A Federal development of remaining upland monitoring Casey’s June beetle agency may select an action that will habitat by the year 2020 would result in mitigation measures prior to issuance of adversely affect sensitive species almost certain extinction of the species. a grading permit, including recording a provided that these effects were known Based on recent, current, and likely conservation easement and developing a and identified in a NEPA document. future habitat loss trends, the loss of management plan for Casey’s June historically occupied locations, reduced State beetle on conserved habitat. An and limited distribution, habitat easement was established; however, no The California Environmental Quality management plan was drafted prior to fragmentation, and land use changes Act (CEQA 1970, as amended) requires associated with urbanization, we find issuance of the grading permit, and no disclosure of potential environmental monitoring or management activities are that Casey’s June beetle is threatened impacts of public or private projects with extinction by destruction, assured (Ewing 2007, p. 1). carried out or authorized by all non- We were unable to obtain copies of modification, and curtailment of its Federal agencies in California. CEQA habitat and range. the Alturas development project EIR for guidelines require a finding of review (see Factor A above, and Tribal Factor B. Overutilization for significance if the project has the discussion below) from the City of Palm Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or potential to ‘‘reduce the number or Springs Planning Department or the Educational purposes restrict the range of an endangered, rare author (Terra Nova Consulting). The or threatened species’’ (CEQA Guideline We are not aware of any information project has completed the 15065). The lead agency can either regarding overutilization of Casey’s June environmental review, and the project require mitigation for unavoidable beetle for commercial, recreational, proponent has a tentative tract number significant effects, or decide that scientific, or educational purposes and with the City of Palm Springs (tentative overriding considerations make do not consider this a threat at this time. tract number 30047). mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline The California Endangered Species Factor C. Disease or Predation 21002), although such overrides are Act (CESA) provides protections for We are not aware of any information rare. CEQA can provide some many species of plants, animals, and regarding threats of disease or predation protections for a species that, although some invertebrate species. However, to the Casey’s June beetle and do not not listed as threatened or endangered, insect species, such as the Casey’s June consider this a threat at this time. meets one of several criteria for rarity beetle, are afforded no protection under (CEQA Guideline 15380). For example, the CESA. This is a further example of Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing the Monte Sereno project (see specific an existing regulatory mechanism that Regulatory Mechanisms project description (1) under Factor A does not provide for the protection of Existing regulatory mechanisms that above) impacted approximately 39 ac the Casey’s June beetle or its habitat. could provide some protection for (16 ha) of occupied habitat. Impacts to Casey’s June beetle include: (1) Federal Casey’s June beetle were expected to be Tribal laws and regulations, such as the mitigated by payment of $600 per acre Reservation lands of the Agua National Environmental Policy Act; (2) (total of $24,780) to the City of Palm Caliente Tribe encompass 257 ac (104 State laws and regulations; and (3) local Springs or a habitat conservation entity ha), approximately 45 percent of land use processes and ordinances. designated by the city for 41.3 ac (16.7 estimated extant Casey’s June beetle However, these regulatory mechanisms ha) of ‘‘potential’’ Casey’s June beetle habitat (RA and CdC soils; Anderson have not prevented continued habitat habitat (Dudek and Associates 2001, p. and Love 2007, pp. 1–3). All post–1996 fragmentation and modification. There 24). However, no specific use of the development of occupied habitat, with are no regulatory mechanisms that funds for mitigation was specified the exception of the 17–ac (7–ha) Smoke specifically or indirectly address the (Dudek and Associates 2001, p. 24), and Tree Commons project, has occurred on management or conservation of to our knowledge, no appropriate Tribal reservation land (see Factor A functional Casey’s June beetle habitat. habitat has been conserved for Casey’s above). Because the remaining 163 ac There are no regulatory protections for June beetle to offset the Monte Sereno (66 ha) of upland habitat (CdC soils) on any other species that may provide project impacts. Tribal reservation lands are relatively

