[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74468-74491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26690]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
(Coachella Valley milk-vetch) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We are proposing to designate approximately
3,583 acres (ac) (1,450 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat in three
units in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, California. Habitat
essential to the conservation of the species in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties is being excluded from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until
February 14, 2005. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by January 28,
2005.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California, 92009.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Office, at the
address given above.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
[email protected]. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
4. You may fax your comments to (760) 431-9618.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given
above (760) 431-9440).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In particular, we
are seeking comments concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of habitat,
and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and
why;
(3) Whether unoccupied habitat identified as such and which serves
as a source of sand for the areas proposed as critical habitat should
be included in the designation;
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities;
(6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments;
(7) The exclusion of Federal lands (e.g., Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service) from critical habitat based on their
participation in and contribution to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae under the proposed Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of
[[Page 74469]]
several methods (see ADDRESSES above). Please submit e-mail comments to
[email protected] in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn:
Coachella Valley milk-vetch'' in your e-mail subject header and your
name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not
receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-
mail message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Please note that the e-mail
address [email protected] will be closed out at the termination of
the public comment period.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species
In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology,
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs).
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to
the species most in need of protection.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 445 species or 36 percent
of the 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the
Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs
of all 1,244 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as
listing, section 7 consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning
process, the Section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take,
Section 6 funding to the States, and the Section 10 incidental take
permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may
make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
We note, however, that a recent 9th Circuit judicial opinion,
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
has invalidated the Service's regulation defining destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. We are currently reviewing
the decision to determine what effect it may have on the outcome of
consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines.
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little
additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Background
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is found on loose wind-
blown sands in dunes and flats, and in sandy alluvial washes in the
northern Coachella Valley area, and to a limited extent, in northern
Chuckwalla Valley. Its distribution in the Coachella Valley area
roughly spans from just east of Cabezon to the dunes off Washington
Avenue, north and west of Indio. The occurrences in the Chuckwalla
Valley are all along a 5-mile stretch of Highway 177 just north of
Desert Center.
Please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596) for a detailed discussion on
the taxonomic history and description of this taxon. It is our intent
in this document to reiterate and discuss only those topics directly
relevant to the development and designation of critical habitat or
relevant information obtained since the final listing.
The primary threat to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is
the
[[Page 74470]]
extensive urban development in the Coachella Valley (63 FR 53596).
Urbanization has both direct and indirect effects on A. l. var.
coachellae. Urbanization can destroy plants and suitable and occupied
habitat on-site, and indirectly degrade suitable and occupied habitat
by blocking sand transport downwind of the development. Other threats
include habitat destruction from future wind energy projects, off-
highway vehicle (OHV) use, and spread of exotic plants, such as Saharan
mustard (Brassica tournefortii) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus
barbatus) (63 FR 53596).
Previous Federal Actions
The following section summarizes the Federal actions that occurred
since the final listing rule of this species as endangered was
published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998. Please refer to
the final listing rule (63 FR 53596) for a discussion of Federal
actions that occurred prior to the species being federally-listed.
At the time of listing we determined that designation of critical
habitat would not provide any additional conservation benefits beyond
those provided by listing the species and that the designation could
lead to acts of collection or vandalism (63 FR 53596). On November 15,
2001, the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native
Plant Society filed a lawsuit against Secretary Gale Norton and the
Service alleging that the Service violated the Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by determining that designating
critical habitat for eight plant species listed as endangered or
threatened, including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, was not
prudent (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Norton, No. 01 CV
2101). A second lawsuit also asserting the same challenge was filed on
November 21, 2001, by the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation
(Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton, No. 01 CV 2145).
The Court convened an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on March
19, 2002, in which the Center for Biological Diversity, California
Native Plant Society, and the Building Industry Legal Defense
Foundation participated. At the conference, the parties agreed that (1)
the critical habitat determinations for the eight plant species at
issue would be remanded to the Service for reconsideration of its
previous ``not prudent'' determinations and (2) that the two cases
should be consolidated into a single case. The parties did not come to
agreement on an appropriate timeline for issuance of proposed and final
determinations of critical habitat on the remand during the conference,
but did agree to brief the Court regarding the appropriate schedule for
reconsideration of the not prudent determination and to be bound by the
Court's determination. Following the conference, on April 8, 2002, the
court granted a motion to intervene filed by the American Sand
Association, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, the American
Motorcycle Association, Inc.--District 37, the San Diego Off-Road
Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (collectively,
``intervenors''). The motion limited the intervenors'' participation to
resolution of an appropriate timeline for reconsideration of the
critical habitat determination.
On July 1, 2002, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider its
not prudent determination and publish a proposed critical habitat
designation, if prudent, for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae on
or before November 30, 2004, and to publish a final critical habitat
designation on or before November 30, 2005.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines
(2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, 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.
Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside
the designation is unimportant to Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented
under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory protections afforded by
the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 take
prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available
information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that
federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made
on the basis of the best available information at the time of
designation will not control the direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
[[Page 74471]]
plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that are
essential to the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae. This includes information from our own documents, including
the final rule listing the taxon as endangered (63 FR 53596), recent
biological surveys, reports, aerial photos, and other documentation. We
also used the habitat model developed by the Coachella Valley Mountain
Conservancy (CVMC) for the proposed Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (CVMC 2004), as a starting point for
identification of essential habitat and compared it to data from other
plant surveys.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species. We used published historical
surveys for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and ecological
descriptions of the Sonoran Desert (Abrams 1944, Munz and Keck 1959,
Shreve and Wiggins 1964, Turner and Brown 1982, Holland 1986) to
describe the range of environmental conditions in which the plant
existed prior to current landscape changes that have resulted in the
loss of the species' habitats. We used data in reports submitted during
section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A)
recovery permits to evaluate the habitat model developed for the plant
(Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996, Service unpublished
Geographic Information System (GIS) data). We also used agency and
academic reports to describe the sand transport systems (Lancaster et
al. 1993, Griffiths et al. 2002) and used reports about related
varieties of Astragalus lentiginosus to describe its ecology and
phenology (Beatley 1974, Forseth et al. 1984, and Pavlik 1985).
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs))
that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may
require special management considerations and protection. These
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
The primary constituent elements required for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat are derived from the physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species as described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth Within the Eolian (Wind-
Blown) Sand Transport System
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae has a limited distribution.
The majority of populations are found in the Coachella Valley area,
mostly in and around Snow Creek, Whitewater River, Mission and Morongo
Creeks, Willow Hole, Big Dune, and Coachella Valley Preserve areas
(Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data 2001a). There are also
several historic and recent records southeast of the Coachella Valley
in the Chuckwalla Valley, along approximately a 5-mile portion of
Highway 177 northeast of Desert Center (Bureau of Land Management,
unpublished data 2001b).
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae populations in the
Coachella Valley are strongly affiliated with active, stabilized, and
shielded sandy substrates (Sanders and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996,
White 2004). This taxon is primarily found on loose eolian (wind
transported) or alluvial (water transported) sands that are located on
dunes or flats, and along disturbed margins of sandy washes. The
highest densities of A. l. var. coachellae have been found in locations
containing large areas of eolian sand, including Snow Creek (Sanders
and Thomas Olsen Associates 1996), Big Dune, and Willow Hole area
(Bureau of Land Management, unpublished data 2001a). Within active and
stabilized sand fields and dunes, A. l. var. coachellae tends to occur
in coarser sands in the margins of dunes, but not in most active
windswept sand areas (White 2004).
Active dunes are generally characterized as barren expanses of
moving sand where perennial shrub species are sparse. These dunes may
intergrade with stabilized or partially stabilized dunes, which have
similar sand accumulations and formations, but are stabilized by
evergreen or deciduous shrubs, scattered low annuals, and perennial
grasses.
