Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36635-36646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as
Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma
caseyi) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The petition also asked that critical habitat be
designated for the species. After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find that listing is warranted.
Currently, however, listing of Casey's June beetle is precluded by
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition
finding, Casey's June beetle will be added to our candidate species
list. We will develop a proposed rule to list this species as our
priorities allow. Any determination on critical habitat will be made
during development of the proposed listing rule.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents for this finding are available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 760-431-9440;
facsimile 760-431-5901). Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants that contains
substantial scientific and commercial information that listing may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of our
receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any species
is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Such 12-month findings are to be
published promptly in the Federal Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the
Act requires that a petition for which the requested action is found to
be warranted but precluded shall be treated as though resubmitted on
the date of such finding, and requiring a subsequent finding to be made
within 12 months.

Previous Federal Action

On May 12, 2004, we received a petition, dated May 11, 2004, from
David H. Wright, Ph.D.; the Center for Biological Diversity; and the
Sierra Club requesting the emergency listing of Casey's June beetle
(Dinacoma caseyi) as endangered in accordance with section 4 of the
Act. On October 4, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California challenging our failure to make the required 90-
day and, if appropriate, 12-month finding on their petition to
emergency list Casey's June beetle under section 4 of the Act. We
reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs on March 28, 2006,
in which we agreed to submit to the Federal Register a 90-day finding
by July 27, 2006, and to complete and submit to the Federal Register,
if a substantial finding is made, a 12-month finding by June 30, 2007.
On August 8, 2006, we published a 90-day petition finding (71 FR 44960)
in which we concluded that emergency

[[Page 36636]]

listing was not necessary, but that the petition provided substantial
information indicating that listing of Casey's June beetle may be
warranted, and we initiated a status review. This notice constitutes
the 12-month finding on the May 12, 2004, petition to list Casey's June
beetle as endangered.

Taxonomy

Casey's June beetle belongs to the scarab family (Scarabidae). The
genus Dinacoma includes two described species, D. caseyi and D.
marginata (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 171-176). Delbert La Rue, a researcher
experienced with the genus Dinacoma and a taxonomic expert stated,
``Dinacoma caseyi is a distinct species morphologically and comprises
its own species group--the caseyi complex--the other [species group]
being the marginata complex which includes the bulk/remainder of the
genus'' (La Rue 2006, p. 1). The Casey's June beetle was first
collected in the City of Palm Springs, California, in 1916, and was
later described by Blaisdell (1930, pp. 174-176) based on male
specimens. This species measures 0.55 to 0.71 inches (in) (1.4 to 1.8
centimeters (cm)) long, with dusty brown or whitish coloring, and brown
and cream longitudinal stripes on the elytra (wing covers and back).
Recently, entomologists discovered two apparently new species or
subspecies of Dinacoma, collected respectively from near the city of
Hemet, California, and in the northwest portion of Joshua Tree National
Park, California, at Covington Flats (La Rue 2006, p. 2). To date,
these specimens of Dinacoma have not been formally described in the
scientific literature, but expert evaluation places them in the other
Dinacoma species group (marginata complex) (La Rue 2006, p.1). La Rue
(2006, p. 2) stated that Dinacoma caseyi is the most morphologically
divergent and distinct species in the genus. The new specimens
collected from the Hemet area are paler than Casey's June beetle
specimens and possess morphologically different genitalia (Anderson
2006a, p.1). Furthermore, the Little San Bernardino Mountains
geographically isolate the new Dinacoma Joshua Tree population from all
other known Dinacoma species.