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36641

flat and adjacent to or surrounded by example, the currently planned Alturas Candidate Conservation Agreements recent development (Anderson and development project (see Factor A Given the non-inclusion of Casey’s Love 2007, pp. 1–3), some of these lands above) is not covered, because it is ‘‘fee June beetle in the final Coachella Valley are currently approved for development land.’’ Although environmental review MSHCP and draft Agua Caliente Tribal (Alturas project discussed above), and documents (CEQA EIRs) were prepared HCP, the Service has been working with will likely continue to be targeted for by consultants and reviewed by the City Smoke Tree Ranch to develop a development in the future. of Palm Springs, the Tribe did not Candidate Conservation Agreement with While development on Tribal lands is participate in the review or comment Assurances (CCAA) to address Casey’s sometimes subject to NEPA (42 U.S.C. with regard to Casey’s June beetle (Davis June beetle conservation. As indicated 4321–4347), impacts to Casey’s June 2007, p. 1). The Service will continue to beetle may not always be considered in comprehensive scientific survey work with the Tribe to obtain any other during the NEPA process. The report range estimates (Simonsen- information that illustrates how Tribal inadequacy of NEPA to protect occupied Marchant and Marchant 2001, p. 6; Casey’s June beetle habitat is actions or policies would help conserve Cornett 2004, p. 13), Smoke Tree Ranch demonstrated by the extent of Casey’s June beetle habitat and protect supports a substantial portion of known development that has occurred over the the species; however, we have not occupied Casey’s June beetle habitat, past 5 years on Tribal lands in occupied documented the protection of occupied including a portion of the property habitat (see Factor A above). Casey’s June beetle habitat from currently identified in Smoke Tree In a letter to the Carlsbad Fish and development on Tribal reservation Ranch codes, covenants, and restrictions Wildlife Office’s Field Supervisor dated lands. as ‘‘open space.’’ The Service will October 10, 2006, the Tribe stated that continue to work cooperatively with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) they had ‘‘ * * * enacted a Tribal Smoke Tree Ranch to complete and Environmental Policy Act to, among Some non-Federal lands within the implement a CCAA for Casey’s June beetle. The use of a CCAA can be an other things, ensure protection of purported historical range of Casey’s effective tool to conserve species in the natural resources and the environment. June beetle are proposed for absence of listing as threatened or See Tribal Ordinance No. 28 at I.B., management under the Coachella Valley endangered under the Act. For example, (2000).’’ We have reviewed the Association of Governments Habitat referenced Tribal Environmental Policy a CCAA can limit the use of bug-zappers Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A or pesticides near occupied habitat or Act (Tribal Act) (Tribe 2000) and found supplemental Environmental Impact the Tribal Act to be general, stating that can mandate monitoring and adaptive Statement (EIS)/EIR on the revised plan the Tribe is the lead agency for management. However, until such time was made available to the public March preparing environmental review as a CCAA is completed, current documents, and that Tribal policy is to 30, 2007 (72 FR 15148), and the public regulatory mechanisms at Smoke Tree protect the natural environment, comment period closed May 29, 2007. Ranch are inadequate to ensure including ‘‘all living things.’’ According Although Casey’s June beetle was conservation of the species. This CCAA to the Tribal Act (Tribe 2000, p. 4), the initially considered for coverage under will not be completed before the Tribe will consult with any Federal, the MSHCP, the March 2007 release of publication of this 12-month finding. the final MSHCP, final EIR, and final State, and local agency that has special Summary of Factor D expertise with respect to environmental implementing agreement did not impacts. Occupancy of the Bogert Trail include Casey’s June beetle as a covered Removal of occupied habitat by site in the vicinity of South Palm species. Because it is not a covered projects in the Bogert Trail area after the Canyon Drive on Tribal land (Duff 1990, species, the MSHCP will not provide for 2004 submission of the petition to list pp. 2–3, 4; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. protection or conservation of Casey’s Casey’s June beetle as endangered, and 1; Cornett 2004, p. 3; Hovore 1997b, p. June beetle. other recent and proposed development 4; Hovore 2003, p. 4) has been greatly We continue to work with the Tribe in occupied habitat, demonstrates existing regulatory mechanisms are not reduced, if not eliminated, by on a HCP proposed to cover other adequate to protect remaining occupied development since our receipt of the imperiled species that may be impacted and essential Casey’s June beetle petition in 2004 (see Factor A above). by development activities on Tribal habitat. Therefore, we find that the The Alta and Monte Serano land. At a meeting on March 7, 2007, development projects eliminated most inadequacy of existing regulatory the Tribe indicated a willingness to of the species’ upland habitat outside of mechanisms presents a threat to the consider including Casey’s June beetle Smoke Tree Ranch estimated to be survival of Casey’s June beetle. in their plan; however, the current draft occupied in 2003. Frank Hovore (2003, Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade p. 4) estimated that grading for the Alta Tribal HCP does not include coverage of Factors Affecting the Continued project near South Palm Canyon Drive Casey’s June beetle. Therefore, we Existence of the Species in May 2003 reduced the extant Casey’s currently do not anticipate conservation June beetle population size by ‘‘about measures benefiting Casey’s June beetle The one known remaining Casey’s one-third.’’ to result from this HCP. However, we June beetle population in south Palm The Service was not consulted have analyzed inclusion of Casey’s June Springs also may be threatened by other regarding Casey’s June beetle prior to beetle as a covered species in the Tribal natural or anthropogenically influenced the recent development of the Alta and HCP as one of multiple alternatives in factors, primarily increased intensity Monte Serano projects in occupied the draft EIS, which will be available for and frequency of scouring events in Casey’s June beetle habitat; therefore, public review and comment during the wash habitat. However, there is little the Tribal Act does not appear to summer of 2007. Because Casey’s June species-specific scientific information effectively protect the species’ habitat. beetle is not included as a covered describing the potential for these The Chief Planning and Development species at this time, we do not consider threats, and these issues should be the Officer for the Tribe (Davis 2007, p. 1) the draft Tribal HCP will provide a subject of future research. affirmed that the Tribal Act does not conservation benefit to Casey’s June Urban development adjacent to apply to all Tribal reservation lands; for beetle. natural creek beds or washes