Active sand fields are similar to active dunes, but are
characterized as smaller sand accumulations that are not of sufficient
depth to form dune formations. These may be characterized as hummocks
forming behind individual shrubs or clumps of vegetation.
Stabilized sand fields are similar to active sand fields, but
contain sand accumulations that are stabilized by vegetation or are
armored. Armoring is the process where the wind picks up and moves
small sand grains, and leaves behind larger sand grains forming an
``armor'' that prevents wind from moving additional smaller particles
trapped below (Sharp and Saunders 1978). The stabilized sand fields in
the latter case are temporary, becoming active when the armor is
disturbed over large areas, or new blow sand is deposited from upwind
fluvial depositional areas.
A. l. var. coachellae are also found in shielded sand dunes and
fields. These areas have similar sand formations as compared to active
and stabilized sand dunes and fields, except that sand source and
transport systems that would normally replenish these areas have been
interrupted or shielded by human development.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae also occurs in localized
patches of eolian sand or in active washes that are, in some cases,
fairly distant from large dunes or sand field areas (White 2004). Some
of these localized patches of eolian sands are characterized as
ephemeral sand accumulations lacking dune formation. This type of
habitat generally occurs at the western end of the Coachella Valley
where wind velocities are highest (Sharp and Saunders 1978).
The sandy substrates that provide suitable habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae are extremely dynamic in terms of spatial
mobility and tendency to change back and forth from active to
stabilized (Lancaster 1995). This has significant consequences for A.
l. var. coachellae because their population densities vary with
different types of sandy substrates. For instance, the greatest
densities of plants have been recorded on dune and hummock habitats,
such as Big Dune, Snow Creek and Willow Hole, whereas smaller densities
of plants have been recorded on stabilized sand fields (Bureau of Land
Management, unpublished GIS data 2001a). Conserving a wide variety of
sandy substrate types is important for the
[[Page 74472]]
conservation of A. l. var. coachellae because of the dynamics of the
eolian sand transport processes.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae fruiting bodies are
inflated, an apparent adaptation for being dispersed by wind.
Protecting wind transport corridors between A. l. var. coachellae
populations from obstruction is also important for facilitating
adequate gene flow and maintaining areas that may serve as ephemeral
habitat.
Areas Containing the Fluvial and Eolian Processes That Generate
Suitable Habitat
Sandy habitat in the Coachella Valley is highly dynamic and is
controlled by two main factors: (1) The supply of sand-size sediment
released by the fluvial system (water-transported), and (2) the rate of
eolian (wind-blown) transport (Griffiths et al. 2002). The latter is
affected primarily by wind fetch (the length of unobstructed area
exposed to the wind), and less by wind speed and duration, availability
and size of sand in channel bottoms, presence of natural and artificial
windbreaks, and the density and size of natural vegetation in channels
and among sand dunes.
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 (Griffiths et
al. 2002, Lancaster 1997). Sediment is washed from hill slopes and
channels in the headwaters and is transported downstream in stream
channels during infrequent flood events (Griffiths et al. 2002).
Fluvial transport is the dominant mechanism that moves sediment into
fluvial depositional areas in the Coachella Valley (Griffiths et al.
2002). Some sediment is stored on terraces within the channels, whereas
during larger flood events, sediment is stored on the bajada (large,
coalescing alluvial fans) surface as floodplain deposits or is
transported through the bajada in channelized washes and deposited over
broad depositional areas. The largest depositional area in the
Coachella Valley is in the western end of the Whitewater River,
northwest of the City of Palm Springs (Griffiths et al. 2002). For
sufficient fine-grained sands to reach the eolian system in the valley
floor and become suitable Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
habitat, 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 Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) identifies the protection of the
above-mentioned essential ecological processes, including sand source/
transport systems as a species conservation goal.
The narrow San Gorgonio Pass is between the two highest peaks in
southern California, San Gorgonio Mountain (11,510 ft., 3,508 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 eolian sands are transported from bajadas and
fluvial depositional areas to eolian deposits in the Coachella Valley
(Sharp and Saunders 1978, Griffiths et al. 2002). Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae is associated with various types of sandy
habitats that are formed by these eolian deposits (Sanders and Thomas
Olsen Associates 1996, White 2004). In order to maintain adequate
replenishment of eolian sands into eolian depositional areas, it is
important that sand-transport corridors between fluvial and eolian
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, thereby shifting A. l. var.
coachellae habitat into other areas, and thereby allowing the taxon to
disperse and colonize new habitat. As a result, it is also necessary to
protect sufficient areas that allow for these dynamic eolian sands to
shift in their distribution.
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify primary
constituent elements essential to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, together with the proposed designation of
critical habitat that is essential to the conservation of the species.
In identifying primary constituent elements, we used the best available
scientific and commercial data available. The physical ranges described
below in the primary constituent elements may not capture all of the
variability that is inherent in the natural systems that support A. l.
var. coachellae. The primary constituent elements determined essential
to the conservation of A. l. var. coachellae are the following:
1. Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in the
San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and
Indio Hills. The unconsolidated sands stored in these rivers and
tributaries are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, but represent
the original source of the loose sand that form the sand dunes and
flats that are occupied by this plant.
2. Unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San
Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio
Hills. The unconsolidated sands deposited on these alluvial fans are
sporadically occupied by A. l. var. coachellae; and, importantly, are
transported by wind and water to form the fluvial and eolian sand dunes
and flats that are occupied in greater numbers by this plant;
3. Suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from
rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino,
Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills;
4. Suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated
sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, Little San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills to the fluvial
and eolian depositional areas, including areas west of Edom Hill/Willow
Hole reserve, areas west of Coachella Valley Preserve, and the
Whitewater Floodplain area that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
5. Eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or
fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/
Whitewater River eolian sand transport system, Mission Creek/Morongo
Wash eolian sand transport system, and the Thousand Palms eolian sand
transport system that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that we
have determined contain primary constituent elements and may be in need
of special management or protection for the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae. These areas have the primary constituent
elements described above. We have also identified and are seeking
comment on whether to include a number of unoccupied areas which serve
as a source of the sand identified as a primary constituent element for
the species.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is one of the species
suggested for coverage by the proposed Coachella Valley MSHCP. A
spatially explicit habitat model for the plant in the Coachella Valley
spanning from Cabezon to Thousand Palms was created to assist in the
design of preserves and to evaluate the potential benefits of the MSHCP
on Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley Mountain
Conservancy (CVMC) 2004). We are using this habitat model to assist us
in identifying specific areas essential to the conservation of the
taxon.
[[Page 74473]]
The model was developed from occurrence data for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management, unpublished
data 2001a). Environmental variables associated with the occurrence
locations were identified and maps containing those variables were
combined with GIS land use and habitat information 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. The active dunes and sand fields form where
sand movement from fluvial systems cross the eolian sand transport
corridor where it is relatively unobstructed. Mesquite hummocks are
areas where large clumps of low-growing mesquite may form hummocks
within sand dunes. The hummocks are created by the mesquite, which
reduces the wind velocity occurring across the ground, thus causing
sediment to fall from the wind and collect near the plant. Large sand
depositions onto the valley floor are episodic (Griffiths et al. 2002).
In between flood events that deposit large amounts of sand available
for transportation onto the valley floor, strong winds are constantly
moving sand forward and leaving patches of gravel or cobble in the
middle of sand fields. Holland (1986) defined this mosaic of sandy
patches as an ``ephemeral sand field.'' The Coachella Valley floor now
contains several development projects in front of or on top of sand
sources or transport corridors that have shielded some sandy areas from
being replenished with new eolian sands (CVMC 2004). Stabilized sand
fields and dunes are sandy areas where sand movement is limited due to
natural obstruction of wind from shrubs, herbs, and grasses (Holland
1986).
Because the model has not been refined with any field data since it
was developed (CVMC 2004), 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 records for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in all of the natural
communities used to create the model. The proposed critical habitat
includes a mosaic of these habitat types, as well as intervening areas
of ephemeral habitat to allow for the transport of wind-dispersed seed
pods and eolian sands between locations containing large areas of
habitat.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae seeds germinate in response
to winter rains (White 2004). Also in response to these winter rains,
seasonally dormant root crowns (the point at which the root and stem of
a plant meet) sprout new shoots. The date of first flowering may be as
early as December and can continue into May, though the majority of
flowering specimens have been collected in March and especially in
April (White 2004). The first date of fruit may be as early as
February, but fruit peaks in April and May as determined by seasonal
collections. At maturity, the pods dry and fall to the ground, where
they are then dispersed by wind. As summer progresses, the vegetation
dies above the root mass, with an unknown proportion of plants
persisting into the following summer and fall as dormant root crowns
(White 2004). A. l. var. coachellae populations can survive drought
periods as dormant seeds (seed bank), and as a consequence, the numbers
of above-ground plants at any given time is only a limited temporal
indication of population size (White 2004). It is not known how long A.
l. var. coachellae seeds may remain viable, but studies on another
Astragalus lentiginosus variety (var. micans) demonstrate that buried
seeds may remain viable for at least eight years (Pavlik and Barbour
1986). Therefore, we also considered areas as essential where suitable
habitat did not contain above-ground individuals, but may contain seed
banks and dormant root crowns necessary for the survival and recovery
of A. l. var. coachellae.
As stated earlier, the sand transport systems are very important
for sustaining the various types of sandy habitats required by
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in the Coachella Valley. The
eolian sands in the valleys originate in the drainage basins in the
surrounding mountains. Major precipitation and flooding episodes erode
sediment from the hillslopes and carry it downstream through the
fluvial systems. Fine-grained sediments are deposited in either bajadas
(alluvial fans) or depositional areas that form the supply of sand for
the eolian sand transport system. We have identified but have not at
this time proposed for designation as critical habitat major channels
(> 15.24 m (50 ft) in width) in the fluvial systems from mountain
watersheds surrounding the Coachella Valley into the valley floors. The
width of the channels selected for identification as possible critical
habitat include only major channels and not all minor tributaries in
the drainages. The identified but not proposed areas also include
bajadas and depositional areas where channels deposit sands for the
eolian sand-transport system.
Habitat eligible for designation was mapped using GIS and refined
using topographical and aerial map coverages. To accomplish this, we
first identified and mapped areas of suitable habitat supporting
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae that contained the primary
constituent elements and belonged to one of three major sand transport
systems (San Gorgonio and Whitewater River system, Mission creek/
Morongo Wash system, and the Indio Hills/Thousand Palms system) in the
Coachella Valley; these systems support a majority of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae's population. We determined eligible
habitat as consisting of large contiguous areas of suitable habitat as
well as small intervening areas of unsuitable habitat for maintenance
of sand movement between areas of suitable habitat. Some outlying areas
of suitable habitat were not included because they were either too
distant from other large areas of suitable habitat or were isolated by
development. We also decided that suitable habitat outside of the
preferred alternative reserve design for the draft Coachella Valley
MSHCP was not necessary to this designation since adequate areas for
conservation are generally being proposed within the MSHCP's reserve
system.
Next, based on studies on the geomorphological processes of
sediment movement in the Coachella Valley by Lancaster (1993) and
Griffith et al. (2002), we identified and mapped drainage basins that
provide sediment for the three major sand transport systems in the
Coachella Valley. Based on Griffith et al. (2002), 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. While Griffiths et al. (2002) identified whole drainage areas
of the above-mentioned washes that contribute sediment to depositional
areas on the floor of the Coachella Valley, we only included the stream
channels themselves. Thus, we were
[[Page 74474]]
able to substantially decrease the amount of land identified for
possible addition to the critical habitat designation. We are also
considering major rivers and tributaries draining the surrounding
mountains and hills, bajadas, and depositional areas in the floodplains
where the fluvial channels deposit sediment. The combined extent of
these areas are shown on the maps accompanying this proposal as
``unoccupied habitat:sand source''.
One of the Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG)
objectives for conserving A. l. var. coachellae in their draft
Coachella Valley MSHCP is to protect ecological processes, including
sand source/transport systems and biological corridors and linkages
among conserved populations for seed dispersal and shifts in species
distribution over time (CVMC 2004). The draft MSHCP included areas
containing these ecological processes and biological corridors in their
preferred alternative reserve design. Essential areas proposed for
critical habitat include the same areas mentioned above as well as
several other drainages that are beyond the draft MSHCP planning area
boundary.
After creating a GIS coverage of the essential areas, we legally
described the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, areas
proposed for exclusion, and the unoccupied habitat identified for
possible inclusion using a 100-meter grid to establish Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 27.
Whenever possible, areas not containing the primary constituent
elements, such as developed areas, were not included in the boundaries
of proposed critical habitat. However, we did not map critical habitat
in enough detail to exclude all developed areas, or other areas
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements essential for the
conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. Areas within
the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking
lots, railroad tracks, canals, and other paved areas, are excluded from
the designation by text, but these exclusions do not show on the maps
because their scale is too small.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to have primary constituent elements may require special
management considerations or protections. As we undertake the process
of designating critical habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands
defined by those physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species for inclusion in the designation pursuant
to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands defined by
those features to assess whether they may require special management
considerations or protection. Threats to those primary constituent
elements are caused by the direct and indirect effects of urban
development, golf course construction, exotic plant species, energy
projects, and OHV impacts.
On private lands, urban and golf course developments destroy plants
and occupied habitat directly. Large housing and golf course
developments may also affect the localized wind and flooding regimes by
reducing wind movement by the structures and landscaping and by
changing the flooding and drainage patterns. Occupied habitats
downstream and downwind of these developments, dependent upon the
continuous supply of loose unconsolidated sands for their long-term
existence, may be degraded by the alteration, blockage, and reduction
in their supply of sand. Threats to the species may occur from urban
developments that are not designed to reduce direct impacts to
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and do not allow sand transport
to occupied habitats downstream and downwind from these projects.
On both private and public lands, invasive exotic plant species,
such as Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Mediterranean grass
(Schismus barbatus), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), out compete
and displace Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and stabilize
loose sediments and thus reduce transport of sediment to downwind
habitats occupied by this species. Dense populations of Saharan mustard
have recently invaded the Snow Creek area, which stabilizes the soils
and thus reduces eolian sand transport to downwind depositional areas.
The dense numbers of mustard may also compete with A. l. var.
coachellae for limited resources, such as water. Russian thistle is
also thought to stabilize soils as well as compete with A. l. var.
coachellae for limited resources. Mediterranean grasses have been a
problem in the Coachella Valley because they grow on loose sandy soils,
which eventually causes stabilization of the soil and a degradation of
suitable habitat, as well as possibly out competing A. l. var.
coachellae for limited resources. The survival of A. l. var. coachellae
is threatened by these invasive species.
On both private and public lands, unauthorized OHV use may destroy
plans and occupied habitats directly. The A. l. var. coachellae is
threatened by lack of law enforcement patrols which could reduce
unauthorized OHV use on private lands occupied by this plant and to
direct OHV use to areas approved for this recreation activity.
On public lands, the construction and operation of sand and gravel
mining, dams, and percolation ponds can directly impact plants and
occupied habitat and decrease the amount of fluvial transported
sediments to deposition areas downstream occupied habitats. For
example, the percolation ponds constructed on Bureau of Land Management
areas resulted in the direct loss of plants and occupied habitat and
may have altered the transport of sand to downstream occupied habitats.
Threats to the species are the lack of project design and operation of
sand and gravel mining, dams, and percolation ponds to reduce direct
impacts to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and that reduce sand
transport to occupied habitats downstream and downwind from these
facilities.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We determined that approximately 20559 ac (8320 ha) of eligible
occupied habitat exists for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California (Table 1). We are
proposing a designation of 3583 ac (1450 ha) in three units as critical
habitat for A. l. var. coachellae (Table 2). Eligible occupied habitat
in Riverside County is being excluded from the proposed critical
habitat designation (See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
for a detailed discussion below.). The proposed critical habitat
designation described below constitutes our best assessment of the
areas occupied by A. l. var. coachellae with primary constituent
elements that may require special management or protection. The three
units proposed for designation as critical habitat are: (1) Whitewater
River System, (2) Mission Creek and Morongo Wash System, and (3)
Thousand Palms System.
[[Page 74475]]
Table 1.--Areas Determined To Be Essential for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-
vetch) and the Areas Proposed for Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat Designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area proposed for exclusion from the
Critical habitat unit Area determined to be essential (Ac/ proposed critical habitat
Ha) designation (Ac/Ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whitewater River System.......... 9,625 ac............................ 6,704 ac.
(3,895 ha).......................... (2,713 ha).
2. Mission Creek/Morongo Wash System 5,834 ac............................ 5,229 ac.
(2,361 ha).......................... (2,116 ha).
3. Thousand Palms System............ 5,101 ac............................ 5,043 ac.
(2,064 ha).......................... (2,041 ha)
---------------------------------------
Total........................... 20,559 ac........................... 16,976 ac.
(8,320 ha).......................... (6,870 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) by County and Land Ownership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State lands
Critical habitat unit County BLM FWS commission Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whitewater River System...... Riverside, San 2,537 ac.......... 0 ac.............. 32 ac............. 452 ac............ 2,921 ac.
Bernardino. (986 ha).......... (0 ha)............ (13 ha)........... (183 ha).......... (1,182 ha).
2. Mission Creek and Morongo Riverside, San 415 ac............ 0 ac.............. 0 ac.............. 190 ac............ 605 ac.
Wash System. Bernardino. (168 ha).......... (0 ha)............ (0 ha)............ (77 ha)........... (245 ha).
3. Thousand Palms System........ Riverside......... 24 ac............. 32 ac............. 1 ac.............. 0 ac.............. 57 ac.
(10 ha)........... (12 ha)........... (1 ha)............ (0 ha)............ (23 ha).
---------------------
Total....................... .................. 2,876 ac.......... 32 ac............. 33 ac............. 643 ac............ 3,583 ac.
(1,164 ha)........ (12 ha)........... (14 ha)........... (260 ha).......... (1,450 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why their
primary constituent elements may be in need of special management or
protection, below.
Unit 1: Whitewater River Unit, Riverside County, California
Unit 1 is 2921 ac (1182 ha) in size and includes the physical and
biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae and require special management
considerations. The Whitewater Unit is comprised of Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and State Commission lands between just east of
Cabezon, California in the San Gorgonio Pass to Palm Drive, south of
Interstate Highway 10. This Unit is essential to the conservation of
the species because it is part of a complete sand transport system for
the Whitewater River System that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
Fluvial sediments from these drainages are transported downstream in
flood events into either the San Gorgonio or Whitewater River and are
then deposited in the Whitewater River fluvial deposition zones on both
sides of Indian Avenue. Strong westerly and northwesterly winds
funneling through the San Gorgonio Pass transport eolian sands from
these fluvial depositional zones along the Whitewater River sand
transport corridor. Expansion of the Coachella Valley downwind results
in a rapid decrease of wind energy toward Indio (Sharp and Saunders
1978), which results in deposition of eolian sands. Historically, the
eolian depositional area was east of Palm Springs in an area called the
Big Dune. Recent development has reduced or eliminated the natural
transport of eolian sands into Big Dune and as a consequence much of
these sands are now deposited on the windward side of this development
south of Interstate 10. This sand transport system contains records of
several large populations of A. l. var. coachellae in the Snow Creek
area and Whitewater River floodplain. Because of the ephemeral nature
of the sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley and given that there is
little known about which sandy habitats are most suitable for the
taxon, protecting the wide variety of sandy substrates in this unit is
important for ensuring the long-term persistence and recovery of A. l.
var. coachellae. We considered these other parts of the sand transport
system as essential, but excluded them from this proposed rule because
they are within the Coachella Valley MSHCP preferred alternative
reserve design on lands that are being conserved by Permittees to the
MSHCP (see Discussion in Relationship of Critical Habitat to the
pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP).
Unit 1 contains all of the primary constituent elements described
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including areas that
receive sands from source/transport areas, which include the following:
Unconsolidated sands that originate from rivers and tributaries in the
San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number 1); unconsolidated
sands that originate from sand deposited on the alluvial fans and
floodplains of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number
2); suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from
rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans and floodplains of the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains (PCE number 3); suitable wind
regimes to transport unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial
fans and floodplains of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to
the eolian depositional areas (PCE number 4); and eolian sands on
active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or fields, and sandy
alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/Whitewater River
eolian sand transport system (PCE number 5).
The primary constituent elements found in Unit 1 may be in need of
special management or protection
[[Page 74476]]
because the reduction or loss of the transport of eolian sand, which
maintains suitable habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
and the invasion of exotic weeds. There are already obstructions to
sand transport within this unit, such as the percolation ponds located
in the Whitewater River. The Whitewater River fluvial depositional area
has been reduced by nearly 50 percent by the percolation ponds along
the south edge of the river (Griffiths et al. 2002). The percolation
ponds trap fluvial sediment that would become available for the eolian
transport system. Special management may be required to alter the
position of these percolation ponds so that more fluvial sediment is
allowed to pass down the river channel into the depositional area
(Griffiths et al. 2002). This unit is also threatened by obstructions
in major channels (i.e., sand mining operations) that transport fluvial
sediment downstream to fluvial depositional areas. This unit is also
threatened by the effects of invasive weeds, such as Brassica
tournefortii (Saharan mustard) and Shismus barbatus (Mediterranean
grass) to A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53596, October 6, 1998). Saharan
mustard and Mediterranean grasses are extremely dense in the western
portion of this unit, particularly around the Snow Creek area, and
there are concerns that this dense population of weeds may out compete
A. l. var. coachellae for limited resources.
Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash Unit, Riverside County,
California
Unit 2 is 605 ac (245 ha) in size and includes the full physical
and biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae and supports habitats that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and require special management considerations. The Mission
Creek and Morongo Wash Unit is BLM lands north of Interstate Highway 10
between Palm Drive and Date Palm Drive, south of 20th Avenue. This Unit
is essential to the conservation of the species because it is part of a
complete sand transport system for the Mission Creek/Morongo Wash
System that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae. Fluvial sediment from
these drainages is transported downstream into the Mission Creek-
Morongo Wash fluvial deposition zones between the west splay of Mission
Creek and the east splay of Morongo Creek north of Interstate 10 and
south of the Banning (San Andreas) Fault (Griffiths et al. 2002).
Strong westerly and northwesterly winds funneling through the San
Gorgonio Pass transport eolian sands from these fluvial depositional
zones across the sand transport corridor and into the aggradation areas
in the Edom Hill/Willow Hole Reserve area. We considered these other
parts of the sand transport system as essential, but excluded them from
this proposed rule because they are within the Coachella Valley MSHCP
preferred alternative reserve design on lands that are being conserved
by Permittees to the MSHCP (see Discussion in Relationship of Critical
Habitat to the pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
This unit provides habitat for several A. l. var. coachellae
populations, such as a large population of nearly 1,000 plants recorded
in 1982 (CVAG unpublished data 2004). This unit also contains the Edom
Hill/Willow Hole Reserve area that protect significant habitat for A.
l. var. coachellae.
Unit 2 contains all of the primary constituent elements described
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including areas that
receive sands from source/transport areas, which include the following:
Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in the San
Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains (PCE number 1);
unconsolidated sands deposited on alluvial fans of the San Bernardino
and Little San Bernardino (PCE number 2); suitable flooding regimes to
transport unconsolidated sands from rivers and tributaries to the
alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains
which are then transported to eolian depositional areas (PCE number 3);
suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands
deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and Little San
Bernardino Mountains to the fluvial and eolian depositional areas (PCE
number 4); and eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand
dunes or fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the Mission
Creek/Morongo Wash eolian sand transport system (PCE number 5).
The primary constituent elements found in Unit 2 may be in need of
special management or protection because Unit 2 is threatened by the
loss of the transport of eolian sand to maintain suitable habitat for
the plant. Exotic weeds are also invading areas of suitable habitat and
are a threat to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. For further
information on the threats to this species in Unit 2 see the final
listing rule for A. l. var. coachellae (63 FR 53596, October 6, 1998).
Unit 3: Thousand Palms Unit, Riverside County, California
Unit 3 consists of 57 ac (23 ha) in size and includes some physical
and biological components necessary for the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae and supports habitats that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and require special management considerations. The Thousand
Palms Unit is comprised of BLM lands in the Coachella Valley preserve
along Ramon Road. This Unit is essential to the conservation of the
species because it is part of a complete sand transport system for the
Coachella Valley Preserve that is occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
Fluvial sediment from the surrounding mountain drainages is transported
downstream into the alluvial fans south of Indio Hills. Strong westerly
and northwesterly winds transport eolian sands from these fluvial
depositional zones across the sand transport corridor and into the
aggradation areas in the Coachella Valley Preserve. We considered these
other parts of the sand transport system as essential, but excluded
them from this proposed rule because they are within the Coachella
Valley MSHCP preferred alternative reserve design on lands that are
being conserved by Permittees to the MSHCP (see Discussion in
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the pending Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
The Coachella Valley Preserve was originally established to
conserve the endangered fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) and includes
Federal, State of California, and private lands. The Coachella Valley
Preserve is managed to conserve sand-dependent species and the long-
term viability of these lands for A. l. var. coachellae is dependent
upon maintaining a functional sand transport system. Conserving a
complete sand transport system increases the likelihood that fresh
eolian and fluvial sands will be brought into areas of suitable habitat
and create a variety of sandy habitats that support A. l. var.
coachellae, such as sandy washes, dunes, and flats. Moreover, this unit
is essential because it is located in the easternmost portion of A. l.
var. coachellae's range in the Coachella Valley. Maintaining the
historical range with a distribution that is hydrologically independent
and physically isolated from the other units will reduce the potential
vulnerability and increase the ability of this species to recover from
environmental fluctuations and catastrophic events that may occur
[[Page 74477]]
elsewhere within the range of this species. This unit is also part of a
sand transport system that supports several large populations of A. l.
var. coachellae, including two records in 1995 of approximately 300
plants (CVAG unpublished data 2004).
Unit 3 contains two of the primary constituent elements described
in the Primary Constituents Element section above, including suitable
flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands from rivers and
tributaries to the alluvial fans of the Indio Hills which are then
transported to the eolian depositional areas (PCE number 3); and sandy
alluvial sites in washes within the Thousand Palms eolian sand
transport system (PCE number 5).
The primary constituent elements found within Unit 3 may be in need
of special management or protection because of potential threats to
fluvial transport of sediment and the eolian sand transport corridor in
the Thousand Palms area.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We are
currently reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification
in relation to the conservation of the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the
agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed
action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are
advisory. If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated,
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. 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. Through this consultation, the
action agency ensures that the permitted actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse
modification of 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 critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae or its critical habitat will require section 7
consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit
from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the Army Corps under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from
the Service, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g.,
Federal Highway Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency
funding), will also continue to be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and private lands that are
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7
consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat to the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would often result in jeopardy to the species
concerned when the area of the proposed action is occupied by the
species concerned.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities that result in sediment from being transported
downstream in stream channels, such as sand and gravel pits in stream
channels;
(2) Activities that divert, dam, or affect water flow;
(3) Activities that block wind transport of eolian sands, such as
development, planting of tamarisk rows;
[[Page 74478]]
(4) Activities that foster invasion of exotic weeds (e. g., roads,
landscaping, soil disturbance) and fragmentation of habitat.
All three critical habitat units are known to be occupied by
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Bureau of Land Management,
unpublished data 2001a). Federal agencies already consult with us on
activities in areas currently occupied by the taxon or if the taxon may
be affected by the action to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of the A. l. var. coachellae.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, 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. An area may be excluded from
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species.
In our critical habitat designations, we use provisions outlined in
section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that we are
considering to propose as critical habitat as well as for those areas
that are formally proposed for designation as critical habitat. Lands
we have excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) include those covered by
the following types of plans if they provide assurances that the
conservation measures they outline will be implemented and effective:
(1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species, (2) draft HCPs that
cover the species and have undergone public review and comment (i.e.,
pending HCPs), (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover the species,
(4) State conservation plans that cover the species, and (5) National
Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive Conservation Plans. A summary of
the exclusions proposed in this rule follow in Table 3.
Table 3.--Approximate Essential Habitat, Excluded Essential Habitat, and
Proposed Critical Habitat (Acres (ac); Hectares (ha)) for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total essential habitat identified for 20,559 ac.
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. (8,320 ha).
Essential habitat excluded from the 16,976 ac.
proposed critical habitat designation (6,870 ha).
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act:
Draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Total essential habitat proposed as 3,583 ac.
critical habitat. (1,450 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Pending Habitat Conservation Plans
and Exclusions Under 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts, when designating critical
habitat. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits
for the take of listed wildlife species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. Development of an HCP is a prerequisite for the issuance of
an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by an HCP that
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted
incidental take.
HCPs vary in size and may provide for incidental take coverage and
conservation management for one or many federally listed species.
Additionally, more than one applicant may participate in the
development and implementation of an HCP. Some areas occupied by
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae involve a very complex HCP that
addresses multiple species, covers large areas, and is important to
many participating permittees. Large regional HCPs expand upon the
basic requirements set forth in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act because
they reflect a voluntary, cooperative approach to large-scale habitat
and species conservation planning. Many of the large regional HCPs in
southern California have been, or are being, developed to provide for
the conservation of numerous federally-listed species and unlisted
sensitive species and the habitat that provides for their biological
needs. These HCPs are designed to proactively implement conservation
actions to address future projects that are anticipated to occur within
the planning area of the HCP. However, given the broad scope of these
regional HCPs, not all projects envisioned to potentially occur may
actually take place.
In the case of an approved regional HCP and accompanying IA (e.g.,
those sponsored by cities, counties, or other local jurisdictions) that
provide for incidental take coverage for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae, a primary goal of these regional plans is to provide for
the protection and management of habitat essential for the species'
conservation while directing development to other areas. The regional
HCP development process provides an opportunity for more intensive data
collection and analysis regarding particular habitat areas occupied by
A. l. var. coachellae. The process also enables us to conduct detailed
evaluations of the importance of such lands to the long-term survival
of the species in the context of constructing a system of interlinked
habitat blocks that provide for its biological needs.
In developing critical habitat designations, the Service has
analyzed habitat conservation planning efforts to determine if the
benefits of excluding them from critical habitat outweigh the benefits
of including them in designated critical habitat. In reviewing HCPs,
the Service has assessed the potential impacts of critical habitat
designation on lands covered by HCPs on future partnerships, the status
of HCP efforts and progress made in developing and implementing such
plans, and their relationship to the conservation of species. In
certain circumstances, the Service has determined that an HCP not yet
completed may be considered for exclusion from critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For example, the
Service determined that exclusion of the draft Western Riverside
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) from critical
habitat designation for vernal pool species was appropriate given the
sustained progress and support for the plan of the participating
jurisdictions (68 FR 46684, August 6, 2003).
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the Pending Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
The draft MSHCP has been in development from the mid-1990s to
present, pursuant to an application to the Service for a Section
10(a)(1)(B) permit under the Act, under the
[[Page 74479]]
auspices of the following entities: Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG); the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot
Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and
Rancho Mirage; County of Riverside; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
California Department of Fish and Game; Bureau of Land Management; U.S.
Forest Service; and the National Park Service, who signed a Memorandum
of Understanding (Planning Agreement) to govern the preparation of the
MSHCP. Subsequently, California Department of Transportation, Coachella
Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County
Regional Parks and Open Space District, Riverside County Waste
Management District, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy also decided to participate in
preparation of the Plan. The parties later amended the Planning
Agreement to also address the requirements of the Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and prepare a NCCP pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code Section 2810. The MSHCP/NCCP area
encompasses approximately 1.2 million ac (485,623 ha), of which 69,000
ac (27,923 ha) is owned by an Indian Reservations and are not included
in the MSHCP/NCCP, leaving a total of 1.1 million ac (445,154 ha)
addressed by the MSHCP/NCCP in Riverside County.
CVAG estimates there are 36,398 ac (14,730 ha) of habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat in the MSHCP/NCCP area.
The draft MSHCP/NCCP proposes to conserve 19,321 ac (7,819 ha) of
modeled A. l. var. coachellae habitat as part of the preferred
alternative reserve design that includes large areas of suitable
habitat and other important conservation areas, such as sand sources
and sand transport corridors. Core habitat areas include: Snow Creek/
Windy Point Conservation Area; Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area;
Willow Hole Conservation Area; and Thousand Palms Conservation Area.
Other goals of this draft MSHCP/NCCP include: (1) Protecting other
important conservation areas to allow for population fluctuation and
promote genetic diversity; (2) protecting essential ecological
processes, such as sand transport systems, necessary to maintain core
habitat and other conserved areas; (3) maintaining biological corridors
and linkages among all conserved populations to the maximum extent
feasible; and (4) ensuring conservation of habitat quality through
biological monitoring and adaptive management actions.
The draft MSHCP/NCCP states that, although the percentage of
modeled Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat that could be
lost to development appears to be substantial, the actual reduction in
habitat value is expected to be considerably less severe to the species
than indicated by raw acreage numbers because: (1) Conserved habitat
areas are large enough to maintain self-sustaining populations of A. l.
var. coachellae and incorporate key habitat elements for the species;
(2) potential adverse effects within conservation areas would not
eliminate or significantly impact any core populations; (3) potential
development would not adversely impact the essential ecological
processes (e.g., sand source and transport system) needed to maintain
currently viable habitat, and (4) lands in the MSHCP/NCCP reserve
system would be managed and monitored (CVMC 2004).
CVAG has demonstrated a sustained commitment to develop the MSHCP
to comply with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the California
Endangered Species Act, and the State's NCCP program. On November 5,
2004, the Service published a Notice of Availability of a Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the MSHCP.
Although not yet completed and implemented, CVAG has made
significant progress in the development of its MSHCP to meet the
requirements outlined in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In light of
the Service's confidence that CVAG will reach a successful conclusion
to its MSHCP development process, we are excluding lands within their
preferred alternative reserve design from proposed critical habitat
designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
As stated previously, the benefits of designating critical habitat
on lands within the boundaries of approved HCPs are normally small.
Where HCPs are in place that include coverage for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, our experience has shown that the HCPs
and their Implementing Agreements include management measures and
protections designed to protect, restore, enhance, manage, and monitor
habitat that benefit the long-term protection of the species. The
principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that projects
carried out, authorized, or funded by Federal agencies that may affect
a listed species require the action agency to consult with the Service
to ensure such activities do not destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. In the case of the CVAG, their MSHCP will be analyzed
by the Service to determine the effects of the MSHCP on the species for
which the participants are seeking incidental take permits. The MSHCP
currently under review by the Service reflects revisions made to the
plan based on comments and input from the Service and California
Department of Fish and Game.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
Excluding lands within CVAG's MSHCP preferred alternative reserve
design area from critical habitat designation will enhance our ability
to work with them in the spirit of cooperation and partnership. A more
detailed discussion concerning our rationale for excluding HCPs from
critical habitat designation is outlined under the previous section.
Further, the Service believes the analysis conducted to evaluate the
benefits of excluding approved HCPs from critical habitat designation
is applicable and appropriate to apply to CVAG's MSHCP.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
In general, we find that the benefits of critical habitat
designation on lands within pending HCPs that cover those species are
small while the benefits of excluding such lands from designation of
critical habitat are substantial. After weighing the small benefits of
including lands within the MSHCP area against the much greater benefits
derived from exclusion, we have excluded the preferred alternative
reserve design in CVAG's MSHCP from proposed critical habitat. Areas
within the MSHCP planning area that are still included as proposed
critical habitat are lands owned by public agencies that are not
signatories to the MSHCP (i.e., U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management); however, these agencies are contributing to the MSHCP's
reserve design. We have requested public comments on the potential
exclusion of Federal lands (e.g., Bureau of Land Management and the
U.S. Forest Service) from critical habitat based on their participation
in and contribution to the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae under the proposed Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
[[Page 74480]]
Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible Inclusion
The Act has different standards for designation of critical habitat
in occupied and unoccupied habitat. For areas occupied by the species,
these are: (i) The specific areas on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection. For
areas not occupied, a determination is required that the entire area is
essential for the conservation of the species before it can be included
in critical habitat. Congress has also cautioned the Service to be
``exceedingly circumspect'' in designating unoccupied habitat.
This presents a highly unusual situation with respect to critical
habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, in that the
species depends on sand being continually replenished from outside the
areas it occupies, yet Congress has directed us to be exceedingly
circumspect in including unoccupied areas in critical habitat
designations. We are accordingly identifying areas which serve as a
source for this sand and requesting comment on whether they should be
included in the designation. Aspects of the situation upon which we
seek comment include whether all, only a portion, or none of the areas
identified below are needed to ensure sufficient sand supplies to
maintain occupied habitat in its current condition, whether the draft
CVAG MSHCP will provide for sand flow sufficient to maintain the
species, and whether there are threats to the sand source areas that
would be addressed by designating them as critical habitat.
The identified areas are:
Possible Addition to Unit 1
Unit 1 is dependent on the largest sand transport system where
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae exists. This large sand
transport system contains several mountain drainages in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains that are essential for providing
sediment to several large populations of A. l. var. coachellae in the
Snow Creek area and Whitewater River floodplain. Protecting the wide
variety of physical and ecological features of this unit is important
for ensuring the long-term persistence and recovery of A. l. var.
coachellae.
The Whitewater River System begins in the mountain drainages in
eastern San Bernardino and northern San Jacinto Mountains, which
includes the San Gorgonio River, Whitewater River, Snow Canyon, San
Jacinto Canyons 1 and 2, Stubbes Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, and Garnet
Wash (Griffiths et al. 2002). Major channels (>15.24 m (50 ft) in
width) within each of these drainage areas were determined as being
important to the conservation of the species. The San Gorgonio and
Whitewater River systems constitute the primary sediment sources within
the Whitewater/San Gorgonio River depositional area, contributing a
total of about 76% (Griffiths et al. 2002). Snow Canyon, San Jacinto
Canyons 1 and 2, Stubbes Canyon, and Garnet Wash contribute a total of
about 19% of the sediment within the Whitewater/San Gorgonio River
system (Griffiths et al. 2002). We are seeking public comment on the
importance of these and smaller drainages to overall sediment transport
to the Coachella Valley.
Possible Addition to Unit 2
Unit 2 is dependent upon an important sand transport system which
is largely intact and sandy habitats, including active and stabilized
sand dunes and fields, and alluvial sand deposits in washes are
generally not shielded or blocked by upstream development. The Mission
Creek and Morongo Wash System begins in the mountain drainages in the
eastern San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, including
Mission Creek, Dry Morongo, lower Little Morongo Creek, lower Big
Morongo south of Morongo Valley, and Long Canyon (Griffiths et al.
2002). Major channels (>15.24 m (50 ft) in width) within each of these
drainage areas, with the exception of Long Canyon, were delineated as
being essential to the conservation of the species. The depositional
area in Long Canyon has been significantly reduced due to development
and was therefore not considered essential for sand transport. Mission
Creek and Little Morongo Creek contribute a total of about 76% of the
sediment within the Mission/Morongo depositional area (Griffiths et al.
2002). Big Morongo Creek contributes about 11% of the sediment to the
Mission/Morongo depositional area (Griffiths et al. 2002). We are
seeking public comment on the importance of this smaller drainage to
overall sediment transport to the Coachella Valley.
Possible Addition to Unit 3
Unit 3 is dependent upon an important sand transport system which
is largely intact and sandy habitats, including active and stabilized
sand dunes and fields, and alluvial sand deposits in washes are
generally not shielded or blocked by upstream development. The
Coachella Valley Preserve System begins in the mountain drainages in
the Indio Hills Indio Hills west of Thousand Palms Canyon. Major
channels (> 15.24 m (50 ft) in width) within each of these drainage
areas were delineated as being essential to the conservation of the
species. We are seeking public comment on the importance of this
smaller drainage to overall sediment transport to the Coachella Valley.
Relationship of Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible Inclusion to
Morongo Indian Reservation
Possible additions to Unit 1 include parts of the Morongo Indian
Reservation located on stream and river channels in the San Gorgonio
River basin containing unconsolidated sands that maintain downstream
areas of suitable habitat that are occupied by Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather
information regarding the designation of critical habitat and the
effects thereof from all relevant sources, including Indian Pueblos and
Tribes. In accordance with 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,'' and Executive Order 13175, we recognize
the need to consult with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-
to-government basis when considering the designation of critical
habitat in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources, tribally-
owned fee lands, or the exercise of Tribal rights. Critical habitat
shall not be designated in such areas unless it is determined essential
to conserve a listed species. In designating critical habitat, we must
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
lands. We are committed to working with the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians on matters regarding critical habitat.
Economic Analysis
An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat
for this species is being prepared. We will announce the availability
of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register 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://Carlsbad.fws.gov, or by
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and
[[Page 74481]]
Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).
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 such review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers
copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the
Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment,
during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at
least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will
schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first
hearing.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is
the description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues,
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which
will be available for public comment, to determine the economic
consequences of designating the specific area as critical habitat. This
economic analysis also will be used to determine compliance with
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and Executive Order 12630.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are listed
above in the section on Section 7 Consultation. The availability of the
draft economic analysis will be announced in the Federal Register and
in local newspapers so that it is available for public review and
comments. The draft economic analysis can be obtained from the Internet
at http://Carlsbad.fws.gov, or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Our assessment of economic effect will be completed prior to final
rulemaking based upon review of the draft economic analysis prepared
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This analysis is
for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
does not reflect our position on the type of economic analysis required
by New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 248
F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to 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 (i.e., 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
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to
provide a 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, the Service lacks the available economic information
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA
and E.O. 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required
factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft
economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability of
the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and reopen the
public comment period for the proposed designation for an additional 60
days. The Service will include with the notice of availability, 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. The Service has 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 the Service makes a
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a
[[Page 74482]]
significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 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 assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction''
means governments of cities, counties, town, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts with a population of less than
50,000 (U.S.C. title 5, part I, chapter 6, section 601[5]). The lands
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae are owned by Federal, State, and local
government entities. None of these government entities fit the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' As such, Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating 31,270 ac (12,656 ha) of lands in Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California, as critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae in a takings implication assessment. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae does not pose significant takings implications. 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.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with DOI 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 imposes
no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore,
has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified.
While making this definition and identification does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae.
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. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).
[[Page 74483]]
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, 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. No Indian Reservation lands
are essential for the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae, however, there are unoccupied areas identified for possible
inclusion on the Morongo Indian Reservation that support important
stream channels providing unconsolidated sands that maintain suitable
habitat for this taxon. Activities conducted or planned on those lands
may adversely affect the conservation of the A. l. var. coachellae.
Therefore, we are committed to working on partnerships with the Morongo
Tribe on matters regarding critical habitat. Information relative to
Tribal lands is included in the critical habitat unit descriptions and
under Relationship of Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible
Inclusion to Morongo Indian Reservation.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package are the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office staff.
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--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry in the table for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae under ``FLOWERING 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 adding critical habitat for
``Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS''
in the same alphabetical order as the species occurs in Sec. 17.12(h)
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 and San
Bernardino counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for this
species are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Unconsolidated sands stored within rivers and tributaries in
the San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains
and Indio Hills. The unconsolidated sands stored in these rivers and
tributaries are not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae, but represent
the original source of the loose sand that form the sand dunes and
flats that are occupied by this plant.
(ii) Unconsolidated sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San
Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio
Hills. The unconsolidated sands deposited on these alluvial fans are
not occupied by A. l. var. coachellae; instead, these sands are
transported by wind and water to form the fluvial and eolian sand dunes
and flats that are occupied by this plant;
(iii) Suitable flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated sands
from rivers and tributaries to the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino,
Little San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills;
(iv) Suitable wind and flooding regimes to transport unconsolidated
sands deposited on the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino, Little San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains and Indio Hills to the fluvial
and eolian depositional areas, including areas west of Edom Hill/Willow
Hole reserve, areas west of Coachella Valley Preserve, and the
Whitewater Floodplain area that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
(v) Eolian sands on active, stabilized, and shielded sand dunes or
fields, and sandy alluvial sites in washes within the San Gorgonio/
Whitewater River eolian sand transport system, Mission Creek/Morongo
Wash eolian sand transport system, and the Thousand Palms eolian sand
transport system that are occupied by A. l. var. coachellae.
(3) Critical habitat does not include man-made structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) The index maps of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
proposed critical habitat (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 74484]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.145
[[Page 74485]]
(5) Unit 1: Whitewater River Unit, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties,
California.
(i) Map Unit 1: Whitewater River, Riverside County, California.
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Whitewater, Desert Hot Springs, Palm
Springs and Cathedral City, California, lands bounded by the following
UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 526500, 3753000; 526900, 3753000; 526900,
3752700; 526800, 3752700; 526800, 3752600; 525900, 3752600; 525900,
3752900; 526500, 3752900; returning to 526500, 3753000; land bounded by
527000, 3753000; 527700, 3753000; 527700, 3752600; 527400, 3752600;
527400, 3752700; 527200, 3752700; 527200, 3752800; 527000, 3752800;
returning to 527000, 3753000; land bounded by 533600, 3753000; 533700,
3753000; 533700, 3752900; 533800, 3752900; 533800, 3751800; 533900,
3751800; 533900, 3751700; 534000, 3751700; 534000, 3751600; 534100,
3751600; 534100, 3751400; 534300, 3751400; 534300, 3751300; 534400,
3751300; 534400, 3751200; 534500, 3751200; 534500, 3751100; 534700,
3751100; 534700, 3751000; 535100, 3751000; 535100, 3751100; 535700,
3751100; 535700, 3750400; 535400, 3750400; 535400, 3750500; 535300,
3750500; 535300, 3750600; 535200, 3750600; 535200, 3750800; 534500,
3750800; 534500, 3750700; 534400, 3750700; 534400, 3750500; 534100,
3750500; 534100, 3750400; 533400, 3750400; 533400, 3750300; 533500,
3750300; 533500, 3750000; 533600, 3750000; 533600, 3749900; 533500,
3749900; 533500, 3749800; 533400, 3749800; 533400, 3749900; 533300,
3749900; 533300, 3749800; 533100, 3749800; 533100, 3749900; 533000,
3749900; 533000, 3750000; 532900, 3750000; 532900, 3750200; 532800,
3750200; 532800, 3750400; 532400, 3750400; 532400, 3751400; 533000,
3751400; 533000, 3751300; 533200, 3751300; 533200, 3751200; 533400,
3751200; 533400, 3751400; 533600, 3751400; returning to 533600,
3753000; land bounded by 525900, 3752300; 526200, 3752300; 526200,
3752200; 526400, 3752200; 526400, 3752000; 526200, 3752000; 526200,
3752100; 526100, 3752100; 526100, 3752200; 525900, 3752200; returning
to 525900, 3752300; land bounded by 530600, 3751400; 530900, 3751400;
530900, 3750900; 530700, 3750900; 530700, 3750700; 530500, 3750700;
530500, 3750600; 530400, 3750600; 530400, 3750500; 530300, 3750500;
530300, 3750600; 530000, 3750600; 530000, 3750500; 529900, 3750500;
529900, 3750400; 529400, 3750400; 529400, 3750500; 529200, 3750500;
529200, 3751000; 530400, 3751000; 530400, 3750900; 530600, 3750900;
returning to 530600, 3751400; land bounded by 537200, 3751000; 538400,
3751000; 538400, 3750900; 539000, 3750900; 539000, 3750700; 538200,
3750700; 538200, 3750600; 537200, 3750600; returning to 537200,
3751000; land bounded by 540500, 3750900; 541200, 3750900; 541200,
3750800; 541400, 3750800; 541400, 3750900; 541500, 3750900; 541500,
3750800; 541600, 3750800; 541600, 3750700; 541800, 3750700; 541800,
3750500; 542200, 3750500; 542200, 3749600; 540600, 3749600; 540600,
3748200; 541000, 3748200; 541000, 3748100; 542200, 3748100; 542200,
3747600; 540800, 3747600; 540800, 3747500; 540500, 3747500; 540500,
3748100; 539000, 3748100; 539000, 3747900; 538800, 3747900; 538800,
3748000; 538700, 3748000; 538700, 3748100; 538600, 3748100; 538600,
3748200; 538900, 3748200; 538900, 3749500; 539000, 3749500; 539000,
3749800; 540100, 3749800; 540100, 3749700; 540500, 3749700; returning
to 540500, 3750900; land bounded by 530800, 3750800; 530900, 3750800;
530900, 3750700; 530800, 3750700; 530800, 3750800; land bounded by
536500, 3749800; 537000, 3749800; 537000, 3749700; 537200, 3749700;
537200, 3749600; 537300, 3749600; 537300, 3749500; 537400, 3749500;
537400, 3749200; 537200, 3749200; 537200, 3749300; 537000, 3749300;
537000, 3749400; 536900, 3749400; 536900, 3749500; 536700, 3749500;
536700, 3749600; 536600, 3749600; 536600, 3749700; 536500, 3749700;
returning to 536500, 3749800; land bounded by 545300, 3748500; 545500,
3748500; 545500, 3748400; 545600, 3748400; 545600, 3748300; 545700,
3748300; 545700, 3748200; 545800, 3748200; 545800, 3748000; 545300,
3748000; returning to 545300, 3748500; and land bounded by 547100,
3747100; 547400, 3747100; 547400, 3747000; 547600, 3747000; 547600,
3746900; 547700, 3746900; 547700, 3746800; 547900, 3746800; 547900,
3746700; 548000, 3746700; 548000, 3746600; 548200, 3746600; 548200,
3746400; 547700, 3746400; 547700, 3746600; 547500, 3746600; 547500,
3746800; 547100, 3746800; returning to 547100, 3747100.
(ii) Note: Unit 1 (Map 2) follows:
[[Page 74486]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.146
[insert Map 2: Whitewater River Unit]
[[Page 74487]]
(6) Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash Unit, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California.
(i) Map Unit 2: Mission Creek and Morongo Wash, Riverside County,
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Seven Palms Valley and
Cathedral City, California, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD27
coordinates (E, N): 546500, 3749800; 547000, 3749800; 547000, 3749300;
546500, 3749300; returning to 546500, 3749800; and land bounded by
548900, 3749800; 549700, 3749800; 549700, 3749600; 549600, 3749600;
549600, 3749500; 549500, 3749500; 549500, 3748800; 549600, 3748800;
549600, 3748600; 549700, 3748600; 549700, 3748400; 549800, 3748400;
549800, 3748300; 549900, 3748300; 549900, 3748200; 550000, 3748200;
550000, 3748100; 549700, 3748100; 549700, 3748300; 549600, 3748300;
549600, 3748100; 549400, 3748100; 549400, 3748400; 549500, 3748400;
549500, 3748500; 549300, 3748500; 549300, 3748800; 549400, 3748800;
549400, 3748900; 548900, 3748900; returning to 548900, 3749800; land
bounded by 548500, 3748600; 548800, 3748600; 548800, 3748300; 548500,
3748300; returning to 548500, 3748600; land bounded by 548900, 3748600;
549100, 3748600; 549100, 3748300; 548900, 3748300; returning to 548900,
3748600; land bounded by 545300, 3748500; 545500, 3748500; 545500,
3748400; 545600, 3748400; 545600, 3748300; 545700, 3748300; 545700,
3748200; 545800, 3748200; 545800, 3748000; 545300, 3748000; returning
to 545300, 3748500; land bounded by 550100, 3747800; 550300, 3747800;
550300, 3747100; 550100, 3747100; returning to 550100, 3747800; and
land bounded by 548100, 3748200; 548600, 3748200; 548600, 3747200;
547500, 3747200; 547500, 3747300; 547400, 3747300; 547400, 3747400;
547300, 3747400; 547300, 3747500; 547100, 3747500; 547100, 3747600;
547000, 3747600; 547000, 3747700; 546900, 3747700; 546900, 3747900;
547300, 3747900; 547300, 3747700; 547500, 3747700; 547500, 3747500;
547800, 3747500; 547800, 3747600; 547700, 3747600; 547700, 3748100;
548100, 3748100; returning to 548100, 3748200; excluding land bounded
by 548000, 3747600; 548000, 3747400; 547800, 3747400; 547800, 3747300;
548100, 3747300; 548100, 3747600; 548000, 3747600.
(ii) Note: Unit 2 (Map 3) follows:
[[Page 74488]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.147
[[Page 74489]]
(7) Unit 3: Thousand Palms Unit, Riverside County, California.
(i) Map Unit 3: Thousand Palms, Riverside County, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Myoma, California, lands bounded by the
following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 563600, 3741700; 564000,
3741700; 564000, 3741400; 563900, 3741400; 563900, 3741500; 563700,
3741500; 563700, 3741600; 563600, 3741600; returning to 563600,
3741700; and land bounded by 562300, 3741500; 562800, 3741500; 562800,
3741200; 562300, 3741200; returning to 562300, 3741500.
(ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 4) follows:
[[Page 74490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE04.148
[[Page 74491]]
* * * * *
Dated: November 30, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-26690 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C