Biology

Based on surveys conducted to assess the species' presence, both
male and female Casey's June beetles emerge from underground burrows
sometime between late March and early June, with abundance peaks
generally occurring in April and May (Duff 1990, p. 3; Barrows 1998, p.
1). Females are always observed on the ground and are considered
flightless (Duff 1990, p. 4; Frank Hovore and Associates 1995, p. 7;
Hovore 2003, p. 3). La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that ``Female Dinacoma
are very rare in collections. Females display an accentuated sexual
dimorphism characterized by an enlarged abdomen, reduced legs and
antennae, and metathoracic wing reduction and venation. These
characters are likely adaptations to flightlessness and a fossorial
biology.'' During the active flight season, males emerge from the
ground and begin flying near dusk (Hovore 2003, p. 3). Males are
reported to fly back and forth or crawl on the ground where a female
beetle has been detected (Duff 1990, p. 3). Cornett (2003, p. 5)
theorized that after emergence, females remain on the ground and
release pheromones to attract flying males. After mating, females
return to their burrows or dig a new burrow and deposit eggs.
Excavations of adult emergence burrows revealed pupal exuviae (casings)
at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 6 in (10 to 16 cm) (Frank
Hovore and Associates 1995, p. 6).
The larval cycle for the species is likely 1 year, based on the
absence of larvae (grubs) in burrows during the adult flight season (La
Rue 2004, p. 1). The food source for Casey's June beetle larvae while
underground is unknown, but other species of June beetle are known to
eat ``plant roots or plant detritus and associated decay organisms''
(La Rue 2004, p.1). La Rue (2006, pp.1-2) stated, ``[Casey's June
beetle] exhibits no specific host preferences, and larvae likely
consume any available organic resources--including [layered organic
debris]--encountered within the alluvial habitat.'' Specific host plant
associations for Casey's June beetle are not known. Although visual
surveys have detected a concentration of emergence burrows in the
vicinity of a number of species of woody shrub in Palm Canyon Wash,
this may be due to low soil disturbance by vehicles, foot traffic, and
horses near woody vegetation (Hovore 2003, p. 3).

Habitat

La Rue (2006, p.1) stated that all Dinacoma populations are
ecologically associated with alluvial sediments. Alluvial sediments
occurring in or contiguous with coastal scrub, montane chaparral, and
desert dry washes (ephemeral watercourses) are indicative of the
marginata complex habitat, while bases of desert alluvial fans, and the
broad, gently sloping, depositional surfaces formed at the base of the
Santa Rosa mountain ranges in the dry Coachella Valley region by the
overlapping of individual alluvial fans (bajada) are indicative of the
caseyi complex habitat (La Rue 2006, p. 1).
Casey's June beetle is most commonly associated with Carsitas
series soil (CdC), described by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) (USDA on-line GIS database, 2000) as gravelly sand
on 0 to 9 percent slopes. This soil series is associated with alluvial
fans, rather than areas of aeolian or windblown sand deposits. Hovore
(2003, p. 2) described soils where Casey's June beetle occurs or
occurred historically as, ``* * * almost entirely carsitas series, of a
CdC type, typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly effervescent,
moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky, non-plastic, deposited
on 0 to 9 percent slopes. On alluvial terraces and where they occur
within washes, these soils show light braiding and some organic
deposition, but [most years] do not receive scouring surface flows.''
Although Casey's June beetle has primarily been found on CdC soils, the
beetle is also associated with Riverwash (RA), and possibly Carsitas
cobbly sand (ChC), soils in the Palm Canyon Wash area (Anderson and
Love 2007, p. 1). Its burrowing habit would suggest the Casey's June
beetle needs soils that are not too rocky or compacted and difficult to
burrow in.
Hovore (2003, p.11) and Cornett (2004, p. 14) hypothesized that
upland habitats provide core refugia from which the species recolonizes
wash habitat after intense flood scouring events (approximately every
10 years), and are required for long-term survival of the species. Most
extant upland habitat in the range of Casey's June beetle has been
developed as golf courses or suburban housing (Cornett 2004, p. 11).
Although relatively high numbers of Casey's June beetles (70
individuals in the first 15 minutes, Powell 2003, p. 4; average 8.5 per
night, Simonsen-Marchant and Marchant 2000, p. 5; 2001, p. 9) have been
collected downstream from remaining upland habitat in Palm Canyon Wash,
occupancy in this area is likely due to movement of sediment and larvae
by water flow as hypothesized by Hovore (2003, p. 11). Occupied wash
habitat downstream from all occupied upland habitats (from Smoke Tree
Ranch to Gene Autry Trail, see distribution discussion below) is likely
a long-term population ``sink'' for Casey's June beetle (only receiving
female immigrants, not producing colonizers for upland habitat).
Although wash habitat isolated from upland refugia may contribute
relatively little to the