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36642 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

concentrates stream flow by Finding under consideration, these agreements constraining channel width, thereby We have carefully assessed the best have not been finalized (Factor D). increasing the speed of water flowing scientific and commercial information Increased intensity and frequency of past a given location (hydrograph; cubic available regarding the past, present, scouring events in wash habitat are feet per second) (Leroy et al., p. 772). and future threats faced by this species. threats that have likely contributed to Therefore, although no relevant We reviewed the petition, available decline of the species (Factor E). Since hydrographic data is available for published and unpublished scientific this finding is warranted but precluded, occupied areas of Palm Canyon Wash and commercial information, and we do not need to specifically prior to 1988 (existing levees were information submitted to us during the determine whether it is appropriate to already constructed; Anderson 2007, p. public comment period following the perform a ‘‘significant portion of the 9), it can be assumed that development publication of our 90-day petition range’’ analysis for this species. adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash and finding. This 12-month finding reflects However, due to the restricted nature of associated flood-control levees has and incorporates information we Casey’s June beetle’s range, we generally increased the intensity of scouring received during the public comment consider all of the remaining range to be events believed by Hovore (2003, p. 11) period, or obtained through significant for the conservation of this and Cornett (2004, p. 14) to temporarily consultation, literature research, and species. Because of a small and eliminate Casey’s June beetles within field visits, and responds to significant restricted population distribution, and because of threats described above, Palm Canyon Wash. As a result, issues. We also consulted with Casey’s June beetle should be listed as increased impacts of flood scouring to recognized Casey’s June beetle experts. threatened or endangered throughout its the one remaining population, already On the basis of this review, we find that entire range. We will review whether to impacted and threatened by the listing of Casey’s June beetle is list as threatened or endangered during development, must be considered a warranted, due to threats associated the proposed listing rule process. significant contributing factor to the with urban development, the species’ extinction probability. inadequacy of existing regulatory Preclusion and Expeditious Progress Casey’s June beetle is sensitive to mechanisms, and other natural and Preclusion is a function of the listing changes in climate factors such as wind, manmade factors. However, listing of priority of a species in relation to the temperature (for example, drying of Casey’s June beetle is precluded at this resources that are available and alluvial soils), precipitation, and time by pending proposals for other competing demands for those resources. catastrophic flood events (Noss et al. species with higher listing priorities Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 2001, p. 42; La Rue 2006, p. 2). As based on taxonomic uniqueness (that is, multiple factors dictate whether it will discussed above, increased intensity the only species described for the be possible to undertake work on a and frequency of flooding and scouring genus). proposed listing regulation or whether events in Palm Canyon Wash is of In making this finding, we recognize promulgation of such a proposal is particular concern for Casey’s June that there have been declines in the warranted but precluded by higher distribution and abundance of Casey’s beetle. The frequency of heavy priority listing actions. June beetle, primarily attributed to precipitation events has increased over The resources available for listing suburban development and habitat most land areas (typically post-1960), actions are determined through the alteration (Factor A). From 1991 to consistent with warming and observed annual Congressional appropriations 2006, Casey’s June beetle experienced increases of atmospheric water vapor, process. The appropriation for the an estimated 25 percent reduction in and it is ‘‘very likely’’ (90 percent Listing Program is available to support contiguous, undeveloped habitat from confidence) that heavy precipitation work involving the following listing 770 ac (312 ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 will become even more frequent (IPCC actions: proposed and final listing rules; ha) in 2006. Habitat loss has been 2007, pp. 2 and 8–9). A review of 90-day and 12-month findings on greatest in recent years. From 1991 to literature and historic climate data petitions to add species to the Lists or 1996, habitat was lost at a rate of 2 (Anderson 2007, pp. 1–6) indicates to change the status of a species from percent per year; from 1996 to 2003, at threatened to endangered; resubmitted Coachella Valley precipitation, peak a rate of 1 percent per year; and from petition findings; proposed and final stream flow (hydrograph; cubic feet per 2003 to 2006, at a rate of 5 percent per rules designating critical habitat; and second) in Palm Canyon, and other year. An additional 9 percent of litigation-related, administrative, and weather patterns since 1950 have been apparent key refugia habitat will be program management functions locally consistent with global patterns impacted by development in 2007. At (including preparing and allocating reported by the IPCC (2007 p. 2, pp. 8– this rate, we could expect all remaining budgets, responding to Congressional 9 and 15). Therefore, it is likely that the habitat will be lost within 20 years. and public inquiries, and conducting severity and frequency of heavy Recent trends and projected public outreach regarding listing and precipitation events will increase in the development information indicate that critical habitat). The work involved in area. all Casey’s June beetle habitat continues preparing various listing documents can Summary of Factor E to be threatened with further loss, be extensive and may include, but is not degradation, and fragmentation, limited to: gathering and assessing the The one remaining Casey’s June beetle resulting in a negative impact on best scientific and commercial data population in southern Palm Springs is species’ distribution and abundance. available and conducting analyses used likely threatened with extirpation in Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) as the basis for our decisions; writing part by increased intensity and regulations have not been adequate to and publishing documents; and frequency of catastrophic flood events. prevent or minimize the loss of obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating We, therefore, find that other natural or occupied habitat, as evidenced by recent public comments and peer review manmade factors affecting the development projects in occupied comments on proposed rules and continued existence of the species habitat. Although protections for incorporating relevant information into present a likely threat to the survival of occupied habitat under a Smoke Tree final rules. The number of listing Casey’s June beetle. Ranch CCAA and a Tribal HCP are actions that we can undertake in a given