[[Page 36637]]

species' long-term survival under current circumstances, it is still
important because it is apparently occupied by a relatively large
proportion of the remaining population, and would be an important
source of individuals for future reintroduction and augmentation
activities.
With regard to current habitat conditions, Cornett (2004, p. 14)
offered a hypothesis based on higher number of specimens collected or
observed during surveys within the more developed areas compared to
undeveloped areas within the gated Smoke Tree Ranch residential
community (Smoke Tree Ranch). Cornett (2004, p. 14) hypothesized that
the unique landscape of Smoke Tree Ranch may increase habitat quality
of Casey's June beetle in this drier upland area with widely spaced
homes, abundant native vegetation on vacant lots, and some irrigation.
This hypothesis, if supported by future research, may hold the key to
effective management for Casey's June beetle in remaining, less
suitable upland habitat where the species may have been extirpated.
Alternate hypotheses, such as increased collection sizes due to
attraction of males to residential lights, should also be investigated.
Considering Cornett's (2004, p. 14) above hypothesis, and the potential
for high species density (however temporary) in Palm Canyon Wash, all
remaining habitat areas with CdC or RA type soils in southern Palm
Springs are considered important for species' conservation.

Range and Extant Distribution

Most locality information on Casey's June beetle specimens in
collections specifies ``Palm Springs,'' or simply Riverside County
(Duff 1990, p. 2; O'Brian 2007, p.1; Ratcliff 2007, p. 1; Wall 2007,
p.1). Nineteen of 21 specimens in the Los Angeles County Natural
History Museum (LACNHM; 1940 to 1989) were labeled as being from the
city of Palm Springs. Other early collection records identify ``Palm
Desert'' (``old record''; Duff 1990, p. 3), ``Indian Wells'' (2
specimens in the LACNHM from 1953), and ``Palm Canyon'' (``old
record''; Duff 1990, p. 3), all in the western Coachella Valley. Duff
(1990, p. 2) described two primary areas where the beetle was extant in
Palm Springs, west of the city near Tahquitz Creek (``specific
localities: Jct. Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Way; Jct. Palm Canyon
Drive and Sunny Dunes Road'') and south of the city near the
intersection of Bogert Trail and South Palm Canyon Drive. Seven
specimens in the LACNHM were labeled as having been collected near the
intersection of Bogert Trail and South Palm Canyon Drive (1987, 1988,
and 1989). The Bogert Trail/South Palm Canyon Drive collections were
made within the Agua Caliente Tribe of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe)
Reservation. Recently, numerous collections and observations have been
made within Smoke Tree Ranch and other areas in, or adjacent to, Palm
Canyon Wash south of Gene Autry Trail, in the City of Palm Springs. The
Bogert Trail site and Smoke Tree Ranch have been commonly used as
reference sites by surveyors (Duff 1990, p. 7; Hovore 1997a, p. 3;
1997b, p. 1; Barrows and Fisher 2000, p. 1; Cornett 2000, p. 9; Cornett
2003, p. 5; Hovore 2003, p. 4; Cornett 2004, p. 3). Hovore (Frank
Hovore and Associates 1995, p. 3) stated that the Casey's June beetles
collected by University of California-Long Beach (UCLB) students
``within the past 20 years'' were labeled ``Dead Indian Canyon'' (near
the cities of Palm Desert and Indian Wells, south of Palm Springs);
however, Hovore (2006b, p. 1) subsequently explained that this
information is questionable due to incomplete specimen label
information and contradictory information provided by the former UCLB
curator. Because Palm Canyon (in Palm Springs) is joined by the smaller
Murray, Andreas, and Wentworth Canyons, collectively referred to as the
``Indian Canyons,'' (for example, Barrows 1998, p. 1), we believe this
may be the correct collection locality for the UCLB specimens.
The historical range of Casey's June beetle cannot be determined
with any certainty, given the lack of specific locality information for
many of the collection records. Frank Hovore and Associates (1995, p.
4) described the possible extent of the species' historical range as
``somewhere around Chino Canyon floodplain (or at most northwest to the
Snow Creek drainage), south to around Indian Wells.'' Within this
general geographic area from north to south of Palm Springs (Riverside
County, California), the species is assumed to have occurred on
alluvial fan bases flowing from the Santa Rosa Mountains, at or near
the level contour line, where finer silts and sand are deposited.
However, this purported range is ``based on inference and fragmentary
data'' (Frank Hovore and Associates 1995, p. 4).
Given the lack of collection records, efforts have been made to
determine the extant (remaining) distribution of Casey's June beetle in
its purported historical range. Barrows and Fisher (2000, p.1)
conducted trapping on two separate evenings in Dead Indian Canyon in
Palm Desert, southeast of Palm Springs, but the species was not
detected. The University of California-Riverside (UCR) conducted more
than 10 years of year-round surveys for a variety of species, including
Casey's June beetle, at the Boyd Deep Canyon Preserve in Palm Desert,
California (also near Indian Wells, and including portions of Dead
Indian Canyon). No Casey's June beetles were found during any of the
UCR surveys (Anderson 2006a, p. 1). Although the May 11, 2004, petition
references a ``Snow Creek'' collection site northwest of Palm Springs,
we were not able to obtain any substantiating records for that
location. A single-night survey conducted by Powell (2003, p. 1) near
Snow Creek failed to find the species, although the beetle was
confirmed to be active at Smoke Tree Ranch in Palm Springs at the time.
La Rue (2006, p. 1) has collected and worked extensively with
Dinacoma spp. in southern California since the 1980s, but has not
collected Casey's June beetle outside of its current known range in the
City of Palm Springs. La Rue (2006, p. 2) stated:

Many collectors, researchers, ecologists, and others * * * have
surveyed for D. caseyi throughout the Coachella Valley for years
without finding additional populations other than those still extant
in and around Palm Springs. There are several factors that
contribute to this isolation, a few being: (1) Topographically, the
City of Palm Springs is protected from high wind events (dessication
[sic] of necessary substrate) [by] the precipitous San Jacinto
[Santa Rosa Mountains]; (2) the area where D. caseyi occurs in the
City of Palm Springs receives a higher amount of annual
precipitation because of its proximity to the base of the San
Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mtns [Mountains]. Orographic lift [when an air
mass is forced from low to higher elevations, it expands, cools, and
can no longer hold moisture] will deplete most moisture from winter
storms originating from the Pacific; what little remains falls in
the Palm Springs area and rarely further into the Coachella Valley.
Summer monsoonal patterns are insignificant. (3) As mentioned above,
Dinacoma are restricted to alluvial sediments. Re: D. caseyi; these
conditions only occur at the base of steep narrow canyons of the San
Jacinto/Santa Rosa [Mountains].

Cornett (2004, p. 8) sampled more than 60 locations in Palm Springs
to determine the current range of Casey's June beetle. Light traps were
used to attract flying males and placed in relatively undisturbed
flatlands likely to support Casey's June beetle. Traps were opened by
6:30 p.m. and remained open until at least 10 p.m. Eight traps were
opened each evening, and each trapping station was used at least two
times. To gauge trapping success, at least one trap was opened at Smoke
Tree Ranch each

[[Page 36638]]

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

Status and Trends

We do not have population estimates for the beetle or information
showing decline in numbers. Surveys conducted for this species have
been site-specific or primarily conducted to demonstrate presence or
absence. For this reason, we focused our analysis of the decrease in
the amount of extant habitat and the documented habitat loss over
specific time periods.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In making this finding, we
summarize below information regarding the status and threats to this
species in relation to the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
In making our 12-month finding, we considered all scientific and
commercial information in our files, including information received
during the comment period that ended October 10, 2006 (71 FR 44960).

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

We analyzed suburban development within southern Palm Springs from

[[Page 36639]]

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

[[Page 36640]]

Summary of Factor A
Since 1991, urban development and construction have removed 25
percent of remaining habitat. From 2003 to 2006, habitat loss for the
beetle has occurred at a rate of 5 percent per year. Because
development trends are continuing (see above discussion of Alturas
project approved by the City of Palm Springs, 9 percent loss in 2007),
additional habitat for the beetle will be lost. The estimated amount of
contiguous, undeveloped habitat currently available for the species is
approximately 576 ac (233 ha) with some of these areas serving as
biological ``sinks'' for the species. Based on development trends, the
most important habitat for species persistence (alluvial uplands with
CDC soil), is the habitat most likely to be lost to future development.
Therefore, projected development of remaining upland habitat by the
year 2020 would result in almost certain extinction of the species.
Based on recent, current, and likely future habitat loss trends, the
loss of historically occupied locations, reduced and limited
distribution, habitat fragmentation, and land use changes associated
with urbanization, we find that Casey's June beetle is threatened with
extinction by destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat
and range.

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

We are not aware of any information regarding overutilization of
Casey's June beetle for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes and do not consider this a threat at this time.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection
for Casey's June beetle include: (1) Federal laws and regulations, such
as the National Environmental Policy Act; (2) State laws and
regulations; and (3) local land use processes and ordinances. However,
these regulatory mechanisms have not prevented continued habitat
fragmentation and modification. There are no regulatory mechanisms that
specifically or indirectly address the management or conservation of
functional Casey's June beetle habitat. There are no regulatory
protections for any other species that may provide incidental benefit
to Casey's June beetle. We discuss existing regulatory mechanisms
below.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347), as amended, requires Federal agencies to describe the
proposed action, consider alternatives, identify and disclose potential
environmental impacts of each alternative, and involve the public in
the decision-making process. The resulting documents are primarily
disclosure documents, and NEPA does not require or guide mitigation for
impacts. Projects that are covered by certain ``categorical
exclusions'' are exempt from NEPA biological evaluation. However,
Federal agencies are not required to select the alternative having the
least significant environmental impacts. A Federal agency may select an
action that will adversely affect sensitive species provided that these
effects were known and identified in a NEPA document.
State
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA 1970, as amended)
requires disclosure of potential environmental impacts of public or
private projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies
in California. CEQA guidelines require a finding of significance if the
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range
of an endangered, rare or threatened species'' (CEQA Guideline 15065).
The lead agency can either require mitigation for unavoidable
significant effects, or decide that overriding considerations make
mitigation infeasible (CEQA Guideline 21002), although such overrides
are rare. CEQA can provide some protections for a species that,
although not listed as threatened or endangered, meets one of several
criteria for rarity (CEQA Guideline 15380). For example, the Monte
Sereno project (see specific project description (1) under Factor A
above) impacted approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of occupied habitat.
Impacts to Casey's June beetle were expected to be mitigated by payment
of $600 per acre (total of $24,780) to the City of Palm Springs or a
habitat conservation entity designated by the city for 41.3 ac (16.7
ha) of ``potential'' Casey's June beetle habitat (Dudek and Associates
2001, p. 24). However, no specific use of the funds for mitigation was
specified (Dudek and Associates 2001, p. 24), and to our knowledge, no
appropriate habitat has been conserved for Casey's June beetle to
offset the Monte Sereno project impacts.
Examples of the limitation of CEQA to protect Casey's June beetle
can also be found with Smoke Tree Ranch properties. In 2006, the City
of Palm Springs issued a mitigated negative CEQA declaration for Smoke
Tree Ranch Cottages (see specific project description (3) under Factor
A above) (City of Palm Springs 2006, p. 2), finding ``no significant
impact'' to Casey's June beetle, even though at least 7 ac (3 ha) of
habitat was to be developed that Cornett's study (2004, pp. 18-27)
identified as occupied. Another example includes the Smoketree Commons
shopping center (see specific project description (4) under Factor A
above). The project's Environmental Impact Review (EIR; Pacific
Municipal Consultants 2005, p. 9) stated that the City of Palm Springs
was responsible for enforcing and monitoring Casey's June beetle
mitigation measures prior to issuance of a grading permit, including
recording a conservation easement and developing a management plan for
Casey's June beetle on conserved habitat. An easement was established;
however, no management plan was drafted prior to issuance of the
grading permit, and no monitoring or management activities are assured
(Ewing 2007, p. 1).
We were unable to obtain copies of the Alturas development project
EIR for review (see Factor A above, and Tribal discussion below) from
the City of Palm Springs Planning Department or the author (Terra Nova
Consulting). The project has completed the environmental review, and
the project proponent has a tentative tract number with the City of
Palm Springs (tentative tract number 30047).
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protections
for many species of plants, animals, and some invertebrate species.
However, insect species, such as the Casey's June beetle, are afforded
no protection under the CESA. This is a further example of an existing
regulatory mechanism that does not provide for the protection of the
Casey's June beetle or its habitat.
Tribal
Reservation lands of the Agua Caliente Tribe encompass 257 ac (104
ha), approximately 45 percent of estimated extant Casey's June beetle
habitat (RA and CdC soils; Anderson and Love 2007, pp. 1-3). All post-
1996 development of occupied habitat, with the exception of the 17-ac
(7-ha) Smoke Tree Commons project, has occurred on Tribal reservation
land (see Factor A above). Because the remaining 163 ac (66 ha) of
upland habitat (CdC soils) on Tribal reservation lands are relatively