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36643

year also is influenced by the proposal or make a ‘‘warranted but (of the Act) listing actions with absolute complexity of those listing actions, that precluded’’ finding for a given species. statutory deadlines; essential litigation- is, more complex actions generally are The Conference Report accompanying related and administrative- and more costly. For example, during the Public Law 97–304, which established program-management functions; and a past several years, the cost (excluding the current statutory deadlines and the few high-priority listing actions. The publication costs) for preparing a 12- warranted-but-precluded finding, states allocations for each specific listing month finding, without a proposed rule, (in a discussion on 90-day petition action are identified in the Service’s FY has ranged from approximately $11,000 findings that by its own terms also 2007 Allocation Table. While more for one species with a restricted range covers 12-month findings) that the funds are available in FY 2007 than in and involving a relatively deadlines were ‘‘not intended to allow previous years to work on listing actions uncomplicated analysis, to $305,000 for the Secretary to delay commencing the that were not the subject of court-orders another species that is wide-ranging and rulemaking process for any reason other or court-approved settlement involved a complex analysis. than that the existence of pending or agreements, based on the available We cannot spend more than is imminent proposals to list species funds and their allocation for these appropriated for the Listing Program subject to a greater degree of threat purposes, only limited FY 2007 funds without violating the Anti-Deficiency would make allocation of resources to are available for work on proposed Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In such a petition [i.e., for a lower-ranking listing determinations for the following addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal species] unwise.’’ Taking into account high-priority candidate species: two year since then, Congress has placed a the information presented above, in FY Oahu plants (Doryopteris takeuchii, statutory cap on funds which may be 2007, the outer parameter within which Melicope hiiakae), seven Kauai plants expended for the Listing Program, equal ‘‘expeditious progress’’ must be (Chamaesyce eleanoriae, Charpentiera to the amount expressly appropriated measured is that amount of progress that densiflora, Melicope degeneri, Myrsine for that purpose in that fiscal year. This could be achieved by spending mezii, Pritchardia hardyi, Psychotria cap was designed to prevent funds $5,193,000, which is the amount grandiflora, Schiedea attenuata) and appropriated for other functions under available in the Listing Program four Hawaiian damselflies (Megalagrion the Act, or for other Service programs, appropriation that is not within the nesiotes, Megalagrion leptodemas, from being used for Listing Program critical habitat subcap. Megalagrion oceanicum, Megalagrion actions (see House Report 105–163, Our process is to make our pacificum). These species have all been 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, determinations of preclusion on a assigned a listing priority number (LPN) 1997). nationwide basis to ensure that the of 2. Recognizing that designation of species most in need of listing will be critical habitat for species already listed addressed first and also because we Our decision that a proposed rule to would consume most of the overall allocate our listing budget on a list Casey’s June beetle is warranted but Listing Program appropriation, Congress nationwide basis. However, through precluded includes consideration of its also put a critical habitat subcap in court orders and court-approved listing priority. In accordance with place in FY 2002 and has retained it settlements, Federal district courts have guidance we published on September each subsequent year to ensure that mandated that we must complete 21, 1983, we assign a LPN to each some funds are available for other work certain listing activities with respect to candidate species (48 FR 43098). Such in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical specified species and have established a priority ranking guidance system is habitat designation subcap will ensure the schedules by which we must required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act that some funding is available to complete those activities. The species (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). Using this address other listing activities’’ (House involved in these court-mandated listing guidance, we assign each candidate a Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st