[[Page 36641]]

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

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

The one known remaining Casey's June beetle population in south
Palm Springs also may be threatened by other natural or
anthropogenically influenced factors, primarily increased intensity and
frequency of scouring events in wash habitat. However, there is little
species-specific scientific information describing the potential for
these threats, and these issues should be the subject of future
research.
Urban development adjacent to natural creek beds or washes

[[Page 36642]]

concentrates stream flow by constraining channel width, thereby
increasing the speed of water flowing past a given location
(hydrograph; cubic feet per second) (Leroy et al., p. 772). Therefore,
although no relevant hydrographic data is available for occupied areas
of Palm Canyon Wash prior to 1988 (existing levees were already
constructed; Anderson 2007, p. 9), it can be assumed that development
adjacent to Palm Canyon Wash and associated flood-control levees has
increased the intensity of scouring events believed by Hovore (2003, p.
11) and Cornett (2004, p. 14) to temporarily eliminate Casey's June
beetles within Palm Canyon Wash. As a result, increased impacts of
flood scouring to the one remaining population, already impacted and
threatened by development, must be considered a significant
contributing factor to the species' extinction probability.
Casey's June beetle is sensitive to changes in climate factors such
as wind, temperature (for example, drying of alluvial soils),
precipitation, and catastrophic flood events (Noss et al. 2001, p. 42;
La Rue 2006, p. 2). As discussed above, increased intensity and
frequency of flooding and scouring events in Palm Canyon Wash is of
particular concern for Casey's June beetle. The frequency of heavy
precipitation events has increased over most land areas (typically
post-1960), consistent with warming and observed increases of
atmospheric water vapor, and it is ``very likely'' (90 percent
confidence) that heavy precipitation will become even more frequent
(IPCC 2007, pp. 2 and 8-9). A review of literature and historic climate
data (Anderson 2007, pp. 1-6) indicates Coachella Valley precipitation,
peak stream flow (hydrograph; cubic feet per second) in Palm Canyon,
and other weather patterns since 1950 have been locally consistent with
global patterns reported by the IPCC (2007 p. 2, pp. 8-9 and 15).
Therefore, it is likely that the severity and frequency of heavy
precipitation events will increase in the area.
Summary of Factor E
The one remaining Casey's June beetle population in southern Palm
Springs is likely threatened with extirpation in part by increased
intensity and frequency of catastrophic flood events. We, therefore,
find that other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued
existence of the species present a likely threat to the survival of
Casey's June beetle.

Finding

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by this species. We reviewed the petition, available published
and unpublished scientific and commercial information, and information
submitted to us during the public comment period following the
publication of our 90-day petition finding. This 12-month finding
reflects and incorporates information we received during the public
comment period, or obtained through consultation, literature research,
and field visits, and responds to significant issues. We also consulted
with recognized Casey's June beetle experts. On the basis of this
review, we find that the listing of Casey's June beetle is warranted,
due to threats associated with urban development, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors.
However, listing of Casey's June beetle is precluded at this time by
pending proposals for other species with higher listing priorities
based on taxonomic uniqueness (that is, the only species described for
the genus).
In making this finding, we recognize that there have been declines
in the distribution and abundance of Casey's June beetle, primarily
attributed to suburban development and habitat alteration (Factor A).
From 1991 to 2006, Casey's June beetle experienced an estimated 25
percent reduction in contiguous, undeveloped habitat from 770 ac (312
ha) in 1991 to 576 ac (233 ha) in 2006. Habitat loss has been greatest
in recent years. From 1991 to 1996, habitat was lost at a rate of 2
percent per year; from 1996 to 2003, at a rate of 1 percent per year;
and from 2003 to 2006, at a rate of 5 percent per year. An additional 9
percent of apparent key refugia habitat will be impacted by development
in 2007. At this rate, we could expect all remaining habitat will be
lost within 20 years. Recent trends and projected development
information indicate that all Casey's June beetle habitat continues to
be threatened with further loss, degradation, and fragmentation,
resulting in a negative impact on species' distribution and abundance.
Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations have not been adequate to
prevent or minimize the loss of occupied habitat, as evidenced by
recent development projects in occupied habitat. Although protections
for occupied habitat under a Smoke Tree Ranch CCAA and a Tribal HCP are
under consideration, these agreements have not been finalized (Factor
D). Increased intensity and frequency of scouring events in wash
habitat are threats that have likely contributed to decline of the
species (Factor E). Since this finding is warranted but precluded, we
do not need to specifically determine whether it is appropriate to
perform a ``significant portion of the range'' analysis for this
species. However, due to the restricted nature of Casey's June beetle's
range, we generally consider all of the remaining range to be
significant for the conservation of this species. Because of a small
and restricted population distribution, and because of threats
described above, Casey's June beetle should be listed as threatened or
endangered throughout its entire range. We will review whether to list
as threatened or endangered during the proposed listing rule process.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is
warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change
the status of a species from threatened to endangered; resubmitted
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program management
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach
regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing,
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given

[[Page 36643]]

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

[[Page 36644]]

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

FY 2007 Completed Listing Actions as of 06/6/2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Species/actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/11/2006....................... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to Final withdrawal, 71 FR 59700-59711.
List the Cow Head Tui Chub (Gila Threats eliminated.
biocolor vaccaceps) as Endangered.
10/11/2006....................... Revised 12-Month Finding for the Notice of 12-month 71 FR 59711-59714.
Beaver Cave Beetle petition finding,
(Pseudanophthalmus major); Not Not warranted.
Warranted.
11/14/2006....................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Notice of 12-month 71 FR 66292-66298.
List the Island Marble Butterfly petition finding,
(Euchloe ausonides insulanus) as Not warranted.
Threatened or Endangered.
11/14/2006....................... 90-Day Finding for a Petition to Notice of 90-day 71 FR 66298-66301.
List the Kennebec River Population petition finding,
of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon as Substantial.
Part of the Endangered Gulf Of
Maine Distinct Population Segment.
11/21/2006....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Notice of 90-day 71 FR 67318-67325.
List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed petition finding,
Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial.
12/5/2006........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Notice of 90-day 71 FR 70483-70492.
List the Tricolored Blackbird as petition finding,
Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial.
12/6/2006........................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Notice of 12-month 71 FR 70717-70733.
List the Cerulean Warbler petition finding,
(Dendroica cerulea) as Threatened Not warranted.
with Critical Habitat.
12/6/2006........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Notice of 90-day 71 FR 70715-70717.
List the Upper Tidal Potomac River Petition Finding,
Population of the Northern Water Not substantial.
Snake (Nerodia sipedon) as an
Endangered Distinct Population
Segment.
12/14/2006....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Notice of 5-year 71 FR 75215-75220.
Remove the Uinta Basin Hookless Review, Initiation.
Cactus From the List of Endangered Notice of 90-day
and Threatened Plants; 90-Day petition finding,
Finding on a Petition To List the Not substantial.
Pariette Cactus as Threatened or Notice of 90-day
Endangered. petition finding,
Substantial.
12/19/2006....................... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Notice of 71 FR 76023-76035.
Penstemon grahamii (Graham's withdrawal, More
beardtongue) as Threatened With abundant than
Critical Habitat. believed, or
diminished threats.
12/19/2006....................... 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List Notice of 90-day 71 FR 76057-76079.
the Mono Basin Area Population of petition finding,
the Greater Sage-Grouse as Not substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
1/9/2007......................... 12-Month Petition Finding and Notice of 12-month 72 FR 1063-1099.
Proposed Rule To List the Polar petition finding,
Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Warranted.
Threatened Throughout Its Range; Proposed Listing,
Proposed Rule. Threatened.
1/10/2007........................ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Notice of Guidance. 72 FR 1186-1189.
and Plants; Clarification of
Significant Portion of the Range
for the Contiguous United States
Distinct Population Segment of the
Canada Lynx.
1/12/2007........................ Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Notice of 72 FR 1621-1644.
Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot withdrawal, More
Peppergrass) Proposed rule; abundant than
withdrawal. believed, or
diminished threats.
2/2/2007......................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Notice of 12-month 72 FR 4967-4997.
List the American Eel as petition finding,
Threatened or Endangered. Not warranted.
2/8/2007......................... Final Rule Designating the Western Final Deferred date 72 FR 6051-6103.
Great Lakes Populations of Gray Final Delisting,
Wolves as a Distinct Population Recovered.
Segment; Removing the Western Final Listing,
Great Lakes Distinct Population Endangered.
Segment of the Gray Wolf From the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
2/13/2007........................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Notice of 90-day 72 FR 6699-6703.
List the Jollyville Plateau petition finding,
Salamander as Endangered. Substantial.

[[Page 36645]]

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

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

Listing Actions Funded But Not Yet Completed in FY2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine.............................. 12-month petition finding
(remand).
Western sage grouse.................... 90-day petition finding
(remand).
Queen Charlotte goshawk................ Final listing determination.
Rio Grande cutthroat trout............. 12-month petition finding
(remand).
Sierra Nevada distinct population 12-month petition finding
segment mountain yellow-legged frog. (remand).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear............................. Final listing determination.
Ozark chinquapin....................... 90-day petition finding.
Kokanee................................ 90-day petition finding.
Goose Creek milkvetch.................. 90-day petition finding.
Utah prairie dog....................... 90-day petition finding.
Black-footed albatross................. 90-day petition finding.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake.............. 90-day petition finding.
Gopher tortoise--Florida population.... 90-day petition finding.
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle......... 90-day petition finding.
Eagle lake trout....................... 90-day petition finding.
Smooth billed ani...................... 90-day petition finding.
Mojave ground squirrel................. 90-day petition finding.
Gopher tortoise--Eastern population.... 90-day petition finding.
Bay Springs salamander................. 90-day petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander........... 90-day petition finding.
Coaster brook trout.................... 90-day petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard.............. 90-day petition finding.

[[Page 36646]]

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

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant laws and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, the actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Conclusion

We will add Casey's June beetle to the list of candidate species
upon publication of this notice of 12-month finding. We request that
interested parties submit any new information on status and threats for
this species. Natural history and distribution information in
particular will help us monitor and focus habitat conservation of this
species. Should an emergency situation develop with this or any
candidate species, we will act to provide immediate protection, if
warranted.
We intend that any proposed listing action for Casey's June beetle
will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this finding.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available on request
from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above).

Author(s)

The primary author of this document is Alison Anderson of the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above).

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 28, 2007.
Kevin Adams,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-13031 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P