activities are not always those that we LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and have identified as being most in need of magnitude of threats, imminence of each year since then, the Service has listing. As described below, a large threats, and taxonomic status; the lower had to use virtually the entire critical majority of the $5,193,000 appropriation the listing priority number, the higher habitat subcap to address court- available in FY 2007 for new listings of the listing priority (that is, a species mandated designations of critical species is being consumed by court- with an LPN of 1 would have the habitat, and consequently none of the mandated listing activities; by ordering highest listing priority). The threats critical habitat subcap funds have been or sanctioning these actions, the courts described above for Casey’s June beetle available for other listing activities. essentially determined that these were occur across its entire range, resulting in Thus, through the listing cap, the the highest priority actions to be a negative impact on the species’ critical habitat subcap, and the amount undertaken with available funding. distribution and abundance. We of funds needed to address court- Copies of the court orders and assigned Casey’s June beetle an LPN of mandated critical habitat designations, settlement agreements referred to below 2, based on threats that were of a high Congress and the courts have in effect are available from the Service and are magnitude and imminent, and on its determined the amount of money part of our administrative record. taxonomic status as a species. We available for other listing activities. The FY 2007 appropriation of currently have more than 120 species Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, $5,193,000 for listing activities (that is, with an LPN of 2 (see Table 1 of the other than those needed to address the portion of the Listing Program September 12, 2006, Notice of Review; court-mandated critical habitat for funding not related to critical habitat 71 FR 53756). As such, the 1983 listing already listed species, set the limits on designations for species that already are priority number system is not adequate our determinations of preclusion and listed) is fully allocated to fund work in to differentiate sufficiently among expeditious progress. the following categories of actions in the species based on their degree of Congress also recognized that the Listing Program: compliance with court extinction risk. Therefore, we further availability of resources was the key orders and court-approved settlement ranked the candidate species with an element in deciding whether, when agreements requiring that petition LPN of 2 by using the following making a 12-month petition finding, we findings or listing determinations be extinction-risk type criteria: IUCN Red would prepare and issue a listing completed by a specific date; section 4 list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36644 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank proposed listings for species in the Top description of the statutory cap on (provided by NatureServe), and species 40. Casey’s June beetle is precluded by Listing Program funds, the Recovery currently with fewer than 50 those species we have funded. Program funds and actions supported by individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. As explained above, a determination them cannot be considered in Those species with the highest IUCN that listing is warranted but precluded determining expeditious progress made rank (critically endangered), the highest also must demonstrate that expeditious in the Listing Program.) As with our Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage progress is being made to add and ‘‘precluded’’ finding, expeditious threat rank (substantial, imminent remove qualified species to the Lists. progress in adding qualified species to threats), and currently with fewer than (We note that in this finding we do not the Lists is a function of the resources 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 discuss specific actions taken on available and the competing demands populations comprise a list of progress towards removing species from for those funds. Our expeditious approximately 40 candidate species the Lists because that work is conducted progress in FY 2007 in the Listing (‘‘Top 40’’) that have the highest priority using appropriations for our Recovery Program, up to the date of making this to receive funding to work on a program, a separately budgeted 12-month finding for Casey’s June proposed listing determination. For the component of the Endangered Species beetle, included preparing and next two years, we have funded Program. As explained above in our publishing the following:

FY 2007 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS AS OF 06/6/2007

Publication date Title Species/actions FR Pages

10/11/2006 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the Cow Head Tui Final withdrawal, Threats 71 FR 59700–59711. Chub (Gila biocolor vaccaceps) as Endangered. eliminated. 10/11/2006 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding for the Beaver Cave Beetle Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 59711–59714. (Pseudanophthalmus major); Not Warranted. finding, Not warranted. 11/14/2006 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Island Marble Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 66292–66298. Butterfly (Euchloe ausonides insulanus) as Threatened or finding, Not warranted. Endangered. 11/14/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Kennebec River Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 66298–66301. Population of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon as Part of the ing, Substantial. Endangered Gulf Of Maine Distinct Population Segment. 11/21/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp- Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 67318–67325. Tailed Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 12/5/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Tricolored Black- Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 70483–70492. bird as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 12/6/2006 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Cerulean War- Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 70717–70733. bler (Dendroica cerulea) as Threatened with Critical Habi- finding, Not warranted. tat. 12/6/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Upper Tidal Poto- Notice of 90-day Petition 71 FR 70715–70717. mac River Population of the Northern Water Snake Finding, Not substantial. (Nerodia sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct Population Segment. 12/14/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Remove the Uinta Basin Notice of 5-year Review, Initi- 71 FR 75215–75220. Hookless Cactus From the List of Endangered and ation. Threatened Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day petition find- the Pariette Cactus as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. Notice of 90-day petition find- ing, Substantial. 12/19/2006 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Penstemon grahamii Notice of withdrawal, More 71 FR 76023–76035. (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened With Critical abundant than believed, or Habitat. diminished threats. 12/19/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 76057–76079. Population of the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or ing, Not substantial. Endangered. 1/9/2007 ...... 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To List the Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 1063–1099. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened Throughout finding, Warranted. Its Range; Proposed Rule. Proposed Listing, Threatened 1/10/2007 ...... Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Clarifica- Notice of Guidance ...... 72 FR 1186–1189. tion of Significant Portion of the Range for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. 1/12/2007 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Lepidium papilliferum Notice of withdrawal, More 72 FR 1621–1644. (Slickspot Peppergrass) Proposed rule; withdrawal. abundant than believed, or diminished threats. 2/2/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the American Eel as Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 4967–4997. Threatened or Endangered. finding, Not warranted. 2/8/2007 ...... Final Rule Designating the Western Great Lakes Popu- Final Deferred date ...... 72 FR 6051–6103. lations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Final Delisting, Recovered ..... Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Final Listing, Endangered ...... Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 2/13/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jollyville Plateau Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 6699–6703. Salamander as Endangered. ing, Substantial.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36645

FY 2007 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS AS OF 06/6/2007—Continued

Publication date Title Species/actions FR Pages

2/13/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the San Felipe Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 6703–6707. Gambusia as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 2/14/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on A Petition to List Astragalus debequaeus Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 6998–7005. (DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 2/21/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Notice of 5-year Review, Initi- 72 FR 7843–7852. Dog From Threatened to Endangered and Initiation of a ation. 5-Year Review. Notice of 90-day petition find- ing, Not substantial. 3/8/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Monongahela River Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 10477-10480. Basin Population of the Longnose Sucker as Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 3/29/2007 ...... Final Rule Designating the Greater Yellowstone Area Popu- Final delisting, Recovered 72 FR 14865–14938. lation of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population Segment; Final listing, Threatened. Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List as Endangered the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears. 03/29/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Siskiyou Mountains Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 14750-14759. Salamander and Scott Bar Salamander as Threatened or ing, Substantial. Endangered. 04/04/2007 ...... Adding Four Marine Taxa to the List of Endangered and Final listing, Endangered; 72 FR 16284–16286. Threatened Wildlife (Southern Distinct Population Seg- Final listing, Threatened. ment (DPS) of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and elkhorn (Acropora palmata) corals, and the Southern Resident killer whale DPS (Orcinus orca)). 04/24/2007 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding for Upper Missouri River Distinct Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 20305-20314. Population Segment of Fluvial Arctic Grayling. finding, Not warranted. 05/02/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sand Mountain Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 24253–24263. Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens ssp. arenamontana) finding, Not warranted. as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. 05/30/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mt. Charleston Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 29933–29941. Blue Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Substantial.

Our expeditious progress also this 12-month finding for Casey’s June pursuant to a deadline set by a court includes work on listing actions for 29 beetle. These actions are listed below; and on all other actions pursuant to species for which decisions have not we are conducting work on those meeting statutory timelines, that is, been completed as of the date we made actions in the top section of the table timelines required under the Act:

LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED BUT NOT YET COMPLETED IN FY2007

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Wolverine ...... 12-month petition finding (remand). Western sage grouse ...... 90-day petition finding (remand). Queen Charlotte goshawk ...... Final listing determination. Rio Grande cutthroat trout ...... 12-month petition finding (remand). Sierra Nevada distinct population segment mountain yellow-legged frog 12-month petition finding (remand).

Statutory Listing Actions

Polar bear ...... Final listing determination. Ozark chinquapin ...... 90-day petition finding. Kokanee ...... 90-day petition finding. Goose Creek milkvetch ...... 90-day petition finding. Utah prairie dog ...... 90-day petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 90-day petition finding. Tucson shovel-nosed snake ...... 90-day petition finding. Gopher tortoise—Florida population ...... 90-day petition finding. Sacramento Valley tiger beetle ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle lake trout ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth billed ani ...... 90-day petition finding. Mojave ground squirrel ...... 90-day petition finding. Gopher tortoise—Eastern population ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay Springs salamander ...... 90-day petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 90-day petition finding. Coaster brook trout ...... 90-day petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard ...... 90-day petition finding.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 36646 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules

LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED BUT NOT YET COMPLETED IN FY2007—Continued

Species Action

Evening primrose ...... 90-day petition finding. Palm Springs pocket mouse ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 90-day petition finding. Mountain whitefish—Big Lost River population ...... 90-day petition finding. Giant Palouse earthworm ...... 90-day petition finding. Shrike, Island loggerhead ...... 90-day petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl ...... 90-day petition finding. HIGH PRIORITY: 2 Oahu plants ...... Proposed listing. 7 Kauai plants ...... Proposed listing. 4 Hawaiian damselflies ...... Proposed listing.

We have endeavored to make our Natural history and distribution Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES listing actions as efficient and timely as information in particular will help us above). possible, given the requirements of the monitor and focus habitat conservation relevant laws and regulations, and of this species. Should an emergency Author(s) constraints relating to workload and situation develop with this or any The primary author of this document personnel. We are continually candidate species, we will act to is Alison Anderson of the Carlsbad Fish considering ways to streamline provide immediate protection, if and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES processes or achieve economies of scale, warranted. above). such as by batching related actions We intend that any proposed listing together. Given our limited budget for action for Casey’s June beetle will be as Authority implementing section 4 of the Act, the accurate as possible. Therefore, we will actions described above collectively continue to accept additional The authority for this action is the constitute expeditious progress. information and comments from all Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended concerned governmental agencies, the (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Conclusion scientific community, industry, or any Dated: June 28, 2007. We will add Casey’s June beetle to the other interested party concerning this Kevin Adams, list of candidate species upon finding. publication of this notice of 12-month Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. finding. We request that interested References Cited [FR Doc. E7–13031 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am] parties submit any new information on A complete list of all references cited BILLING CODE 4310–55–P status and threats for this species. is available on request from the Carlsbad

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:55 Jul 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS