[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60410-60450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5136]
[[Page 60409]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
CriticalHabitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 60410]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU34
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the endangered Piperia yadonii
(Yadon's piperia) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately 2,117 acres (ac) (857 hectares
(ha)) fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.
The critical habitat is located in Monterey County, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, in
the branch of Endangered Species, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (VFWO), 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. The final
rule, economic analysis, and map are also available on the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/ventura.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, VFWO, at
the above address (telephone (805) 644-1766, ext. 319; facsimile (805)
644-3958). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information
on Piperia yadonii, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule
published on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546) and the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100).
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning Piperia
yadonii, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on August 12, 1998 (63 FR 43100) and proposed critical habitat
rule published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2006 (71 FR
61546). On August 7, 2007, we published a notice announcing the
availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA), and reopening of the
public comment period (72 FR 44069). This comment period closed on
September 6, 2007.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii in the proposed
rule published on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546). We also contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed rule. The initial comment period ended December 18,
2006. We published newspaper notices on October 26, 2006, in the
Monterey Herald, Monterey, California, inviting public comment on the
proposed critical habitat designation.
During the comment period that opened on October 18, 2006, and
closed on December 18, 2006, we received 9 comments directly addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation: 3 from peer reviewers, 1
from a State agency, and 5 from organizations or individuals. During
the comment period that opened on August 7, 2007, and closed on
September 6, 2007, we received 8 comments directly addressing the
proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis.
All of these latter comments were from organizations or individuals and
some organizations and individuals provided comments during both
comment periods. Overall, 12 commenters supported a designation of
critical habitat for P. yadonii, and 3 commenters opposed parts of the
proposed designation. All comments and new information relating to the
proposed critical habitat designation for P. yadonii are addressed in
the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all three
peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally agreed that the technical
information and primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified in the
proposed designation were accurate and that those areas that we did
propose as critical habitat should be included. However, all three peer
reviewers suggested that the designation should be expanded to include
additional areas and increase the size of existing units. They also
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final critical habitat rule and the conservation of the
species. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for Piperia yadonii, and address them in the following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
1. Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the proposed
designation emphasizes land ownership and proposed land use over
biological or ecological factors in determining the size and boundaries
of units. The peer reviewer replicated the process we identified in the
rule and provided an analysis of six of our proposed subunits in Units
1, 2, and 3 as support for this assertion. The peer reviewer showed
that those subunits that were on, or surrounded by, typical (non-
conservation oriented) private lands encompassed a substantially
smaller proportion of the appropriate surrounding habitat for Piperia
yadonii than those subunits that were on, or surrounded by, lands owned
by a conservation-oriented organization. The peer reviewer further
stated that an unbiased designation of critical habitat could provide
great conservation benefit to P. yadonii, as evidenced by four policies
in the County of Monterey General Plan update. These policies emphasize
conservation of designated critical habitat areas in evaluating and
approving proposed land uses. The peer reviewer recommended that we
redo the designation, focusing solely on the presence of PCEs and
eliminating any bias introduced by assigning preference to a hierarchy
of land ownership types.
Our Response: Our method for designating areas as critical habitat
was described in the proposed rule under the sections ``Criteria Used
to Identify Critical Habitat'' and ``Mapping'' and is reiterated here.
See our answer to comment 18. In determining the extent
[[Page 60411]]
of lands necessary to ensure the conservation and persistence of
Piperia yadonii, we identified all areas that contain those biological
and physical features essential to the conservation of the species.
These lands include those that are either already protected, managed,
or otherwise unencumbered by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped County
or City parks, proposed preservation areas). These populations are most
likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the species'
survival and recovery. We also included undeveloped Federal and State
lands, then local agency and private lands with recognized resource
conservation emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a conservation-oriented
organization, undeveloped County or City parks), and finally other
agency and private lands.
We agree that land use considerations were a factor used to
delineate the boundaries of some units or subunits; however, we did not
exclude from consideration any subunits based solely on land ownership.
In those cases where we determined that a site had the features
essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii, we designated the
site (e.g., Units 2b and 7). Where a site included a mix of land
ownership (i.e., lands that were owned or proposed for conservation by
the State and lands that were not), we typically reduced the subunit to
the boundaries of the conservation-oriented lands, in an effort to
minimize the designation of lands that were private or were used or
proposed for activities that would not be conducive to conservation
(e.g., development) while ensuring that sufficient lands were
designated in each unit to enable the unit to serve its conservation
function. We ensured that our designation included areas distributed
throughout the geographic range of the species and encompassed the
habitat variation in elevation, soil types, plant communities, and
distance from the coast (inland versus coastal) present in P. yadonii
occupied habitat.
2. Comment: One peer reviewer supported our inclusion of multiple
subunits east of Highway 101 in the Prunedale Hills (Unit 3). The peer
reviewer agreed with the Service's reasons for including these subunits
(to conserve genetic variation and prevent range collapse) and further
stated that the plant community at these somewhat xeric, less coastally
influenced sites may be more stable in the long term, with slower rates
of successional conversion to oak woodland, than those sites to the
west. The peer reviewer stated that gradual, successional loss of
suitable habitat may be a significant threat over the long term and
suggested that, at a minimum, we scan high-resolution aerial
photographs of currently occupied sites to identify and delineate
regions where patches of broken canopy and scattered areas of bare
ground are visible. The peer reviewer provided historical and current
aerial photography of four subunits in chaparral and one subunit in
Monterey pine forest to support the assertion that canopy cover
throughout the range of Piperia yadonii has increased since the 1930s
and 1940s.
Our Response: We have considered the information the peer reviewer
provided and agree that increased canopy cover in the ridgetop maritime
chaparral of the Prunedale Hills may threaten Piperia yadonii by
reducing available habitat. We discussed this in the proposed rule
under the ``Background'' and ``Special Management Considerations or
Protections'' sections. Although the vegetation cover in the region in
which Unit 3 is designated may be increasing more slowly than in those
areas to the west (in the region of Units 1 and 2), the natural lands
in and around Unit 3 are also more highly fragmented and developed than
those areas west of Highway 1, around Units 1 and 2. With increasing
development, the opportunities to use vegetation management tools, such
as prescribed fire, which both reduce the vegetation canopy and alter
soil nutrient availability in ways with which the chaparral plant
community has evolved, are much reduced. Given the information we
currently have, that greater fragmentation exists and that known
population sizes of P. yadonii are generally smaller as one moves east
in Unit 3, we are not proposing to increase the size of the subunits in
Unit 3 in an attempt to capture areas of more open canopy. We have
added discussion to the description of Unit 3, recognizing the
potentially slower successional changes in Unit 3, and will consider
this information in making conservation recommendations for the entire
Prunedale Hills area.
3. Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned our decision not to
include in the critical habitat designation those areas where Piperia
yadonii populations inhabit less than 5 acres and are surrounded by
development. One peer reviewer stated that not including these smaller
populations is not conducive to the long-term conservation of the
species, because they may have large impacts on gene flow and genetic
diversity and because they can provide connectivity to larger
populations that we did include in the designation. The peer reviewer
specifically cited areas that support the Fort Ord, Skyline Drive, and
Monterey Airport populations, none of which we included in the
proposal. The peer reviewer urged the Service to work with landowners
and other entities to develop a coordinated conservation strategy for
these smaller populations.
Our Response: We recognize that all populations of Piperia yadonii
may provide conservation value to the species and we indicated this in
the proposed rule, as the Peer Reviewer acknowledged, by stating ``* *
* those populations that have become isolated as a result of
development may contribute to the conservation of the species through
educational, research, and other mechanisms, but overall have a lower
potential for long-term preservation and lesser conservation value to
the species.'' We believe that small areas with surrounding development
have a lower conservation value to the species because they are less
likely to have and maintain the features that are essential to the
conservation of the species. In general, we seek to identify the
minimum amount and optimum distribution of lands that support the PCEs
to designate as critical habitat. Therefore, we did not include all
populations in this designation.
In determining which sites to select, we concluded that those
populations that are in highly developed areas are less likely to act
as intermediaries in facilitating gene flow between populations,
because pollinators are less likely to successfully move through
residential and commercial areas to reach these islands of native
vegetation and because wind-dispersed seeds are less likely to land in
areas suitable for germination in highly fragmented landscapes. Of the
specific sites mentioned by the peer reviewer, the Monterey Airport
property and those fragmented populations along Garden Road are
surrounded by the greatest level of development. The Skyline Drive site
(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) element occurrence (EO)
19) is on the Monterey Peninsula where we designated the larger
expanses of Monterey pine forest with larger populations of P. yadonii
(Subunit 6a) and those smaller sites, like Crocker Grove (Subunit 6d),
that include plant associations not represented elsewhere.
The Fort Ord site in Marina (CNDDB EO 9) had not been found in over
a decade, when a single plant was rediscovered in 2006, while we were
drafting this rule. The second, more recently discovered Fort Ord site,
near the boundary of the Monterey Airport,
[[Page 60412]]
consists of fewer than 10 plants. We recognize that the Fort Ord sites,
particularly the northern one, are geographically isolated from other
concentrations of Piperia yadonii and, if the northern site is found to
support a population, it may therefore harbor genetic diversity not
found elsewhere in the range of P. yadonii. As further information on
the genetic diversity of this species becomes available, we will
evaluate it and refine our conservation strategy for P. yadonii.
However, we cannot determine at this time that the area has the
features that are essential for the conservation of the species. We
recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of
the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for
the recovery of the species. For this reason, critical habitat
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. We will continue to
work with landowners on the conservation of P. yadonii throughout its
range, including in those areas that are not designated as critical
habitat.
4. Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that there are substantial
gaps in the scientific information available on the genetics, seed
dispersal, plant associations, and fire ecology of Piperia yadonii. The
peer reviewer recommended that we collect this data in order to
complete the critical habitat designation and to develop management
strategies for P. yadonii. The peer reviewer provided observations on
the response of two other Piperia species in California to fire. In one
example, a small population of P. leptopetala may have been
substantially reduced in abundance by a chaparral fire and in the
other, a chaparral fire appears to have stimulated the above-ground
expression of P. cooperi.
Our Response: We recognize that information on many attributes of
the life history, genetics, and habitat needs of Piperia yadonii is
extremely limited. Our critical habitat designations are based on the
best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the
designation. As more complete information becomes available for P.
yadonii, we will incorporate it into our recovery strategy for this
species. We appreciate the information the peer reviewer provided on
fire ecology and recognize that genetic research is being conducted
that may influence our understanding of genetic diversity within P.
yadonii. While we do not develop management strategies as part of the
designation of critical habitat, we do consider site-specific
management strategies important to the conservation of the species and
work with land owners, researchers, and others, to develop and
implement them as part of the recovery process.
5. Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we gather more
information on pollinator flight range and seed dispersal in an attempt
to determine if the critical habitat units are close enough to allow
gene flow between them.
Our Response: We have contacted several research scientists who
specialize in moths and have reevaluated the available literature on
pollinators and seed dispersal in orchids. We believe there are no
additional data available, beyond what we cited in the proposed rule,
on either the seed dispersal distances of orchids or the flight
distances of potential pollinators, that would allow us to determine
the likelihood of gene flow between critical habitat units or subunits.
While data on the flight distance of relatively large moths in the
family Sphingidae (sphinx months) exist, very few data are available on
the distances small moths may transport pollen. In our designation, we
attempted to address the need to maintain gene flow between patches of
plants that are within meters of one another. We did so by encompassing
within the same subunits (e.g., in Units 1 and 2) those patches of
Piperia yadonii plants that occur on the same ridgeline in maritime
chaparral, and by encompassing multiple patches of plants within the
same subunits (e.g., in Unit 6) in Monterey pine forest.
6. Comment: Two peer reviewers indicated that genetic diversity was
not adequately considered in the criteria used to designate critical
habitat. One peer reviewer suggested it could be considered a PCE, or
that environmental proxies could be used in the absence of information
on the spatial pattern of genetic variation in Piperia yadonii. One
peer reviewer noted that genetic research on P. yadonii is underway and
some results should soon be available.
Our Response: We agree that little is known about the spatial
pattern of genetic variation in Piperia yadonii populations, and we are
aware of, and are interested in, the genetic research on P. yadonii
being conducted. Based on the Act, PCEs are always habitat features
rather than intrinsic population characteristics. Therefore, genetic
diversity cannot be considered a PCE. However, in this designation, we
did consider that genetic variation may be a reflection of
environmental variation. We have attempted to encompass variation in
habitat, as an indicator of populations that may be exposed to
differing selective pressures, and therefore may have diverged
genetically and represent a range of genetic variation in P. yadonii.
As we discussed in the proposed rule under ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat,'' our methods included designating sites that
encompass the range of elevational differences, plant communities, and
soil types in which P. yadonii occurs.
7. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the designation should be
more conservation-oriented toward Piperia yadonii, given that the
species is dependent on biological associates, such as mycorhizzal
(fungal) associates, Monterey pines, and pollinators. The peer reviewer
indicated that these close associations make Piperia yadonii more
vulnerable to environmental changes, such as climate change. The peer
reviewer, therefore, recommended that the rule contain larger areas and
additional areas beyond what was included in the proposed designation.
Our Response: We recognize that relatively little specific
information exists on the relationship of Piperia yadonii to other
biological associates within its habitat and the vulnerability of those
associates to broad-scale environmental changes, such as forest
structure changes due to pathogens or climate change. We previously
funded research on P. yadonii's breeding system and pollinators in an
effort to determine the need for, and potential vulnerability of,
pollinators. This research found that P. yadonii requires pollinators
to set seed and is, therefore, highly dependent on pollinators, and
that several of the likely pollinators of P. yadonii in the Monterey
pine forest are moth species that have broad ranges and habitat
preferences. Therefore, we are less concerned about the potential for
environmental changes to affect pollinators in the Monterey pine forest
plant communities. We recognize that little is known about the relative
importance of the various species that pollinate P. yadonii, and that
virtually nothing is known about pollination of P. yadonii in maritime
chaparral. Therefore we have attempted to encompass the mosaic of
adjacent plant community types in which patches of P. yadonii occur.
Recognizing that larger sized units may potentially reduce the risk to
P. yadonii from environmental change, we have attempted to designate as
critical habitat areas of sufficient size to accommodate potential
environmental changes. We have included reference to climate change in
the discussion of how the PCEs were derived, but have not increased the
size of any units beyond what we proposed.
[[Page 60413]]
8. Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the uncertainty of
Piperia yadonii's actual range, its patchy distribution, and expected
impacts of climate change constitute sufficient justification to
designate units outside P. yadonii's known range. The peer reviewer did
not provide specific suggestions of locations that should be included.
Our Response: While we generally agree with the rationale presented
by the reviewer, we only designate critical habitat in areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
where the best available information indicates that these areas are
essential to the conservation of the species. We have included areas
throughout the range of Piperia yadonii within this designation,
although not every population has been included. Within each portion of
P. yadonii's range, we reviewed known locations and surrounding habitat
that support the PCEs. Based on our current information, we have
concluded that there are no areas outside the species' known range that
are essential to the conservation of the species and that therefore
should be included in the designation.
Comments From the Public
9. Comment: Two commenters noted the thoroughness and quality of
the technical information in the background section of the proposed
rule and in the discussion of the PCEs and generally supported a
designation of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii. However, one
commenter questioned why the proposed designation did not include all
or part of every occurrence of P. yadonii. They recommended that the
designation include all occurrences of P. yadonii and urged the Service
to add suitable unoccupied habitat to the designation.
Our Response: See response to comment 3, above.
10. Comment: Several commenters stated that the level of detail in
the maps provided was insufficient to determine what proposed areas are
included or not included in the designation, both on the Monterey
Peninsula and in northern Monterey County.
Our Response: We agree that it is often difficult to distinguish
unit boundaries based on the resolution of maps published in the
Federal Register. To provide additional clarity, we attempted to
include adequate descriptions of the units in the proposed rule. We
have reviewed those unit descriptions and have provided additional
clarifying information to them in this final designation. For example,
for units on the Peninsula, we included area names used in the
environmental impact report for the Pebble Beach Company's proposed
development (Monterey County 2005). The public can request more
explicit maps of the designation by contacting our office using any one
of the methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
listed above.
11. Comment: One commenter requested that the 6-acre portion of
Stevenson School campus be deleted from critical habitat Subunit 6a, on
the Monterey Peninsula, because the school intends to convert the
property to an athletic field for student use in the future. The
commenter states that, due to the property's small size and location,
this area is not essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii, that
enough habitat is being conserved on the Monterey Peninsula via the
Pebble Beach Company's proposed mitigation for their development plan,
and that the inclusion of school property in the proposed designation
will have adverse impacts on the school. They provided materials
describing the school and its proposed site plan.
Our Response: As we developed the designation, we evaluated all
areas on the Monterey Peninsula that support the PCEs, including the
area owned by Stevenson School. The Monterey Peninsula is the center of
distribution of Piperia yadonii and supports over 70 percent of all
known plants. The Stevenson School property supports Monterey pine
forest contiguous with a larger extent of Monterey pine forest
encompassed within Subunit 6a. Because of its connection to other
Monterey pine forest with a natural understory, we do not consider it
too small to have the features that are essential to the conservation
of P. yadonii. Although it has abundant shrub cover in some areas, in
other areas it supports a more open herbaceous understory with
scattered patches of P. yadonii (Steeck, 2007). We evaluated the
materials submitted by the commenter and the potential economic costs
to Stevenson School from the proposed designation in our draft economic
analysis. Based on the School's proposed plans for the site, we have
decided to exclude this property from the final designation of critical
habitat (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below
for more information). We are available to work with Stevenson School
representatives on the conservation and recovery of P. yadonii and
their future school development plans.
12. Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat on the
Pebble Beach Company's property should include only those areas
designated by the Pebble Beach Company for conservation purposes. They
asserted that other areas are not essential to the conservation of P.
yadonii. They provided specific recommendations for modifications to
several subunits, including excising all current and proposed roads
that pass through the subunits of Unit 6.
Our Response: We reviewed the materials submitted and grouped the
requested modifications into four categories: (a) Requests to remove
all current and proposed roads from the subunits of Unit 6; (b) small
adjustment in boundaries where the designation appeared to extend
beyond the boundaries of a proposed conservation or open space area
into, or just beyond, existing roads or the golf course; (c) requests
to remove areas supporting existing Monterey pine forest that the
commenter indicates are ``lots of record'' but that Monterey County
required be conserved, as mitigation, in the final environmental impact
report (Monterey County 2005) for the Pebble Beach Company's proposed
development; and (d) more substantial modifications, which we
individually discuss in the response to Comment 13, below.
We addressed the former three categories in the following ways:
(a) Roads: The Service does not typically map critical habitat at
this level of detail, due to the time involved in attempting to exclude
small, linear areas that lack the PCEs and would divide polygons. Lands
covered by roads or other structures that do not support the PCEs are
excluded by text in the final rule, as explained in the Mapping
section. We recognize that some roads currently exist, but that
adjustments to their current alignments are proposed that would
eliminate habitat containing the PCEs. We have excluded, under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act, proposed and existing roads in Unit 6 in
recognition of the conservation agreement signed by the Service and
Pebble Beach Company. This agreement and the exclusions are discussed
further in the section, Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved
Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below.
See Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for more information.
(b) We have made some adjustments to the boundary of critical
habitat in Subunit 6a around the corporate yard (a proposed development
parcel (Monterey County 2005)), along Congress Road near the quarry
site (extension of
[[Page 60414]]
boundary over a road), and north of area I-1 (where a relatively
recently constructed structure is visible in 2005 aerial photography).
(c) We have excluded areas within Subunits 6a and 6c, including
those referred to by the Pebble Beach Company as areas F-1, J, and part
of Area L, that support the PCEs of critical habitat and are identified
as required mitigation areas, with some allowance for development, in
the FEIR for Pebble Beach Company's proposed development (Monterey
County 2005). We make these exclusions in recognition of the
conservation agreement signed by the Service and Pebble Beach Company.
This agreement and the exclusions are discussed further in the section,
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below. See Summary of
Changes from Proposed Rule, below, for more information.
13. Comment: A commenter representing the Pebble Beach Company
suggested that we consider that two areas included in Unit 6 of the
proposal, Indian Village/Area L (Subunit 6c) and Area B (Subunit 6e),
contain greater shrub cover or riparian habitat than Piperia yadonii
typically prefers. They also recommended we remove a portion of Subunit
6a referred to as Area D and reduce Unit 4 (Aguajito), to encompass
only the suitable low-growing maritime chaparral habitat contiguous
with the existing occurrence.
Our Response: We have retained both Area B and its adjacent
forested areas in Subunit 6e, as well as part of Area L and adjacent
forest (Indian Village) in subunit 6c in this designation, because they
contain the PCEs for Piperia yadonii. We have concluded that these
areas have the features that are essential to conserve P. yadonii. We
have excluded 2 ac (0.8 ha) of Subunit 6e (Area B) and about 9 acres (4
ha) of Area L in recognition of the overall benefits that designated
critical habitat areas will receive under the conservation agreement
signed by the Service and the Pebble Beach Company (see the section
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for a discussion of
this exclusion).
For Unit 4 (Aguajito), we have reviewed the habitat proposed in the
subunits and have considered the unique nature of the maritime
chaparral on the shale and sandstone-derived soils within a large
expanse of maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest and concluded
that the subunits we are designating contain the features essential to
the conservation of P. yadonii. However, we have excluded 49 acres of
this unit in recognition of the overall benefits that Unit 4 will
receive under the conservation agreement signed by the Service and the
Pebble Beach Company (see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat
to Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act below for a discussion of this exclusion).
We have reviewed the habitat in subunit 6a, Area D, and agree with
the commenter that it does not contain the features essential for the
conservation of Piperia yadonii. We conclude that the dominance of
coast live oak and open canopy with relatively few Monterey pines makes
it less suitable for P. yadonii. Therefore, we have removed 35 ac (14
ha) of Subunit 6a that do not contain the PCEs from this final critical
habitat designation. See Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below,
for more information.
14. Comment: Three commenters recommended expansion of Subunit 6a
to include Area F-2, about 17 acres (7 ha) in Area F3, and an
additional 13 ac (5 ha) of Area PQR, as defined in the Pebble Beach
Company's proposed development.
Our Response: We did not propose or designate Areas F-2, most of F-
3, or the 13 ac (5 ha) in PQR because these locations support fewer
Piperia yadonii plants compared to other locations in the Del Monte
Forest that we are designating as critical habitat. These areas are
also proposed for development by the Pebble Beach Company. Although we
proposed conservation area F-1 as critical habitat, it is part of the
exclusion we are making in this final designation, based on the
conservation agreement we have signed with the Pebble Beach Company.
See the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management
Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for a
discussion of this exclusion. Please also see our response to Comment 1
and 18.
15. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service should expand
Subunit 6b to include all of Area MNOUV, which supports one of the two
largest occurrences of Piperia yadonii known to exist. Area MNOUV is
the name given to the collective areas that support 116 acres of
Monterey pine forest and are proposed for development as a golf course
by the Pebble Beach Company. The commenter referred to language in our
proposed designation in which we indicated that the conservation role
of P. yadonii critical habitat units is to support viable core
populations. The commenter stated that Area MNOUV supports one of two
viable core populations on the Peninsula and, as such, the Service
should follow its own guidelines and include it in the designation.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 18 for a
description of how we designated critical habitat. We recognize that
Subunit 6b is just one part of the large Piperia yadonii population
found in Area MNOUV. Area MNOUV supports one of the two largest
occurrences known to exist and is distributed within the second largest
expanse of Monterey pine forest known to support P. yadonii. However,
the Service determined the area did not have the features that are
essential to the conservation of the species. We determined the
quantity and spatial characteristics of habitat needed for
conservation, and this area was determined not to meet the definition
of critical habitat. Please also see our response to Comment 1.
16. Comment: One commenter asked if Subunits 3b and 3c were
verified to support Piperia yadonii.
Our Response: According to data supplied by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) during the preparation of the
proposed rule (Robison 2006), populations of Piperia yadonii in
Subunits 3b and 3c were visited while in flower and were verified to
support the species.
17. Comment: One commenter provided observations of habitat and
population conditions of Piperia yadonii in and around Subunit 3a and
suggested the designation be expanded to include a site near Subunit 3a
that may contain many more P. yadonii than previously documented. The
commenter stated that the planning process for the parcel where the
population occurs did not appear to involve adequate surveys for P.
yadonii, because the surveys were conducted during the fall. The
commenter provided suggestions for protecting this site.
Our Response: We appreciate the technical information supplied and
have incorporated it into the discussion of Subunit 3a, where
appropriate. The population in question near Subunit 3a should be
surveyed to get a positive identification of the Piperia species
occurring there. Because we cannot determine at this time that the area
meets the definition of critical habitat, we are not designating it in
this final rule. The process of designating critical habitat does not
involve the creation of preserves or management strategies; however, we
frequently provide conservation recommendations to local agencies, and
work with Federal
[[Page 60415]]
agencies through the section 7 consultation process, as we promote
recovery of listed species. We will consider the technical information
and suggestions provided by the commenter in planning and implementing
recovery for this species.
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis
18. Comment: The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) fails to present a
baseline that describes the conditions that would exist in the absence
of critical habitat designation. Specifically, NPCC commented that the
DEA estimated a large portion of the costs would be incurred by the
Pebble Beach Company (PBC), but PBC would incur these costs with or
without designation. While the DEA ``directly attributed'' PBC's costs
of invasive species control to designation, invasive species control
provides many benefits, is required by CEQA, and was conducted in all
areas, whether or not the species was present. Others commented that
the DEA attributes delays to the designation that might be due to other
sources.
Our Response: The Final Economic Analysis (FEA) includes an
Appendix which describes impacts expected to result because of the
designation of critical habitat. That is, the Appendix presents the
incremental impacts that would not be expected to occur in the absence
of critical habitat. This appendix recognizes that most of the impacts
quantified as coextensive impacts in the report are expected to occur
regardless of the designation of critical habitat.
19. Comment: The DEA makes no attempt to estimate how many projects
or actions would involve a Federal nexus in the 20-year analysis and
that the FEA should base estimates on such a prediction.
Our Response: Appendix A of the FEA identifies projects that
involve a Federal nexus to estimate the incremental impacts of the
designation apart from the coextensive impacts quantified in the DEA.
20. Comment: It is unlikely that the restriction on development in
unit 2b is due to the proposed rule. It is also unlikely that the
development in unit 2b would have been completely prevented.
Our Response: The DEA does not attribute these impacts from lost
development to the proposed rule, but describes them as impacts
``coextensive'' with the designation of critical habitat. The FEA
includes an Appendix describing incremental impacts. As described in
Appendix A, the foregone development impacts in unit 2 are not
considered to be incremental impacts of the critical habitat
designation. Further, in the specific case of the proposed development
in unit 2b, the FEA omits most of the impact from lost development that
was originally included in the DEA, as information suggests it is
unlikely that the entity will be prevented from developing.
21. Comment: To estimate the cost of delay, the DEA solely relies
on conversations with the developer and uses an interest rate of
fifteen percent without explanation.
Our Response: The DEA relied as much as possible on the County
Planning and Building Department to determine what development had
occurred in the past, what development was currently under review, and
what development was planned for the future. The developer provided
reasonable estimates of delay time. An interest rate of fifteen percent
is a standard interest rate used to calculate the risk adjusted cost of
capital to private developers.
22. Comment: The DEA estimates on page 34 and 44 costs to PBC of as
much as $4.5 million associated with invasive species control.
Commenter states that it is unclear how the overall $4.5 million figure
was determined.
Our Response: The DEA does not include any estimated impacts of
$4.5 million as described. Total impacts to the PBC over 20 years in
undiscounted dollars of invasive species removal efforts is estimated
to be $0.97 million in units 4 and 5 (see page 34 of the DEA) and $2.87
million in unit 6 (see page 44 of the DEA). As cited in footnotes 92
and 104 of the DEA, impacts to the PBC are based on annual budget
estimates provided by PBC.
23. Comment: Commenter states that the DEA does not evaluate the
evidence the Stevenson School provided on the large adverse impacts to
the School. The commenter also noted that DEA does not comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) or Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Act (SBREFA) as it does not adequately analyze the impacts to the
Stevenson School.
Our Response: The FEA incorporates the previous comments made by
the Stevenson School and evaluates impacts of piperia conservation on
the School. Section V.F of the FEA estimates impacts to range from
$0.006 million to $9.2 million (present value, three percent discount
rate) as a result of possible restrictions on the implementation of the
School's Master Plan. The FEA also considers the impacts to the
Stevenson School in the RFA and SBREFA.
Comments from the State
24. Comment: The California Coastal Commission questioned why the
critical habitat designation on the Monterey Peninsula did not include
any areas proposed for development by the Pebble Beach Company,
including that part of the Monterey pine forest that supports roughly
one-third of the known population of Piperia yadonii and is proposed
for a golf course. The Coastal Commission noted that the Service
provided no biological justification for the absence of this area in
the designation. They recommended that the critical habitat be redrawn
to include Monterey pine forest areas on the Monterey Peninsula that
support P. yadonii and its habitat.
Our Response: During the process of selecting critical habitat
boundaries, we determined the PCEs for the species, and identified the
quantity and spatial characteristics of PCEs needed for conservation.
These are the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. In determining the appropriate spatial
arrangement of PCEs, we identified areas where there were conflicts
with development projects and assessed the likelihood of the species'
persistence and recovery absent designation of those areas. We
determined that there was sufficient habitat for the species
conservation without these lands. Therefore, our critical habitat
designation does not include Pebble Beach Company development lands.
We used a multi-step process to identify and delineate critical
habitat units. First, we reviewed and mapped all known occurrences of
Piperia yadonii, using the best available information. Next, we
determined the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. To do this we defined the PCEs and then
determined which areas contain PCEs that are essential to the
conservation of the species. We evaluated which occupied areas were
most likely to contribute to the long-term persistence of the species.
We focused on locations with larger occurrences in larger areas of
contiguous native habitat (greater than 5 acres (2 ha), see below) that
are more likely to support intact ecosystem processes and biotic
assemblages, provide areas for population growth, and opportunities for
colonization of adjacent areas. We then selected sites with the PCEs
that: (a) Represented the geographic range of the species; (b) captured
peripheral populations; (c) included the range of plant communities and
soil types in which P.
[[Page 60416]]
yadonii is found; (d) encompassed the elevation range over which the
species occurs; and (e) maintained the connectivity of occurrences that
grow on continuous ridgelines. From these areas we selected populations
are most likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the
species' survival and recovery. Other areas that we determined to have
the PCEs, that were not included in the proposed designation or this
final designation, did not have the features that are essential to the
conservation of the species. For more information on how critical
habitat was determined, see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section, below.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for Piperia
yadonii, we reviewed and considered comments from the public and peer
reviewers on the proposed designation of critical habitat published on
October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546), and public comments on the draft
economic analysis published on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). As a
result of comments received on the proposed rule and the DEA, and a
reevaluation of the proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
changes to our proposed designation, as follows:
(1) Based on exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
reduced the size of several subunits of Unit 6 on the Monterey
Peninsula and both subunits of Unit 4 (Aguajito) as discussed in
responses to Comments 12 and 13 and in recognition of the development
of a conservation agreement signed by the Service and the Pebble Beach
Company. Collectively, this resulted in a reduction of Unit 6 from
1,059 acres (428 ha) to 920 acres (372 ha) and Unit 4 from 157 acres
(63.5 ha) to 108 acres (43.7 ha). The acreages of the changes are
provided in Table 2. We also excluded the Stevenson School for economic
reasons. Further discussion of the conservation agreement and
exclusions under the Act can be found later in this document starting
with the section Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(2) We added the names of parcels of land, where available, to the
unit descriptions, to help readers understand the boundaries of the
designation, given the rather low resolution of the maps. We added
technical information, as discussed in the comments, to the
descriptions of Unit 3.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means
to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided under the Act are 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(a)(2) of the Act requires
consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public
access to private lands. Section 7 of the Act is a purely protective
measure and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species must first have features
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (areas on which are found the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Unoccupied areas can be designated as critical habitat. However, we
will designate unoccupied areas only when the best available scientific
data demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require
additional areas.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, the Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by
the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the
best scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal
that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be
required for recovery.
Areas that support populations of Piperia yadonii, but are outside
the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to
conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted 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 plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
[[Page 60417]]
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports
and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local agencies, and
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data
submitted to the CNDDB. We have also reviewed available information
that pertains to the ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of
this species. This material included information and data in peer-
reviewed articles, reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations,
reports submitted during section 7 consultations, the recovery plan for
P. yadonii, and information received from local species experts. We did
not designate as critical habitat any areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing.
The range of Piperia yadonii extends through Monterey County from
the Las Lomas area near the Santa Cruz County border in the north to
approximately 15 miles (25 kilometers) south of the Monterey Peninsula
near Palo Colorado Canyon (Morgan and Ackerman 1990, 208-210; Allen
1996, unpaginated). This range has been divided into the following five
geographic areas for the purposes of recovery planning efforts: (1) The
Monterey Peninsula; (2) the area interior of the Monterey Peninsula;
(3) northern Monterey County-Prunedale-Elkhorn; (4) the Point Lobos
Ranch area; and (5) the Palo Colorado Canyon area (USFWS 2004, pp. 16-
26, 50-52). We make reference to these geographic areas when describing
the locations of P. yadonii populations and lands in this critical
habitat designation.
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 consider those physical or biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require
special management considerations or 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 specific PCEs required for Piperia yadonii are derived from the
biological needs of P. yadonii as described in the Background section
of the proposed rule and below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for Seed
Dispersal and Germination
Piperia yadonii depends on adequate space for growth, reproduction
between near and far neighbors, and for movement of seeds via wind to
unoccupied microsites within populations, to population boundaries, and
to new sites. Once dispersed, seeds must settle into sites with
characteristics appropriate for germination, including the presence of
fungal associates necessary for post-germination development. Maritime
chaparral and pine forest communities in which P. yadonii and its
fungal symbionts occur, exhibit considerable variability in vegetation
density, species composition, and unvegetated gaps such that microsites
appropriate for germination and growth are distributed unevenly
throughout this mosaic.
Plant communities such as maritime chaparral, Monterey pine forest,
and coast live oak woodland are dynamic; in the absence of fire,
maritime chaparral succeeds to oak woodland in mesic sites and to low-
diversity stands of large old-age manzanitas in drier sites (Van Dyke
et al. 2001). The patchy distribution of P. yadonii in a given forest
or chaparral site in a single year is a reflection of the habitat
conditions at that particular time. Habitat sites that contain the same
soil characteristics and plant community may become suitable and
occupied in future decades as vegetation structure changes due to shrub
or tree death and growth or herbivore population sizes or movements. In
the same manner, a currently occupied location may diminish in value
due to these changing conditions. The mosaic of vegetation height,
density, and species composition in a given area provides opportunities
for gene flow between occurrences of P. yadonii through seed dispersal
on prevailing winds, and promotes continuation of ecosystem processes,
such as the biological interactions necessary to maintain forest canopy
and dominant manzanita species, and pollinator assemblages.
Maintaining large and small populations of Piperia yadonii is
essential for the long-term conservation of the species. Large
occurrences of plants and those with higher densities of individuals
are more likely to attract insect pollinators necessary for the
production of viable seed and promote gene flow (Kunin 1997, p. 232-
233) and withstand periodic extreme environmental stresses (e.g.,
drought, disease), and may act as important ``source'' populations to
allow recolonization of surrounding areas following periodic extreme
environmental stresses. Small populations of plants may serve as
corridors for gene flow between larger populations, and may harbor
greater levels of genetic diversity than predicted for their size
(Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 172-175).
Nutritional and Physiological Requirements, Including Light and Soil
Requirements
Piperia yadonii occurs in maritime chaparral, a coastal shrub
association dominated by endemic species of manzanitas. It is most
often found on ridges where exposed sandstone or decomposed granitic
soils are shallow and where the dominant manzanita species are low-
growing (preliminary measurements indicate an average of 6 inches (15
centimeters) tall (Graff 2006, pp. 5-6)), allowing P. yadonii leaves to
receive filtered sun and the inflorescence to extend above the
decumbent manzanita branches. In the Elkhorn-Prunedale area, the
transition from the low-growing manzanitas of the ridgetops to the
surrounding slopes that support deeper soils and higher vegetation
canopies is often abrupt (Van Dyke et al. 2001, p. 222).
Although Piperia yadonii grows among manzanitas, the specific
manzanita species vary among the geographic areas within the species
range. Hooker's manzanita (Arctostyphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri) is the
manzanita species with which P. yadonii most commonly grows at its most
northern distribution in the hills around Prunedale. Pajaro manzanita
(A. pajaroensis) and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) are other
dominant shrubs in maritime chaparral there. On and south of the
Monterey Peninsula, several manzanitas (A. hookeri, A. tomentosa, and
A. glandulosa ssp. zacaensis) are reportedly the dominant shrubs among
which it grows (Graff 2006, p. 4; EcoSystems West 2006, p. 64). Other
species of manzanita (A. glandulosa) and manzanita hybrids are
[[Page 60418]]
the dominant low-growing forms at the southernmost occurrence of P.
yadonii near Palo Colorado Canyon, where Hooker's manzanita is absent
(Norman 1995, Graff 2006, p. 4).
In Monterey pine forest, Piperia yadonii grows through pine needle
duff where the native herbaceous vegetation cover is typically sparse,
but diverse, and the Monterey pine canopy is of moderate density (20 to
70 percent on the Monterey Peninsula), providing filtered sunlight to
the forest floor (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 62-68). The understory
plant species most frequently associated with P. yadonii in the
Monterey pine forest are the perennial herb common sanicle (Sanicula
laciniata), leafy bent grass (Agrostis pallens), and spindly forms of
bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus). In a habitat characterization
of P. yadonii on the Monterey Peninsula, microsites occupied by P.
yadonii had five times greater cover by other native geophytes
(perennial plants with underground storage organs, such as bulbs,
tubers, or corms), such as golden brodiaea (Tritelia ixiodes), blue
dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), and mariposa lilies (Calochortus spp.)
than did microsites lacking P. yadonii. Where a maritime chaparral
understory exists with scattered pines, P. yadonii occurs with other
native herbs in gaps between the shrubs. It occurs in similar gaps
associated with trails and fire roads in the Bishop pine-Gowen cypress
forest stand within the Monterey pine forest on the Monterey Peninsula.
It is not typically found in areas with a coast live oak canopy or
those with high understory cover of shrubs or vines (EcoSystems West
2006, pp. 50-51, 62-68).
It is likely that in some areas the composition and cover of the
Monterey pine herbaceous understory may remain relatively stable for
decades due to abiotic factors (e.g., soils, hydrology); in others,
these appropriate microhabitats may be ephemeral, disappearing as
shrubs establish or increase in size and appearing elsewhere when
understory fire; burrowing, trailing, and browsing animals; or shrub
death, create new gaps. Areas should be of sufficient size to sustain
the plant communities in which Piperia yadonii grows, given that
climate change may eventually alter forest composition (and thus
availability of filtered sunlight), available soil moisture, and
mycorrhizal associates (Perry et al. 1990, pp. 266-274; Field et al.
1999, pp. 1-3; Noss 2001, pp. 581-586).
Although soils supporting native mycorrhizal symbionts are believed
to be a requirement for successful growth in Piperia yadonii, this is
not a habitat feature easily observable in the field or about which we
have specific information. Therefore, we have not included it as a
primary constituent element for P. yadonii, but assume that mycorrhizal
associates will be represented in areas that encompass appropriate
vegetation and soils.
Piperia yadonii occupies soils that are primarily characterized as
sands, fine sands, and sandy loams by the Soil Conservation Service
mapping (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1978, maps;
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26). Soils where P. yadonii occurs in the
Monterey pine forest are typically characterized as sands, rather than
loams and, on the Monterey Peninsula, are frequently underlain by a
claypan that is 1 to 5 feet (0.3 to 1.5 m) below the surface (USDA
1978, pp. 53-54; Jones and Stokes Associates 1994b, pp. 16-21;
EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 23-26)). In a comparison of Monterey pine
forest sites on and east of the Monterey Peninsula, P. yadonii was
present in soils that tended to have lower organic matter, lower
nutrient levels, and lower summer soil moisture levels than areas where
it was absent (EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 43, 59-61). It is not known if
P. yadonii actually prefers nutrient-poor soils or if it is unable to
compete with the denser understory vegetation found on more nutrient-
rich soils. The presence of P. yadonii is correlated with the drier of
the forest soils. It is not found in riparian areas or wetlands on the
Monterey Peninsula (Allen, unpaginated; EcoSystems West 2006, pp. 59-
61, 64-65).
In the maritime chaparral at its northern distributional limit,
Piperia yadonii occurs on ridges supporting shallow, weathered, sandy
soils with sandstone outcrops, where shrubs are small-statured (USDA
1978, pp. 10-11; Allen 1996 unpaginated; Graff 2006, p. 4). The average
shrub canopy height in areas where P. yadonii occurs on these ridges is
about 6 inches, according to preliminary sampling (Graff 2006, pp 5-6).
Soils in this region are typically derived from weathered marine
deposits. These sites often support cryptogamic soil crusts (soil
surface communities primarily composed of cyanobacteria, lichens,
mosses, and algae) (Graff 2006, p. 4). Cryptogamic crusts have been
found to increase nutrient availability to plants, reduce erosion,
improve plant-water relations, and provide germination and seedling
growth sites (USDA 1997, pp. 8-11).
Pollinators
Piperia yadonii also requires pollinators for the production of
viable seeds (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 15). Size and
configuration of plant populations, and associated flowering species,
may influence the degree to which pollinators are attracted to an area
(Sipes and Tepedino 1995, p. 937). The abundance of pollinators may
affect reproductive success and persistence of small plant populations
(Groom 1998, pp. 487-495). As a group, the reproductive output of
orchids is limited by pollinator availability or activity (Tremblay et
al. 2005, p. 24), and P. yadonii had reduced seed set under natural
pollination as compared to manual pollination (Doak and Graff 2001, p.
12-13), an indication that seed set in this species may be pollinator
limited. When populations of flowering individuals are small or
flowering is restricted to a specific season, the individual plant
population may not be able to sustain a population of insect
pollinators by itself (Groom 1998, pp. 493-495); therefore, habitats
that support a variety of other flowering plant species that provide
nectar and pollen sources throughout spring and summer for pollinator
populations are likely needed to sustain P. yadonii populations.
Doak and Graff (2001, p. 13) found that pollinators of Piperia
yadonii are predominantly nocturnal, short-tongued moths (e.g., in the
families Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, Pterophoridae) that are
most active between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Some of these
pollinator species (e.g., Agrotis ipsilon, Udea profundalis) are
generalists regarding larval host plants, but others (e.g., Elpiste
marcescaria, Drepanulatrix baueraia) feed on specific host plants in
the larval stage (e.g., coyote bush, wild lilac, respectively). Piperia
yadonii exists within several plant communities that sustain insect
pollinators. They do so by supporting those flowering plant species
needed by pollinators as larval hosts or nectar sources (e.g.,
coyotebush, wild lilac, and species in the mint family).
Primary Constituent Elements for Piperia yadonii
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical or biological features (Primary Constituent Elements; PCEs,
laid out in sufficient quantity and appropriate spatial arrangement for
conservation) essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All
areas being designated as critical habitat for P. yadonii are occupied,
within the species' historic
[[Page 60419]]
geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support life history
functions for this species.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the Piperia yadonii PCEs are:
1. A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy
soils:
a. Coastal pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with a canopy
cover of 20 to 70 percent, and a sparse herbaceous understory on
Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams,
Tangair fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams and Chamise shaley
clay loams underlain by a hardpan; or
b. Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrubs (primarily
Hooker's manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams,
Narlon sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur
complex, Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez
complex often underlain by rock outcroppings.
2. Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
This designation is designed for the conservation of areas
supporting the PCEs necessary to support the life history functions
that were the basis for the proposal. In general, critical habitat
units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to support
one or more of the species' life history functions. Each area
designated in this rule has been determined to contain sufficient PCEs
to provide for one or more of the life history functions of P. yadonii.
Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs, not all
critical habitat will uniformly contain all the PCEs.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain features
that are essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. This
includes information from the final listing rule; data from research
and survey observations published in peer-reviewed articles; reports
and survey forms prepared for Federal, State, and local agencies, and
private corporations; site visits; regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) layers, including soil and species coverages; and data
submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We are
not designating as critical habitat any areas outside the geographical
area presently occupied by the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of this species. This
material included information and data in peer-reviewed articles,
reports of monitoring and habitat characterizations, reports submitted
during section 7 consultations, our recovery plan, and information
received from local species experts.
We are designating critical habitat on lands within the geographic
area occupied by the species at the time of listing that continues to
be occupied to date. All critical habitat units contain habitat with
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. We did not
designate any units that are unoccupied.
We used a multi-step process to identify and delineate critical
habitat units. First, we mapped and reviewed all known occurrences of
Piperia yadonii, using the best available information. To be meaningful
for the purposes of determining critical habitat units, survey
information had to be evaluated in light of the species' life history.
Not all individuals produce leaves or flower every year. A below-ground
P. yadonii tuber can do one of four things in any given year: Die,
remain dormant, send up leaves but not flower, or leaf out and flower
(Graff 2006, pp. 7 and 8). The length of tuber dormancy is not known,
but may be from 1 to 4 years based upon data from other orchid species
with a similar life history. The P. yadonii flower is diagnostic (with
regard to other Piperia species), and the proportion of vegetative
plants that flower in any given year has been estimated to be from 0.4
percent to 22 percent (Graff 2006, p. 8), with the lowest estimates
coming from those in the chaparral community. Thus it is difficult to
precisely determine the extent and abundance of the species both within
individual occurrences and throughout its geographic range. Because a
positive identification requires a flowering individual, we did not
include any occurrences in the designation that had not been identified
during the flowering season as P. yadonii.
Occurrence information included the results of several different
types of surveys for the species in various locations within its range.
Allen (1996, unpaginated) conducted a two-consecutive-year survey to
better understand the extent of the range, distribution, and overall
population size of the species. The Allen (1996) study estimated
populations of Piperia yadonii within polygons overlaid on topographic
maps, but did not indicate areas where the author looked for, but did
not find occurrences. Graff (2006, e.g., pp. 14 and 15) developed a
long-term monitoring program for P. yadonii, using specific test plots
in several areas featuring known occurrences, and georeferenced
individual patches of P. yadonii. Various other surveys were designed
and conducted for specific purposes, including assessing potential land
subdivisions/development projects and potential State highway
realignment. In the case of Pebble Beach Company lands on the Monterey
Peninsula and areas inland from the peninsula, intensive surveys have
been conducted in multiple years to aid in formulating their Del Monte
Forest Preservation and Development Plan.
Next, we evaluated which occupied areas were most likely to
contribute to the long-term persistence of the species. We focused on
locations with larger occurrences in larger areas of contiguous native
habitat (greater than 5 acres (2 ha), see below) that are more likely
to support intact ecosystem processes and biotic assemblages, provide
areas for population growth, and opportunities for colonization of
adjacent areas. These areas also have the highest likelihood of
persisting through the environmental extremes that characterize
California's climate and of retaining the genetic variability to
withstand future introduced stressors (e.g., new diseases, pathogens,
or climate change). We believe that areas less than 5 acres in size
that are surrounded by high-density development (e.g., office parks,
residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and parking lots) and
have become isolated as a result of development may contribute to the
conservation of the species through educational, research, and other
mechanisms, but overall have a lower potential for long-term
preservation and lesser conservation value to the species. Therefore,
we do not believe these areas have the features essential to the
conservation of the species and thus we did not further consider these
areas in the designation. Although we have not included these areas
within the critical habitat designation, because they are occupied they
may still receive protection under other provisions of the Act.
We then selected sites from among the data set resulting from the
above evaluation that contain the features essential to the
conservation of Piperia yadonii, and may require special management
considerations or
[[Page 60420]]
protection. These areas result in a designation that: (a) Represents
the geographic range of the species; (b) captures peripheral
populations; (c) includes the range of plant communities and soil types
in which P. yadonii is found; (d) encompasses the elevation range over
which the species occurs; and (e) maintains the connectivity of
occurrences that grow on continuous ridgelines.
Species and plant communities that are protected across their
ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and
Simberloff 1986; Scott et al. 2001, pp.1297-1300); therefore, essential
habitat should include multiple locations across the entire range of
the species to prevent range collapse. Protecting peripheral or
isolated populations is highly desirable because they may contain
genetic variation not found in core populations. The genetic variation
results from the effects of population isolation and adaptation to
locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-757;
Fraser 2000, pp. 49-51; Hamrick and Godt, pp. 291-295). We also sought
to include the range of plant communities, soil types, and elevational
gradients in which Piperia yadonii is found to preserve the genetic
variation that may result from adaptation to local environmental
conditions, as documented in other plant species (e.g., see Hamrick and
Godt pp. 299-301; Millar and Libby 1991 pp. 150, 152-155). Finally,
habitat fragmentation can result in loss of genetic variation (Young et
al. 1996, pp. 413-417); therefore, we sought to maintain connectivity
between patches of plants distributed along ridgetops.
In determining the extent of lands necessary to ensure the
conservation and persistence of this species, we identified all areas
that contain PCEs and are either already protected, managed, or
otherwise unencumbered by conflicting use (e.g., undeveloped County or
City parks, proposed preservation areas). These populations are most
likely to persist into the future and to contribute to the species'
survival and recovery. We added ownership categories to the designation
in the following manner: First we included undeveloped Federal and
State lands, then local agency and private lands with recognized
resource conservation emphasis (e.g., lands owned by a conservation-
oriented organization, undeveloped County or City parks), and finally
other agency and private lands.
As a result of the above process, we did not include all occupied
areas in the critical habitat designation. About 13 occurrences or
parts of occurrences, beyond those in the Pebble Beach Company's
proposed development areas, are known to the Service and are not
included in the critical habitat designation: Two of these are in the
Elkhorn-Prunedale area, 10 are on the Monterey Peninsula or interior of
the Monterey Peninsula, and one is in the Point Lobos Ranch area. These
occurrences were not included in the designation due to the above-
discussed reasons of small size, lack of surrounding native or
appropriate habitat, or because we lacked evidence that Piperia yadonii
are extant or accurately identified in those areas.
Mapping
To map the units of critical habitat, we overlaid Piperia yadonii
records on soil series data, topographic contours and, where available,
vegetation data (e.g., maritime chaparral mapped by Van Dyke and Holl
(2003)). Although P. yadonii occurs predominately on soils with a
substantial sand component (e.g., Arnold and Narlon series), the mapped
distribution of such soils extends well beyond the species' range.
Piperia yadonii also frequently occurs in areas of relatively low
relief (typically less than 30 percent slope) along ridgetops or in
patches of low relief amid steeper slopes. Using digital elevation
data, we mapped the distribution of P. yadonii relative to areas with
low relief and found that topographic relief, when combined with soils
and plant community data, is a more accurate predictor of the species'
distribution. Therefore, as a first step, we tailored unit boundaries
using geomorphologic features, vegetation data, and soil series data.
In areas dominated by maritime chaparral, such as the Elkhorn-
Prunedale area, Piperia-yadonii occurs primarily among low-growing
manzanitas on ridgelines underlain by sandstone. In areas with this
geomorphic setting, we determined that digitizing the centerline of the
ridgetops where P. yadonii occurs and adding 150 meters (492 feet) on
either side of the centerline most consistently encompassed known P.
yadonii occurrences, appropriate soils, and suitable habitat contiguous
with known occurrences. The resulting 300 meter-(984 foot-) wide area
encompasses the flat or gently sloping ridgetops with low-growing
manzanitas and the adjacent slopes supporting maritime chaparral. These
ridgetops support the P. yadonii occurrences, areas for population
expansion, germination sites for wind-dispersed seeds, and appropriate
soils. When maritime chaparral did not extend 150 meters from the
centerline of the ridgetop, we used closer geographic (e.g., streams)
and manmade features (e.g., roads, development boundaries, farmed land)
to constrain and more accurately delineate a unit area boundary.
In areas dominated by Monterey pine forest, particularly on the
Monterey Peninsula, topographic features are less distinct, and
consequently less useful for mapping purposes than in the chaparral-
covered hills of northern Monterey County. The Monterey Peninsula's
Monterey pine and Gowen cypress-Bishop pine forest stands exist in an
expanse of residential and recreational development. Additional
residential and recreational development is proposed. As a consequence,
on the Monterey Peninsula, we began by delineating the occurrences as
defined by the most recent set of comprehensive surveys. We then
encompassed the forested stands and fragments that were within existing
or proposed conservation or open space areas. In two locations where
forest connections still existed between forest stands, we included
these to help maintain continued gene flow between Piperia yadonii
occurrences. We also used landscape features such as streams, roads,
and developed areas to delineate unit boundaries on appropriate soils.
Using the above criteria we identified eight units that contain
features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii: Three units
are in north Monterey County in the Elkhorn-Prunedale area; one is on
the Monterey Peninsula; two units are interior from the Monterey
Peninsula; one unit is at Point Lobos Ranch; and the most southerly
unit is near Palo Colorado Canyon.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including within the boundaries of the maps contained within
this rule developed areas, tilled fields, row crops, golf course
turfgrass, buildings, paved areas, and other areas that lack PCEs for
Piperia yadonii. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect
the exclusion of all such developed areas. Any such structures and the
land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries
shown on the maps of this designation have been excluded by text in the
rule and are not included in the designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these structures and underlying
lands would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the
species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical
habitat.
[[Page 60421]]
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied
areas contain the features essential to the conservation of the species
that may require special management considerations or protection. Many
of the known occurrences of Piperia yadonii are threatened by one or a
combination of the following: habitat fragmentation or loss due to
residential, commercial, or recreational development; competition with
nonnative plants for light, space, or water; deer and rabbit herbivory;
vegetation cutting for fire prevention; changes in light, space, and
soil moisture availability due to loss or alteration of adjacent
vegetation or forest canopy; changes in fecundity (number and viability
of offspring) or genetic variability resulting from loss and
fragmentation of populations or potentially low pollinator abundance or
activity; disease; and trampling (PCE 1, PCE 2). In maritime chaparral
associations of the Prunedale-Elkhorn region where fire has not
occurred in many decades, shrub diversity appears to be declining as
coast live oak or large-canopied manzanitas become dominant (Van Dyke
et al. 2001, pp. 225-227). This conversion may be slow in the shallow
ridgetop soils where P. yadonii occurs, but increasing development
surrounding these ridgetops reduces the opportunity to use fire as a
management tool should it be deemed necessary to maintain the open,
low-canopy conditions of P. yadonii's preferred habitat (PCE 1). These
threats may require special management and are addressed under the
critical habitat unit descriptions below.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating eight units as critical habitat for Piperia
yadonii. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment currently of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Piperia yadonii. Table 1, below, identifies the approximate
area exempt from critical habitat for P. yadonii pursuant to section
4(a)(3) of the Act. Exemptions are discussed later in this rule under
the section Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 2, below, identifies units that we reduced in
size between the proposed and final rules.
Table 1.--Approximate Area Exempt From Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii
Pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of area meeting the definition of Size of exemption area (Acres/
Location (Unit) critical habitat (Acres/Hectares) Hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio of Monterey, Monterey 121 ac (49 ha)........................ 121 ac (49 ha)
Peninsula.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Reductions in the Unit Size By Type of Land Between the Proposed and Final Rule
[Only the unit that was reduced is shown. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries in ac (ha).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Total
Critical habitat unit and subunit State agency Private reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4: Aguajito.......................................... 0 0 49 (20) 49 (20)
Subunit 4a............................................ 0 0 28 (11) 28 (11)
Subunit 4b............................................ 0 0 21 (9) 21 (9)
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula................................ 0 0 139 (57) 139 (57)
Subunit 6a............................................ 0 0 95 (38) 95 (38)
Subunit 6b............................................ 0 0 3 (1) 3 (1)
Subunit 6c............................................ 0 0 39 (16) 39 (16)
Subunit 6d............................................ 0 0 0 0
Subunit 6e............................................ 0 0 2 (1) 2 (1)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. ........... ........... ............ 189 (75)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area encompassed within each designated critical
habitat unit is shown in table 3.
Table 3.--Critical Habitat Units Designated for Piperia yadonii by Type of Land Ownership
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries in ac (ha).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private
----------------------------------
Critical habitat unit and subunit State Local agency Conservation- Total
oriented NGO Other (private)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Blohm Ranch................. ............ ............ ............... ............... 128 (52)
subunit 1a...................... 0 0 72 (29) 0 72 (29)
subunit 1b...................... 0 0 56 (23) 0 56 (23)
Unit 2: Manzanita Park.............. ............ ............ ............... ............... 497 (201)
subunit 2a...................... 0 0 231 (93) 0 231 (93)
subunit 2b...................... 0 0 0 83 (34) 83 (34)
subunit 2c...................... 0 183 (74) 0 0 183 (74)
Unit 3: Vierra Canyon............... ............ ............ ............... ............... 50 (20)
subunit 3a...................... 0 0 0 17 (7) 17 (7)
[[Page 60422]]
subunit 3b...................... 12 (5) 0 0 0 12 (5)
subunit 3c...................... 21 (8) 0 0 0 21 (8)
Unit 4: Aguajito.................... ............ ............ ............... ............... 108 (44)
subunit 4a...................... 0 0 0 49 (20) 49 (20)
subunit 4b...................... 0 0 0 59 (24) 59 (24)
Unit 5: Old Capitol................. 0 0 0 16 (6) 16 (6)
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula.......... ............ ............ ............... ............... 920 (372)
subunit 6a...................... 0 0 435 (176) 375 (152) 810 (328)
subunit 6b...................... 0 0 0 6 (2) 6 (2)
subunit 6c...................... 0 0 23 (9) 8 (3) 31 (13)
subunit 6d...................... 0 0 12 (5) 0 12 (5)
subunit 6e...................... 0 19 (8) 29 (12) 13 (5) 61 (25)
Unit 7: Point Lobos................. 228 (93) 0 97 (39) 0 325 (131)
Unit 8: Palo Colorado............... 0 0 0 73 (29) 73 (29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 261 (105) 202 (81) 955 (387) 699 (283) 2117 (857)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii, below.
Unit 1: Blohm Ranch
Unit 1 consists of 128 ac (52 ha) of private lands in northern
Monterey County in the Elkhorn Slough watershed. It is divided into two
ridgeline subunits, separated by intervening agricultural fields. The
two subunits support similar plant communities and need similar types
of special management considerations or protection; therefore, we
discuss them as a unit, except to define land ownership or acreage.
Unit 1 was occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is
currently occupied. It supports one of the two largest occurrences of
Piperia yadonii plants in the Prunedale Elkhorn area (several thousand
plants (Allen 1996 unpaginated)) and the northernmost occurrences in
the known range of the species. This unit contains features that are
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including soils from
weathered marine sediments that are classified as an Arnold Santa Ynez
complex on the ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on the slopes (PCE
1). Vegetation is primarily high quality maritime chaparral, with
ridgetops dominated by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. This unit
provides habitat that supports germination, growth, and reproduction of
P. yadonii. It contains ridgetop habitat openings, between and among
patches of P. yadonii, to allow for population expansion and for shifts
in population location, should successional vegetation or other changes
occur that alter microhabitat conditions. Features essential to the
conservation of P. yadonii in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection due to: the growth and spread of invasive
plant species (such as jubata grass); erosion from old roadbeds or past
earth-moving activities; and herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Herbivory of
flowering stalks was 36 percent in 1999, although predators (mountain
lion (Puma concolor)) of herbivores were recently sighted on these
lands (Doak and Graff 2001, p. 28; Graff 2006, Appendix IV). Given that
pollen deposition rates and seed production were low for the one site
studied in this unit, special management may also be needed to ensure
that the abundance of potential pollinators, such as moths or bees, are
maintained or enhanced PCE 2).
Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of private land
owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.
Although restoration and removal of nonnative invasive plant
populations are ongoing, a management plan specifically addressing
Piperia yadonii on properties owned by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation
and The Nature Conservancy has not yet been developed (Hayes 2006).
Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of land owned by
The Nature Conservancy and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, or
owned and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation. A management plan
specifically addressing Piperia yadonii has not yet been developed.
Unit 2: Manzanita Park
Unit 2 consists of 498 ac (201 ha) of Monterey County lands north
of Prunedale. It is divided into 3 subunits that support similar soils
and vegetation communities and need similar types of special management
considerations or protection; therefore, we discuss these
characteristics for the whole unit. Unit 2 was occupied at the time of
listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this
unit support several thousand Piperia yadonii plants scattered along
the ridges, separated by intervening lower-elevation areas of oak
woodland, farmed lands, and residential development (Allen 1996
unpaginated; Environmental Science Associates 2003; CNDDB 2005; Graff
2006 appendix IV). This unit contains features that are essential for
the conservation of P. yadonii, including soils from weathered marine
sediments that are classified as an Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the
ridgetops and as Arnold series soils on the slopes and on more
undulating topography within Manzanita County Park (PCE 1). Vegetation
within the subunits is primarily maritime chaparral, with some coast
live oak woodland at the lower elevations. The ridgetops are dominated
by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. This unit contains the PCEs for P.
yadonii that promote germination, growth, and reproduction (PCE 1).
This unit encompasses a cluster of three ridgelines primarily oriented
east-west that rise in elevation from west to east, which support P.
yadonii and which may be close enough for genetic exchange via wind-
dispersed seed. In conjunction with the Blohm Ranch unit (Unit 1), this
unit encompasses the majority of the P.
[[Page 60423]]
yadonii plants known in the northern half of the range of P. yadonii.
The ridgetop habitat openings, between and among patches of P. yadonii,
allow for population expansion and for shifts in population location,
should successional vegetation or other changes occur that alter
microhabitat conditions. This unit is the central of the three in the
Elkhorn Prunedale geographic area. This unit supports one of the two
largest occurrences in the species' northern range, and the subunits of
Unit 2 include the largest occupied ridgelines relatively unfragmented
by residential development in the heart of the species' northern
distribution. Due to their relatively unfragmented condition, lands in
this unit may support dormant plants among the patches of currently
known P. yadonii. Features in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection due to: the growth and spread of invasive
plant species, such as jubata grass, French broom, and eucalyptus;
elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from residential,
recreational, or agricultural development; vegetation removal for fuel
reduction purposes; disease; and herbivory (PCE 1, PCE 2). Habitat with
features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii in this unit may
require special management considerations or protection to ensure the
abundance of potential pollinators, such as moths or bees, are
maintained or enhanced, to ensure the production of sufficient viable
seed (PCE 2).
Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 231 ac (93 ha) of land owned
and managed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation.
Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 83 ac (34 ha) of private
lands. Some of the lands in this subunit were proposed for a 10-lot
subdivision, residential development, and open space designation in
2000 (Mercurio 2000, p. 2); this project may be moving forward in the
near future (Schubert 2006).
Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 183 ac (74 ha) within
Manzanita County Park, owned and managed by the County of Monterey.
Part of the park has been developed into a sports complex and is not
part of the designation. A portion of the park within the unit is used
for hiking and equestrian use. Although volunteers have recently begun
removing nonnative invasive plants from the park, we are not aware of
the existence of any management plan that specifically addresses
Piperia yadonii on properties owned by Monterey County.
Unit 3: Vierra Canyon
Unit 3 consists of 50 ac (20 ha) consisting primarily of State
lands in northern Monterey County north of Prunedale. It is divided
into 3 subunits with similarities in vegetation and special management
considerations or protection needs. Unit 3 was occupied at the time of
listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied (Childs 2004). The
easternmost Piperia yadonii occurrences in unit 3 (subunits 3b and 3c)
are reported to be small, with fewer than 10 flowering individuals;
this likely represents up to several hundred individuals, based on the
observed proportion of flowering to vegetative individuals (Doak and
Graff 2001). This unit contains features that are essential for the
conservation of P. yadonii, including the following: Lands in this unit
support soils from weathered marine sediments that are classified as an
Arnold-Santa Ynez complex on the ridgetops and the Arnold series on the
slopes (PCE 1). Vegetation is primarily maritime chaparral, with coast
live oak woodland in the lower elevation areas. The ridgetops are
dominated by low-growing Hooker's manzanita. Analysis of aerial
photographs suggests that chaparral vegetation on the ridgetops in this
region maintains a more open canopy than in areas to the west, in the
areas of Units 1 and 2 (Van Dyke 2006). Therefore, these areas may
support openings that are more persistent, and can be occupied by P.
yadonii for a longer time, than areas to the west, even in the absence
of fire (Van Dyke 2006). The lands surrounding these subunits are more
extensively developed for residential use than are those to the west,
severing the once continuous maritime chaparral that dominated the
ridges. Consequently the subunits are smaller and lack the additional
habitat for population expansion found in the other northern units.
This unit contains the PCEs for P. yadonii that promote germination,
growth, and reproduction. It supports the easternmost occurrences of P.
yadonii in the Elkhorn'Prunedale region, on the northeast periphery of
the species' range. Features essential to the conservation of P.
yadonii in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection due to elimination or further fragmentation of habitat from
development, grading or other vegetation removal (e.g., for fuel
reduction purposes or roads), and the spread of invasive plant species
(PCE 1, PCE 2).
Subunit 3a: This subunit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of private lands
that are overlain by a Pacific Gas and Electric Company easement. The
occurrence in this subunit is the largest documented in Unit 3,
numbering several thousand plants (Childs 2004).
Subunit 3b: This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of State lands
(California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)). The lands in this
subunit and in subunit 3c were part of a previous study area for a
highway alignment. This alignment was eventually excluded from further
consideration and the State retains the lands (Robison 2006). We are
not aware of any management plan that addresses Piperia yadonii on
these State properties.
Subunit 3c: This subunit consists of 21 ac (8 ha) of State lands,
owned by Caltrans.
Unit 4: Aguajito
Unit 4 consists of 108 ac (44 ha) of private land east of the
Monterey Peninsula and north of Jack's Peak County Park. It is divided
into 2 subunits separated by lower elevation lands. Unit 4 was occupied
at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied.
Piperia yadonii occurs in these subunits on ridgetops, where it grows
with Hooker's manzanita (EcoSystems West 2006, p. 61). This unit
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P.
yadonii, including the following: Soils in this unit are classified as
the Santa Lucia-Reliz Association, where Reliz series soils occur on
the ridgetops and Santa Lucia series soils on surrounding slopes (PCE
1). Reliz series soils are characterized as excessively drained shaley
clay loams underlain by shale or sandstone (USDA 1978, p. 64). The
vegetation in the unit is a mix of Monterey pine forest and maritime
chaparral. Griffin (1978, p. 69) commented that this area was one of
the only ones in the Monterey Bay area where maritime chaparral grows
on shale. He also noted that sandstones exist within the shale beds and
produce sandy loam soils. A related species, Piperia elegans, is more
abundant in the surrounding Monterey pine forest (EcoSystems West
2005b, p. 7). This unit provides habitat that supports germination,
growth, and reproduction. Unit 4 represents one of only two units in
the region interior to the Monterey Peninsula. It supports the largest
undeveloped easternmost occurrence of P. yadonii in the central and
southern half of the species' range. Its preservation will help avoid
range collapse. Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii in
this unit may require special management considerations or protection
due to fragmentation of habitat from
[[Page 60424]]
development and the colonization and spread of invasive plant species
(PCE 1, PCE 2). We are also excluding 49 acres (20 ha) from this
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation
agreement.
Subunit 4a: This subunit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of private lands
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company). Lands in and/or adjacent to this
subunit and subunit 4b are proposed for preservation in the Pebble
Beach Company's recent development plan, but the configuration of the
preservation areas is not yet determined (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-
89, 2-90).
Subunit 4b: This subunit consists of 56 ac (24 ha) of private lands
(owned by the Pebble Beach Company) and proposed for preservation (see
above), and 3 ac (1ha) of Monterey County road right-of-way.
Unit 5: Old Capitol
Unit 5 consists of 16 ac (7 ha) of private land (owned by the
Pebble Beach Company) east of the Monterey Peninsula. Unit 5 was
occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently
occupied. Surveys in 2005 revealed that the dominant Piperia species at
this location is P. elegans, which number in the thousands; however,
several hundred P. yadonii co-occur with P. elegans throughout the unit
(EcoSystems West 2005b, pp. 5-7). This unit contains features that are
essential for the conservation of P. yadonii, including the Chamise
shaley clay loam (PCE 1) soil type. The vegetation is Monterey pine
forest and coast live oak woodland. This unit provides habitat that
supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. It is the
only unit designated between the Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6) and
Aguajito (Unit 4) to the east and, therefore, provides connectivity
between these other two units.
Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii may require
special management considerations or protection in this unit due to:
Fragmentation or loss of habitat from development, habitat degradation
by motorized vehicles and encampments, debris dumping, and competition
from nonnative invasive plants (PCE 1, PCE 2). The land in Unit 5 is
proposed for preservation in the Pebble Beach Company's recent
development plan (Monterey County 2005, pp. 2-89, 2-90).
Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula
Unit 6 consists of 920 ac (372 ha) of private and City lands on the
Monterey Peninsula. This unit is divided into 5 subunits due to
intervening development. Most of the lands surrounding this unit are
developed for residential and recreational (golf) use. The similarities
among the subunits in soils and vegetation community are discussed
here; subunit specific details are discussed below. Unit 6 was occupied
at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is currently occupied. It
supports the greatest abundance and largest aerial extent of Piperia
yadonii in the species' range, with close to 100,000 vegetative plants
(Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004, all pp.; EcoSystems West
2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems West 2005a, 2005b, all pp.). This unit
contains features that are essential for the conservation of P. yadonii
including sands or sandy loam soils that belong to at least 5 soil
series on the Monterey Peninsula unit (Baywood sands, Narlon loamy fine
sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair fine sands, and Santa Lucia
shaley clay loam). Vegetation in this unit is primarily Monterey pine
forest, with maritime chaparral, and Bishop pine/Gowen cypress forest
in two subunits (PCE 1). Pollinator observations and collections were
made on lands in this unit (PCE 2) (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit
provides habitat that supports germination, growth, reproduction, and
space for shifts in the location of P. yadonii, as microhabitat
conditions change. Features essential to the conservation of P. yadonii
may require special management in this unit due to: Adverse effects
from adjacent existing and future development, including the loss of
adjacent forest canopy, increased trampling, potential hydrologic
changes, overspray of pesticides, the introduction of pathogens or
disease, mowing, and the introduction and spread of invasive plant
species; continuing high and/or increasing deer populations resulting
in high herbivory levels; and increased growth of understory vegetation
due to exclusion of wildfire (PCE 1, PCE 2).
Subunit 6a: This subunit consists of 810 ac (328 ha) of private
lands owned by the Pebble Beach Company and other private owners,
including 17 ac (7 ha) owned by the Del Monte Forest Foundation (DMFF).
Protected lands in this subunit include the SFB Morse Botanical Reserve
(owned by the DMFF) and the Huckleberry Hill Natural Reserve (easement
held by the DMFF). It also includes lands identified in the Pebble
Beach Company's most recent development proposal for preservation or
conservation: Areas PQR, G, H, I, the Corporate Yard Preservation Area,
and Area D (Monterey County 2005). The Department of the Army's
Presidio of Monterey is contiguous with the northeastern edge of this
subunit; those lands are exempted from this designation, as described
later in this rule. We have also excluded 54 acres (22 ha) from this
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation
agreement and 6 ac (2.4 ha) from the Stevenson School property. We have
also removed 35 acres (including Area D) because they do not support
the PCEs. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these
exclusions.
Plant communities in the Huckleberry Hill Natural Area and SFB
Morse Botanical Preserve are Gowen cypress/Bishop pine forest, maritime
chaparral, and Monterey pine forest. The remaining lands support
primarily Monterey pine forest. Lands in this subunit support about
90,000 vegetative Piperia yadonii plants (Zander Associates and WWD
Corporation 2004 all pp.; EcoSystems West 2004, pp. 1-9; EcoSystems
West 2005a, 2005b, all pp.). Although the DMFF conducts some monitoring
and removal of nonnative invasive plant populations, a management plan
specifically addressing P. yadonii on properties owned by the DMFF has
not been developed.
Subunit 6b: This subunit consists of 6 ac (2 ha) of private lands.
It is identified in the Pebble Beach Company's most recent development
proposal as the Bristol Curve Conservation Area (Monterey County 2005
Fig. ES-2). This subunit is part of a larger area identified by the
Pebble Beach Company as Area MNOUV, which supports about 116 ac (47 ha)
of Monterey pine forest and one of the two largest known occurrences of
Piperia yadonii (about 57,000 plants (Zander Associates and WWD
Corporation 2004)). The Monterey pine forest of MNOUV outside the
proposed Bristol Curve conservation area is proposed for development as
a golf course (Monterey County 2005). Vegetation in this subunit is
Monterey pine forest with an herbaceous understory. We are excluding 1
acre (1 ha) from this subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's
conservation agreement, and as a result of boundary adjustments, we
have not included 2 acres of proposed critical habitat within this
subunit that do not support the PCEs. Please see the section
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
[[Page 60425]]
Act and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these
exclusions.
Subunit 6c: This subunit consists of 31 ac (13 ha) of private
lands, of which about 23 acres (9 ha) are owned by the DMFF. Lands
within this unit are referred to as Indian Village (owned by the DMFF)
and, in the Pebble Beach Company's recent development proposal, as
Conservation Area K and Preservation Areas J and L (Monterey County
2005 Fig. ES-2). Adjacent lands (Part of Area K) that are proposed for
development are not included in this subunit. We are excluding 37 acres
(15 ha) from this subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's
conservation agreement, and we have removed 2 acres (1 ha) as a result
of boundary adjustments to account for areas that do not support the
PCEs. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and our responses to Comments 12 and 13, for a discussion of these
exclusions. The vegetation in this subunit is primarily Monterey pine
forest. This subunit supports several thousand Piperia yadonii plants
(Zander Associates and WWD Corporation 2004). Along with subunits 6b
and 6d, it encompasses lands in the westernmost region of the Monterey
Peninsula.
Subunit 6d: This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of private lands
owned by the DMFF. It encompasses the Crocker Grove, an area of
Monterey cypress forest with some adjacent Monterey pine forest (PCE
1). This is the westernmost subunit on the peninsula, closest to the
ocean, and lands it occurs on are mapped as marine terrace 2 (Jones and
Stokes 1994b, p. 11). It has been documented to support about 50
flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Van Dyke et. al. 2006), which
typically equates to several hundred vegetative plants.
Subunit 6e: This subunit consists of 42 ac (17 ha) of private lands
and 19 ac (7 (ha) owned by the City of Pacific Grove. About 29 ac (12
ha) of the private lands are owned by the DMFF. Lands within this unit
are referred to as the Navajo tract and as Preservation Area B in the
Pebble Beach Company's most recent development proposal (Monterey
County 2005 Fig. ES-2). We are excluding 2 acres (1 ha) from this
subunit as a result of the Pebble Beach Company's conservation
agreement. Please see the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Approved Management Plans--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
for a discussion of this exclusion. The vegetation in this subunit is a
mix of coast live oak and Monterey pine forest (PCE 1). It is the
northernmost unit we are designating on the Peninsula. It supports
several hundred plants of Piperia yadonii (Zander Associates and WWD
Corporation 2004).
Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch
Unit 7 consists of 228 ac (92 ha) of State land south of the
Monterey Peninsula on the Big Sur coast, and 97 ac (39 ha) owned by the
Big Sur Land Trust that are intended to be added to the State Parks
system in the future. Unit 7 was occupied at the time of listing
(Service 1998) and is currently occupied. The lands in this unit
support several thousand Piperia yadonii plants (Graff et al. 2003,
Nedeff et al. 2003). This unit contains features that are essential for
the conservation of P. yadonii, including the sandy loam soils in the
Sheridan, Narlon, Junipero Sur complex series, underlain by granitic
substrates from which terrace sands have been eroded (Griffin 1978, p.
69, USDA 1978 map no. 35). Vegetation is a composite of Monterey pine
forest, maritime chaparral, Gowen cypress Bishop pine forest, with some
redwood forest. Piperia yadonii occurs in this unit in Monterey pine
forest; on exposed granitic soils in maritime chaparral dominated by
Hooker's manzanita; and under a canopy of Monterey pine, Gowen cypress,
and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (PCE 1). This unit provides habitat
that supports germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii, as
well as population expansion and shifts in population location. This
unit supports P. yadonii growing on soils not found in other units and
in association with a varied mix of forest tree species. This is the
second highest unit in elevation and supports the largest occurrence of
P. yadonii south of the Monterey Peninsula (Graff 2006). Features
essential to the conservation of P. yadonii may require special
management in this unit due to: the growth and spread of invasive plant
species, such as French broom; loss of habitat from residential
development; and erosion (PCE 1, PCE 2). Access by park visitors may
need to be managed to avoid creation of trails in Monterey pine forest
populations and use of herbicides should be controlled to avoid or
minimize effects to P. yadonii (PCE 1).
Unit 8: Palo Colorado
Unit 8 consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of private land on the Big Sur
coast. Unit 8 was occupied at the time of listing (Service 1998) and is
currently occupied. The lands in this unit were reported to support 38
flowering Piperia yadonii plants (Norman 1995), which likely represents
a population of several hundred to several thousand vegetative
individuals, based on the observed proportions of flowering to
vegetative individuals (Doak and Graff 2001). This unit contains
features that are essential for the conservation of P. yadonii
including the following: A mix of sandy loam soils, shallow soils less
than 20 inches deep, and rock outcrops classified as the Junipero-Sur
complex and Rock Outcrop--Xerorthents Association (PCE 1) (USDA 1978,
p. 38). Vegetation in this unit has been described as a unique
association of maritime chaparral, with low-growing hybrid
Arctostaphylos glandulosa as the dominant manzanita under which P.
yadonii occurs (Norman 1995). This unit provides habitat that supports
germination, growth, and reproduction of P. yadonii. This unit supports
the most southern and highest elevation (1,000 to 1,400 feet (300 to
430 m)) occurrence in the species' range. Features essential to the
conservation of P. yadonii may require special management in this unit
due to habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation from road and
trail grading and from future development, such as the introduction and
spread of nonnative plants, removal of native vegetation, erosion, and
hydrologic changes (PCE 1, PCE 2).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) 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. Decisions
by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of adversely modify (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th
Cir 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Pursuant to the statutory provisions of the Act,
destruction or adverse modification is determined on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally
established) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
[[Page 60426]]
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 species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural
requirement only. However, once a species proposed for listing becomes
listed, or proposed critical habitat is designated as final, the full
prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The
primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize the
opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider species
proposed for listing and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in
implementing their proposed action because of the section 7(a)(2)
compliance process, should those species be listed or the critical
habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the species proposed for listing or proposed critical
habitat. Formal conferences are typically used when the Federal agency
or the Service believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse
effects to species proposed for listing or critical habitat, inclusive
of those that may cause jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report, while the results of a formal conference are
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may
adopt the conference opinion 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)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of 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. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that are likely to adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or 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
jeopardy to the listed species or 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 a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected 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 with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Piperia yadonii or its
designated critical habitat require consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the Corps under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some other
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the Adverse Modification Standard for Actions Involving
Effects to the Critical Habitat of Piperia yadonii
For the reasons described in the Director's December 9, 2004,
memorandum, the key factor related to the adverse modification
determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or
retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be
functionally established) to serve its intended conservation role for
the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the
conservation value of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii is
appreciably reduced. Generally, the conservation role of Piperia
yadonii critical habitat units is to support viable core area
populations.
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.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, should
result in consultation for Piperia yadonii include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Actions that would remove or destroy Piperia yadonii plants or
remove flowering stalks. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, grading, plowing, mowing, burning during the growing or
flowering season, driving over plants, unrestricted creation of trails
through occurrences, unrestricted mechanical weed control, and/or
unlimited use of herbicides.
(2) Actions that would increase the establishment and spread of
invasive nonnative species in Piperia yadonii habitat or increase the
invasability of the plant community within which P. yadonii occurs.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Grading;
plowing; road building and maintenance; introducing seeds or other
propagules of invasive species during erosion-control practices and/or
[[Page 60427]]
landscaping practices; isolating habitat patches within a matrix of
residential or other development; off road vehicle traffic; and/or
livestock grazing. These activities could encourage the establishment
and spread species such as French broom or jubata grass, which can
compete with P. yadonii for light and other resources.
(3) Actions that would directly remove or destroy the low-growing
maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest plant communities on which
Piperia yadonii depends. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: Road construction; grading; development; plowing; burning
out-of-season or too frequently; and/or off-road vehicle traffic. These
activities could reduce or eliminate space and the appropriate light
and hydrologic conditions for P. yadonii germination, growth, and
reproduction.
(4) Actions that would indirectly reduce the presence of low-
growing manzanitas in maritime chaparral, openings in maritime
chaparral, or forested areas with a diverse assemblage (but low cover)
of native herbs. Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
Those that isolate or fragment habitat through development; road
construction that promotes such development; exclusion of fire; reduced
opportunity for prescribed burns during the fall season; and/or
increased potential for human-caused fire during the growing season of
Piperia yadonii. These activities could result in less diverse,
consistently old-age maritime chaparral stands with fewer openings or
areas that support low-growing manzanitas and reduced abundance of
forest patches with filtered light canopies and low cover by vines and
shrubs.
(5) Actions that would alter the soil hydrology in Piperia yadonii
habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Grading
or excavation that disrupts subsurface hardpan layers that influence
soil saturation; conversion to agricultural lands; development of golf
courses, ball fields, or other areas that require irrigation; and/or
development that increases impermeable surfaces. These activities could
result in soils that do not retain sufficient moisture through the
growing season, excessive irrigation that influences P. yadonii through
altered water availability or indirectly through changes in associated
vegetation, and changes in drainage patterns that influence soil
saturation during the growing season.
(6) Actions that would increase the abundance of herbivores (such
as deer and rabbits) of Piperia yadonii leaves and flowers or encourage
the spread and abundance of nonnative species that consume pollen
(e.g., nonnative earwigs). Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: Residential or commercial development that introduces
landscaping that favors nonnative garden invertebrates but not their
predators (e.g., lizards); and/or fencing that excludes predators, but
not herbivores. These actions could result in increased levels of
herbivory of P. yadonii leaves and flowers and correspondingly reduced
levels of reproduction.
(7) Actions that would diminish the variety or abundance of
pollinators needed for seed set in Piperia yadonii. Such actions could
include, but are not limited to: Removal of the native maritime
chaparral and forest plant communities within which P. yadonii grows,
night-lighting adjacent to areas supporting P. yadonii, and/or
unlimited pesticide applications. These actions could indirectly reduce
reproduction in P. yadonii through reduced pollen transfer and could
alter gene flow between occurrences through changes in pollinator
composition.
All of the units designated as critical habitat, as well as that
portion of one which has been exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
contain features essential to the conservation of Piperia yadonii. All
units are within the geographic range of the species and all units were
occupied by the species at the time of listing and are occupied now. In
some cases, the level of detail regarding the precise location of
plants within the units was not documented until after the listing.
Because all critical habitat units are occupied, Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by P.
yadonii, or if the species may be affected by their actions, to ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of P.
yadonii.
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act
Section 4(a)(3)
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural
resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the
ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for
the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and
adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the
extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification,
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to
support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural
resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs developed by
military installations located within the range of the critical habitat
designation for Piperia yadonii were analyzed for exemption under the
authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
The Presidio of Monterey (POM) has an INRMP and Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) in place that provides a benefit for Piperia
yadonii. The ESMP and INRMP were completed, and the Army began
implementing each of them, in 1999 and 2001, respectively (Harding ESE
1999; Harding ESE 2001; Cairns 2006). The conservation goal of the ESMP
that addresses P. yadonii is to maintain the two occurrences on POM
lands and protect them from impacts during use of the nearby obstacle/
orienteering course. The plan identifies the following actions that
will benefit P. yadonii: Monitoring; protecting the populations from
foot traffic by installing signs and by other means; removing nonnative
plant species from documented and potential habitat; monitoring deer
browsing and providing caging, if necessary; and establishing a
propagation program, if necessary. The
[[Page 60428]]
POM has carried out the following in the past 5 years: Annual
population monitoring since 2000, installation and maintenance of
educational signs, creation of an educational brochure highlighting P.
yadonii, construction and installation of outdoor bulletin boards on
which the brochures are posted, and removal of infestations of
nonnative French broom in over 13 acres of Monterey pine forest habitat
(Cairns 2006).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts
identified in the ESMP and INRMP will provide benefits to Piperia
yadonii occurring in habitats within the POM. Therefore, this
installation is exempt from critical habitat designation under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. Approximately 121 acres (49 ha) of habitat for P.
yadonii is not included in this critical habitat designation due to
this exemption.
Application of 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. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Congressional record is clear that the Secretary is
afforded broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the
area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following
sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to
the exclusions we considered.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the
consultation process.
Regulatory Benefits
The consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat. Prior to the designation of critical
habitat, consultation for a listed species occurs on actions that may
affect the listed species, and Federal agencies must refrain from
undertaking actions that jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Thus the analysis of effects to critical habitat is a separate
and different analysis from that of the effects to the species.
Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents
the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some species, and in
some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because
effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species.
However, the regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis
looks on the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species
and the adverse modification analysis looks at the effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation of the species. This
will, in many instances, lead to different results, and different
regulatory requirements.
We note that, for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service essentially conflated the
jeopardy standard with the standard for destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat when evaluating Federal actions that
affect occupied critical habitat. The Court ruled that the two
standards are distinct and that adverse modification evaluations
require consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus,
critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the
recovery of a species.
There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical
habitat. First, consultation is only required where there is a Federal
nexus--if there is no Federal nexus, designation itself does not
restrict actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Second, it only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its
nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure
those areas that contain the physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species or unoccupied areas that are
essential to the conservation of the species are not eroded. Critical
habitat designation alone, however, does not require specific steps
toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act is triggered,
the process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect
critical habitat. However, if the Service determines through informal
consultation that adverse impacts are likely to occur, then formal
consultation is initiated. Formal consultation concludes with a
biological opinion issued by the Service on whether the proposed
Federal action is likely to result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. For critical habitat, a biological
opinion that reaches a ``no destruction or adverse modification''
determination may contain discretionary conservation recommendations to
minimize adverse effects to primary constituent elements.
We believe that in many instances the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is low when compared to voluntary conservation efforts
or management plans. The conservation achieved through implementing
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under Section 10 of the Act or other
habitat management plans is typically greater than would be achieved
through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. Management
plans commit resources to implement long-term management and protection
to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other listed or
sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit Federal agencies
to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat caused by the
particular project, and they are not committed to provide conservation
or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the proposed project.
Thus, an HCP or management plan that incorporates enhancement or
recovery as the management standard will often provide as much or more
benefit than a consultation for critical habitat designation conducted
under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford
Pinchot decision.
Educational Benefits
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential
[[Page 60429]]
conservation value of an area. This helps focus and promote
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for Piperia yadonii. In general, the
educational benefit of a critical habitat designation always exists,
although in some cases it may be redundant with other educational
effects. For example, HCPs have significant public input and may
largely duplicate the educational benefit of a critical habitat
designation. This benefit is closely related to a second benefit: That
the designation of critical habitat would inform State agencies and
local governments about areas that could be conserved under State laws
or local ordinances.
Recovery Benefits
The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act
requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species which may require special management considerations or
protection. In identifying those lands, the Service must consider the
recovery needs of the species, such that the habitat that is
identified, if managed, could provide for the survival and recovery of
the species. Furthermore, once critical habitat has been designated,
Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act to ensure that their actions will not adversely modify
designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. As noted in the Ninth Circuit's Gifford Pinchot decision,
the Court ruled that the jeopardy and adverse modification standards
are distinct, and that adverse modification evaluations require
consideration of impacts to the recovery of species. Thus, through the
section 7(a)(2) consultation process, critical habitat designations
provide recovery benefits to species by ensuring that Federal actions
will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
It is beneficial to identify those lands that are necessary for the
conservation of the species and that, if managed appropriately, would
further recovery measures for the species. The process of proposing and
finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the Service with the
opportunity to determine lands essential for conservation as well as
identify the primary constituent elements or features essential for
conservation on those lands. The designation process includes peer
review and public comment on the identified features and lands. This
process is valuable to landowners and managers in developing
conservation management plans for identified lands, as well as any
other occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not have been
included in the Service's determination of essential habitat.
However, the designation of critical habitat does not require that
any management or recovery actions take place on the lands included in
the designation. Even in cases where consultation has been initiated
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of consultation is to
avoid jeopardy to the species and adverse modification of its critical
habitat, but not specifically to manage remaining lands or institute
recovery actions on remaining lands. Conversely, management plans
institute proactive actions over the lands they encompass intentionally
to remove or reduce known threats to a species or its habitat and,
therefore, implement recovery actions. We believe that the conservation
of a species and its habitat that could be achieved through the
designation of critical habitat, in some cases, is less than the
conservation that could be achieved through the implementation of a
management plan that includes species-specific provisions and considers
enhancement or recovery of listed species as the management standard
over the same lands. Consequently, implementation of any HCP or
management plan that considers enhancement or recovery as the
management standard will often provide as much or more benefit than a
consultation for critical habitat designation conducted under the
standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot
decision.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute
1995, p. 2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened
species occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et
al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12
percent of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal
lands (90 to 100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to
Federal lands) and that 50 percent of federally listed species are not
known to occur on Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of
species on non-Federal lands and is necessary to implement recovery
actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and
habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector
efforts through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative
Conservation philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal
landowners (HCPs, safe harbor agreements, other conservation
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations) enhance species
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available
through section 7 consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged
non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on
a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal
land through such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods
(61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property, and
there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6;
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp.
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability, resulting in anti-
conservation incentives because maintaining habitats that harbor
endangered species represents a risk to future economic opportunities
(Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648).
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 1263;
Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al.
[[Page 60430]]
2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude of this negative outcome is greatly
amplified in situations where active management measures (such as
reintroduction, fire management, and control of invasive species) are
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). The Service
believes that the judicious exclusion of specific areas of non-
federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can contribute
to species recovery and provide a superior level of conservation than
critical habitat alone.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or
voluntary conservation efforts can often be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Management Plans From
Critical Habitat
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other management plans
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners,
communities, and counties of any additional regulatory burden that
might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most HCPs and other
conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon completion, are
consistent with the recovery objectives for listed species that are
covered within the plan area. Many conservation plans also provide
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an
additional regulatory review as a result of the designation of critical
habitat may undermine these conservation efforts and partnerships
designed to proactively protect species to ensure that listing under
the Act will not be necessary. Designation of critical habitat within
the boundaries of management plans that provide conservation measures
for a species could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities
currently developing these plans or contemplating them in the future,
because one of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater
ease of permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new
regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for
undertaking the time and expense of management planning. In fact,
designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or
conservation plan could result in the loss of some species' benefits if
participants abandon the planning process, in part because of the
strength of the perceived additional regulatory compliance that such
designation would entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance
for a critical habitat designation do not have to be quantified for
them to be perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient
to discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed
species' conservation.
A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
After consideration under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are
proposing to exclude the following areas of habitat from the critical
habitat designation for Piperia yadonii: 49 acres in Unit 4 and 100
acres in Unit 6. There are two exclusions: One for areas proposed for
development under a conservation agreement with Pebble Beach Company,
and the other for an area owned by the Stevenson School.
The Pebble Beach Company has submitted a conservation agreement for
its lands that are within P. yadonii critical habitat units on the
Monterey Peninsula (Unit 6), and interior to the Monterey Peninsula
(Unit 4 and Unit 5). We have considered this conservation strategy in
our designation and have excluded from critical habitat approximately
143 ac (58 ha) we had proposed for critical habitat that are currently
owned and managed by the Pebble Beach Company in subunits 4a, 4b, 6a,
6b, 6c, and 6e. We are also excluding from the designation
approximately 6 ac (2 ha) owned by Stevenson School on the Monterey
Peninsula. We believe that these areas are appropriate for exclusion
under the ``other relevant factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. A detailed analysis of our exclusion of these lands under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act is provided in the paragraphs below.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Pebble Beach Company Lands
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and the Pebble
Beach Company serves as the conservation agreement addressing Piperia
yadonii on Pebble Beach Company (Company) lands. It identifies
different management strategies and conservation benefits to P.
yadonii, depending on whether or not the Company receives government
approvals for their proposed development project. The conservation
agreement essentially summarizes and commits the Company to the
preservation, management, avoidance, minimization, and enhancement
measures for P. yadonii in the Company's Del Monte Forest Preservation
and Development Plan (DMF/PDP) and the additional mitigations included
by the County of Monterey in the 2005 FEIR (Monterey County 2005),
providing that the Company receives local, State, and Federal
government agency approvals for the development portion of their
proposed project. Almost all of the Company lands in the Del Monte
Forest (Subunits 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e), and Old Capitol (Unit 5), that
were proposed as critical habitat were required to be conserved as
mitigation for development in that planning process. With these
approvals, the conservation agreement would provide a benefit to P.
yadonii that is beyond that of the FEIR-defined project, in that it
includes the Company's commitment to preserve and manage lands
identified in the conservation agreement in perpetuity, superseding the
provision described in the FEIR that requires the County Supervisors to
decide on the need for continued management after 20 years of
implementation (Monterey County 2005 (PRDEIR), p. P2-19). By including
this requirement, the conservation agreement recognizes that management
activities, such as control of nonnative species and recreational
access, should occur in perpetuity, given that the effects of
surrounding development occur in perpetuity. The conservation agreement
references the FEIR and its suite of actions designed to conserve P.
yadonii and offset adverse effects of
[[Page 60431]]
proposed development on the species. They include the Company's
commitment to:
a. Preserve Monterey pine forest and maritime chaparral habitat
occupied by Piperia yadonii, in the areas identified as mitigation for
Yadon's piperia in the FEIR and the County's mitigation conditions
(Monterey County 2005);
b. Maintain the quality and acreage of habitat occupied by Piperia
yadonii within the lands identified in (a), above, through resource
management;
c. Reduce the loss of Piperia yadonii through siting and design of
development project components;
d. Reduce the direct and indirect effects on extant Piperia
yadonii adjacent to development areas, through staff education, and
implementation of protective measures addressing golf course use,
maintenance, and construction;
e. Salvage and transplant Piperia yadonii as described in the FEIR
(Monterey County 2005);
f. Enhance and expand occupied habitat for Piperia yadonii on the
lands identified in (a) above, by convening an Adaptive Management Team
and developing and implementing the Piperia Plan and a program of
management-oriented research and testing. The Piperia Plan would be
developed by a third-party consultant, agreed to by the Service, and
would describe a scientifically sound, coordinated approach to
preservation, enhancement, and management of P. yadonii on the lands
addressed in the FEIR. Following the initial County approvals, the
Adaptive Management Team convened, and the Pebble Beach Company has
begun funding a program of management and enhancement-oriented research
for P. yadonii.
In June 2007, the California Coastal Commission denied approval of
a Monterey County measure that was needed for the Company to secure
project approvals. The eventual outcome of this process is unknown. In
the absence of approvals on the current project, the Company may pursue
an alternate project. The conservation agreement describes alternate
actions, in the event that the Company's project does not receive
government approvals. Under the conservation agreement, if they receive
approvals for an alternative project that lacks an 18-hole golf course,
the Company would preserve and manage at least 511 ac (207 ha) of land
in the Del Monte Forest, Old Capitol and Aguajito areas, as identified
in the conservation agreement exhibits. The areas the Conservation
Agreement identifies for dedication include all Company lands in
designated critical habitat on the Del Monte Forest (in Subunits 6a,
6b, 6c, and 6e) and at Old Capitol (Unit 5), as well as designated
critical habitat at Aguajito (all of Subunit 4a and half of Subunit
4b). The conservation agreement allows some flexibility in which
specific parcels of Monterey pine forest habitat will be preserved. If
the Pebble Beach Company obtains approval for a future project, the
company will not begin developing any area supporting P. yadonii until
they dedicate the lands to be preserved. The conservation agreement
includes no time requirement on the dedications, other than that they
must occur prior to development that would adversely affect P. yadonii.
Under the conservation agreement, the Company has committed to
manage, for the interim period until a future project approval and
dedication occur, the lands they own that are designated as critical
habitat and identified as future dedication areas in the agreement.
They will also manage Areas N and O for the benefit of P. yadonii,
until the development approvals are secured and the land dedication
takes place. Areas N and O are part of the contiguous forested area
known as MNOUV, are adjacent to Subunit 6b, and support abundant P.
yadonii. The management actions the Company will carry out include
removing nonnative species from occupied P. yadonii habitat;
controlling runoff and erosion; installing and maintaining vehicle
barriers to stop entrance into populations; removing debris and
encampments from P. yadonii locations; and educating landowners,
utility workers, and golf course personnel about practices to reduce
impacts to P. yadonii. To improve the success of these and other
management actions, the Company has also committed to conduct
management-oriented research (not to exceed $25,000 annually), during
that interim period, similar to what the Company has already begun
through the Adaptive Management Team. The conservation agreement
specifies that the Company will fully fund, with a written guarantee,
the components of the conservation agreement if a future dedication of
lands occurs.
The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally
discussed earlier in this rule. In the case of Piperia yadonii on the
Monterey Peninsula, there may be some Federal regulatory benefit to the
designation only if a Federal action triggers a consultation under
section 7 of the Act. The Federal nexus would most likely occur due to
either wetland impacts in the Monterey pine forest that require a Corps
permit, or via a consultation on an HCP that was initiated for a listed
animal species in the Del Monte forest, such as the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). To date, there have been no
consultations or HCPs that addressed P. yadonii and its upland habitat
in the Del Monte forest. However, in a recent Corps consultation on the
California red-legged frog, only wetland habitats were addressed, and
consideration of impacts to adjacent upland habitat that support P.
yadonii were determined to be beyond the scope of consultation. The
likelihood of future consultations or HCPs would depend largely on the
configuration of future proposed development that might adversely
affect the red-legged frog and trigger these actions. However, because
the Act does not restrict the take of plants on private lands, the
likelihood of future HCPs covering this species is low.
The educational benefits of critical habitat in this case are
relatively low for most of the lands we are excluding, because previous
publications have already identified and discussed their importance to
the conservation of Piperia yadonii. The primary regulatory agencies
that have permitting authority related to land use in this area are
Monterey County and the Coastal Commission. These agencies and the
landowner are well aware of where the P. yadonii and its Monterey pine
forest habitat occur, due to the publication of the environmental
impact statement for the Pebble Beach Company's DMF/PDP (Monterey
County 2005) and California Coastal Commission staff reports on the
proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the educational benefits
that inclusion of these lands would provide for P. yadonii are
relatively low.
Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations
may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was
previously believed. However, the protection provided is still a
limitation on the adverse effects that may occur to designated critical
habitat, as opposed to a requirement to affirmatively provide a
conservation benefit on those lands. As outlined above, the Company has
committed to definite conservation actions on lands covered under the
conservation agreement. Therefore, we believe the benefits to recovery
based on inclusion of these lands in critical habitat for Piperia
yadonii are low.
Therefore, we find that because of the agreement with Pebble Beach
Company, the benefits of including the excluded Pebble Beach areas as
critical habitat are low. The conservation stipulated in the agreement
would likely not be
[[Page 60432]]
forthcoming if these areas were designated. Since the Act's protection
of plants on private lands is low, the Service believes that it will
achieve more conservation from this agreement than it would from a
critical habitat designation on these lands.
Benefits of Exclusion
Implementation of the conservation agreement will provide benefits
to P. yadonii as discussed earlier. The company has committed to manage
P. yadonii and its Monterey Forest habitat and to conduct additional
management-oriented research in areas identified for conservation in
the conservation agreement until future approval of a development
project is obtained. Once a future development project is approved, the
Company has agreed to permanently preserve 511 acres of land on which
P. yadonii occurs and to provide management of all conserved habitat
areas in perpetuity. Because the interim management will be well-
informed by management-oriented research, we expect it to promote the
viability and growth of P. yadonii populations during the period prior
to a future land dedication.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
The Pebble Beach Company committed to the conservation measures in
the conservation agreement in recognition that some of its lands will
not be designated as critical habitat while others will. It is probable
that the Company would elect not to continue with the conservation
commitments if the 143 acres to be excluded under Section 4(b)(2) were
included in the final designation. We believe the proactive management
of P. yadonii and its designated habitat provided under the
conservation agreement provides significant benefits to this species
that would be foregone in the absence of exclusion of the 143 acres. In
contrast to the important benefits to designated habitat realized by
exclusion of the 143 acres, the benefits of inclusion are, as noted
above, likely to be minor because of the lack of a federal nexus that
would serve to trigger section 7 consultation for projects affecting
the 143 acres, and because, even in situations where consultation might
occur, it would be unlikely to result in proactive management of the
species and its Monterey pine forest habitat. Even with the exclusion
of these lands, over 1,000 ac (405 ha) of critical habitat will still
be designated in Units 4, 5, and 6. Over 900 ac (364 ha) are in Unit 6
on the Monterey Peninsula in the Del Monte Forest.
Further, because we have already come to agreement about how to
manage the development at Pebble Beach and avoid adverse impacts to the
status of the species, the further effort involved in consultations or
other regulatory actions with respect to this site would be
unnecessary. Therefore, a benefit of exclusion is avoiding additional
regulatory uncertainty and process.
In conclusion, we have evaluated the potential regulatory and
educational benefits that would result from inclusion of the 143 ac (58
ha) in Subunits 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e. We have weighed these
against the more tangible conservation benefits that would occur for
the designated lands in Units 4, 5, and 6 under the conservation
agreement and conclude that, due to the configuration and size of the
area considered for exclusion, the large acreage in Unit 6 that would
still be designated as critical habitat, and the benefits that could
accrue on those designated lands under the conservation agreement, the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion; therefore, we
are excluding the 143 ac (58 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We do not believe that the exclusion of the 143 ac (58 ha) from
Units 4 and 6 based on the conservation agreement from the final
designation of critical habitat will result in the extinction of P.
yadonii. Overall, this area represents less than 15 percent of the
proposed designation in Units 4, 5, and 6, and does not support the
greatest concentrations of plants or the highest quality habitat of the
lands we are designating as critical habitat. In addition, because the
143 acres we are excluding from critical habitat are occupied by P.
yadonii, consultations under Section 7 that involve these lands will
occur even in the absence of their designation as critical habitat.
Application of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act also
provides assurances that the species will not go extinct.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Other Lands--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Stevenson School Property
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat for economic reasons if the Secretary determines
that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating
the area as critical habitat. However, this exclusion cannot occur if
it will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
In making the following exclusion, we have considered in general
that all of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic
analysis might not be avoided by this exclusion. This is because the
area in question is currently occupied by P. yadonii and there will be
requirements for consultation under section 7 of the Act. In conducting
economic analyses, we are guided by the ruling in New Mexico Cattle
Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 248F.3d 1285 (10th Cir
2001), which directed us to consider all impacts ``regardless of
whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other
causes.'' As explained in the economic analysis, due to possible
overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, some elements of the
analysis may also overstate some costs.
Conversely, in Gifford Pinchot, the court ruled that our
regulations are invalid because they define adverse modification as
affecting both survival and recovery of a species. The court directed
us to consider that determinations of adverse modification should be
focused on impacts to recovery. Compliance with the court's direction
may result in additional costs associated with critical habitat
designation. In light of the New Mexico Cattle Growers decision, our
current approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, and should encompass costs that we would consider and evaluate
in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act--Economic Exclusion of
Stevenson School Property
The Stevenson School is a non-profit, non-sectarian, independent,
K-12 school that owns approximately 6 ac (2.4 ha) in unit 6a. The
Stevenson School has plans to develop a portion of its campus (called
the ``Forested Area'' in its Master Plan) into an athletic field. The
Master Plan for the Campus was developed in the 1980s and submitted to
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 1983. The Master Plan,
which includes plans for new educational facilities, residence halls,
as well as athletic facilities, has been implemented in stages since
1983. Although the Stevenson School has not developed the Forested Area
yet, it has stated that it intends to do so in the future, as planned
out in the Master Plan. The Stevenson School currently
[[Page 60433]]
uses a nearby athletic field owned by the PBC called Collins Field.
However, the PBC can revoke this agreement at any time. The Stevenson
School plans to develop the Forested Area according to the timeline
laid out in the Master Plan to ensure its students are guaranteed an
additional on-campus athletic field to use. If the PBC revokes its
agreement and the Stevenson School cannot develop the Forested Area,
the alternatives, according to the Stevenson School, include bussing
students to an alternative field or eliminating some sports programs.
The final economic analysis identifies estimated potential costs to
the Stevenson School could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million (present
value at a three percent discount rate) over 20 years. At the low end
of the range, the Stevenson School may require a permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to comply with section 404 of the Clean
Water Act because the Stevenson School property contains drainages on
the border that may be considered waters of the United States. If the
Stevenson School designs its athletic field in such a way that it would
impact the drainages, Federal nexus resulting from the ACOE permitting
of the activity may require a section 7 consultation with the Service
regarding P. yadonii. The consultation would result in administrative
costs to the Stevenson School of approximately $5,579 (present value at
a three percent discount rate). At the upper end of the range, economic
impacts are the result of the disutility cost of transporting student
athletes to the alternative field during school hours plus the cost of
purchasing more buses and fuel, and hiring more drivers. In addition,
the Stevenson School may lose other benefits associated with the
athletic field; however, those benefits are unknown and too
hypothetical to quantify. If the student athletes are transported to
the alternative field, the total cost to the Stevenson School could be
as high as $9.2 million (present value at a three percent discount
rate) over the next 20 years.
Benefits of Inclusion
The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally
discussed earlier in this rule. In the case of P. yadonii on the
Stevenson School property, the Federal nexus would most likely occur
due to either wetland impacts that require a Corps permit, or via a
consultation on an HCP that was initiated for a listed animal species.
To date, there have been no consultations or HCPs that addressed P.
yadonii and its upland habitat. In a recent Corps consultation on the
California red-legged frog, only wetland habitats were addressed, and
consideration of impacts to adjacent upland habitat that support P.
yadonii were determined to be beyond the scope of consultation. The
likelihood of future consultations or HCPs would depend largely on the
configuration of future proposed development that might adversely
affect the California red-legged frog and trigger these actions.
However, because the Act does not restrict the take of plants on
private lands, the likelihood of future HCPs covering this species is
low. Therefore we have determined that the regulatory benefits of
designating critical habitat on the Stevenson School property would be
low.
Additionally, including the Stevenson School parcel in critical
habitat could provide an educational benefit, signaling the importance
of those lands to others, including the Coastal Commission and the
County of Monterey. However, both of these entities already recognize
and consider the importance of conserving sensitive resources,
including P. yadonii, in their project review process and future
buildout on the Stevenson School parcel would be subject to the
requirements of those agencies. Therefore, we have determined that the
educational benefits of designating critical habitat on the Stevenson
School property would be low.
The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of
protection under section 7(a)(2) for P. yadonii that is separate from
the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Under
the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide
greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was previously
believed, but it is not possible to quantify this benefit at present.
However, the protection provided limits adverse effects as opposed to a
requirement to provide a conservation benefit.
Benefits of Exclusion
We believe that the benefits of excluding the Stevenson School
property from the designation of critical habitat--avoiding the
potential economic impacts predicted in the economic analysis--exceed
the educational, regulatory, and recovery benefits which could result
from including those lands in the designation of critical habitat.
We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on
the Stevenson School relative to the potential benefit for P. yadonii
and its primary constituent elements that could result from the
designation of critical habitat. We believe that the potential economic
impact of up to approximately $9.2 million (undiscounted, over the next
20 years) on the school significantly outweighs the potential
conservation and protective benefits for the species and its primary
constituent elements derived from the potential restrictions as a
result of this designation on educational facilities constructed on
this site.
We believe that excluding the Stevenson School property, and thus
relieving the school of additional costs that would result from
compliance with the designation, will allow the School the flexibility
to plan for the best use of their lands for the educational benefits of
their students. We therefore find that the benefits of excluding these
areas from the designation of critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including them in the designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We do not believe that the exclusion of the 6 ac (2.4 ha) from
subunit 6a will result in the extinction of P. yadonii. Overall, this
area represents less than 0.5 percent of the proposed designation in
Unit 6, and does not support the greatest concentrations of plants or
the highest quality habitat of the lands we are designating as critical
habitat. In addition, because the 6 ac (2.4 ha) we are excluding from
critical habitat are occupied by P. yadonii, if a Federal nexus is
present, consultations under Section 7 that involve these lands may
occur even in the absence of their designation as critical habitat.
Application of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, if
consultation occurs, also provides assurances that the species will not
go extinct.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
[[Page 60434]]
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effects of the designation. The draft analysis was
made available for public review on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44069). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until September 6, 2007.
Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and considered
the public comments and information we received and prepared responses
to those comments (see Responses to Comments section above) or
incorporated the information or changes directly into this final rule
or our final economic analysis.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for Piperia yadonii. This information is intended to assist the
Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding
particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of
including those areas in the designation. This economic analysis
considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the
designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector.
The final economic analysis attempts to isolate those direct and
indirect impacts that are expected to be triggered specifically by the
critical habitat designation. That is, the incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts included in this appendix would not be
expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the
species.
The proposed rule may impact two landowners, the Pebble Beach
Company (PBC), and the Stevenson School. Incremental impacts to PBC are
estimated to range from $0 to $2.6 million, depending on the scenarios
described in section V of this analysis. The Stevenson School may bear
incremental administrative impacts as a result of addressing adverse
modification in section 7 consultation. The Stevenson School may bear
additional incremental impacts associated with the modifications that
may be placed on the project to address adverse modification, but these
project modifications are too hypothetical to quantify. The remaining
impacts quantified in the report, which are discussed below, are
expected to occur regardless of the designation of critical habitat.
Coextensive Future Impacts: The economic analysis forecasts future
coextensive impacts associated with conservation efforts for the
piperia within areas of proposed critical habitat to range from $6.6 to
$16.1 million (present value at a three percent discount rate) over the
next 20 years ($0.43 to $1.0 million annualized). Impacts to PBC, and
the Stevenson School comprise the majority of the total quantified
impacts in the areas of proposed critical habitat.
Pebble Beach Company: PBC, which manages land in units 4a,
4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e, has implemented management techniques
designed to conserve the piperia and its habitat. Efforts include
ongoing open space management and maintenance, golf course and
residential area management and maintenance, site clean up and
restoration, and monitoring and patrolling. As a result, total impacts
to the Pebble Beach Company of protecting and restoring the piperia
habitat are $5.5 million (present value at a three percent discount
rate) over 20 years.
Stevenson School: The Stevenson School, which owns land in
unit 6a, plans to develop an area of proposed critical habitat into an
athletic field in the future. Currently, the Stevenson School is in an
agreement to use a field owned by the PBC, but an approved PBC
development plan will eliminate the School's ability to use the PBC
field. If the Stevenson School cannot develop the field, the School
would have to transport student athletes to an alternative off-campus
site. If the Stevenson School can develop the field, section 7 of the
ESA will likely apply because of the Clean Water Act, which will
trigger a federal nexus, and require the ACOE to consult with the
Service, leading to administrative costs to the Stevenson School. After
the designation of critical habitat, the outcome of the biological
opinion from the section 7 consultation may be more costly due to
additional measures to address the potential for adverse modification
of critical habitat. As a result, the potential economic impacts to the
Stevenson School could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million (present value
at a three percent discount rate) over 20 years.
We evaluated the potential economic impact of this designation as
identified in the draft analysis. Based on this evaluation, we have
excluded Stevenson School for economic reasons. We have also excluded
Pebble Beach Company lands for conservation partnership reasons.
A copy of the final economic analyses with supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section) or for downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura.
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 will not 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. As explained above,
we prepared an economic analysis of this action. We used this analysis
to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical
habitat. We also used it to help determine whether to exclude any area
from critical habitat, as provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we
determine, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species.
Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB Circular A-4,
September 17, 2003). Under Circular A-4, once an agency determines that
the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency must consider
alternative regulatory approaches. Because the determination of
critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat providing that the
[[Page 60435]]
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area
as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of
the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or a combination of
both, constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis for designations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
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.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7(a)(2) of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect Piperia yadonii. Federal agencies also must consult with us
if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Piperia yadonii would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial
development). There is only one entity that qualifies as a small entity
under SBRFA, the Stevenson School. The economic impacts to the
Stevenson School are presented as a range, with the upper end of the
range calculated under the assumption that the Stevenson School cannot
develop the athletic field and the lower end of the range calculated
under the assumption that the Stevenson School can develop the athletic
field and thereby impacted by the administrative costs of section 7
consultation. The potential economic impacts to the Stevenson School
could range from $0.006 to $9.2 million present value at a three
percent discount rate) over 20 years.
These impacts are attributed to the presence of the piperia in the
Forested Area, not to the proposed rule. The incremental impacts are
therefore only those expected to result from considering adverse
modification in addition to jeopardy in the case that consultation
occurs for the project ($1,335, present value at a three percent
discount rate). Project modifications that may be placed on the project
to address adverse modification could add additional costs to the
Stevenson School. We have excluded the Stevenson School in the final
rule, so these impacts will not occur as a result of this designation.
Therefore we certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use''. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. While this final rule to designate critical habitat for
Piperia yadonii is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, our
economic analysis determined that it is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a 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
[[Page 60436]]
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 that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because only 0.9 percent (19 ac/8 ha) of the
total critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii is owned by a
small government entity, the City of Pacific Grove. Furthermore, a
large portion of these lands are designated as parks or open space and
are managed at least in part for conservation of natural resources. As
such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
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 critical habitat for Piperia yadonii in a takings
implication assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this final designation of critical habitat for P. yadonii does not
pose significant takings implications.
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 policy, we requested information from,
and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in California. A large portion of
these lands are designated as parks or open space and are managed at
least in part for conservation of natural resources and a small
proportion (0.9 percent) occurs within the jurisdiction of a single
small government entity. The designation may have some benefit to these
governments in that the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the
conservation 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 are designating critical habitat in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. This final 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 Piperia yadonii.
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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Federal Circuit, we do
not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116
S. Ct. 698 (1996).
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. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time of listing or currently
that contain the features essential for the conservation of Piperia
yadonii and no Tribal lands that are unoccupied that are essential for
the conservation of P. yadonii. Therefore, critical habitat for P.
yadonii has not been proposed for designation on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the
[[Page 60437]]
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Piperia yadonii'' 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
* * * * * * *
Piperia yadonii.................. Yadon's piperia..... U.S.A (CA)......... Orchidaceae E 1998 17.96(a) NA
(Orchid)...........
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), amend paragraph (a) by adding in alphabetical
order an entry for Family Orchidaceae consisting of Piperia yadonii to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Orchidaceae: Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monterey County,
California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Piperia yadonii are the habitat components that provide:
(i) A vegetation structure providing filtered sunlight on sandy
soils:
(A) Coastal pine forest (primarily Monterey pine) with a canopy
coverof 20 to 70 percent, and a sparse herbaceous understory on Baywood
sands, Narlon loamy fine sands, Sheridan coarse sandy loams, Tangair
fine sands, Santa Lucia shaly clay loams and Chamise shaley clay loams
underlain by a hardpan; or
(B) Maritime chaparral ridges with dwarfed shrubs (primarily
Hooker's manzanita) on Reliz shaly clay loams, Sheridan sandy loams,
Narlon sandy loams, Arnold loamy sands and soils in the Junipero-Sur
complex, Rock Outcrop-Xerorthents Association, and Arnold-Santa Ynez
complex, often underlain by rock outcroppings.
(ii) Presence of nocturnal, short-tongued moths in the families
Pyralidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Pterophoridae.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units--Data layers defining map units were
created on base maps using aerial imagery from the National
Agricultural Imagery Program; aerial imagery captured June 2005. Data
were project to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 10, North
American Datum (NAD) 1983.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for Piperia yadonii (Map 1)
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60438]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 60439]]
(6) Unit 1: Blohm Ranch, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 611901,
4079098; 611902, 4079137; 611917, 4079156; 611974, 4079198; 612002,
4079216; 612037, 4079247; 612049, 4079272; 612042, 4079293; 611982,
4079311; 611952, 4079324; 611943, 4079354; 611929, 4079419; 611930,
4079454; 611972, 4079486; 611987, 4079543; 612012, 4079583; 612011,
4079594; 612038, 4079619; 612190, 4079608; 612190, 4079539; 612216,
4079511; 612324, 4079491; 612343, 4079504; 612387, 4079471; 612456,
4079471; 612514, 4079509; 612558, 4079614; 612558, 4079724; 612489,
4079761; 612455, 4079807; 612459, 4079821; 612511, 4079847; 612550,
4079852; 612589, 4079847; 612625, 4079832; 612654, 4079812; 612673,
4079796; 612655, 4079782; 612630, 4079752; 612603, 4079744; 612647,
4079619; 612734, 4079691; 612754, 4079691; 612762, 4079710; 612785,
4079745; 612846, 4079723; 612827, 4079702; 612815, 4079690; 612804,
4079670; 612797, 4079645; 612795, 4079611; 612746, 4079599; 612716,
4079588; 612674, 4079586; 612655, 4079569; 612683, 4079496; 612666,
4079450; 612629, 4079411; 612638, 4079375; 612651, 4079353; 612661,
4079323; 612665, 4079286; 612624, 4079249; 612624, 4079222; 612635,
4079209; 612646, 4079194; 612662, 4079183; 612713, 4079155; 612682,
4079133; 612642, 4079112; 612585, 4079109; 612530, 4079112; 612521,
4079147; 612509, 4079197; 612576, 4079313; 612588, 4079337; 612589,
4079337; 612580, 4079358; 612579, 4079358; 612563, 4079371; 612537,
4079381; 612497, 4079398; 612474, 4079403; 612398, 4079417; 612367,
4079417; 612350, 4079399; 612346, 4079383; 612357, 4079360; 612369,
4079340; 612383, 4079316; 612395, 4079275; 612390, 4079255; 612380,
4079233; 612350, 4079218; 612286, 4079200; 612233, 4079178; 612196,
4079184; 612165, 4079184; 612143, 4079168; 612128, 4079150; 612128,
4079119; 612127, 4079094; 611959, 4078999; 611958, 4078999; 611931,
4079027; 611911, 4079061; returning to 611901, 4079098.
(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
611998, 4078651; 611999, 4078664; 611999, 4078665; 612044, 4078765;
612187, 4078803; 612213, 4078825; 612254, 4078844; 612284, 4078853;
612336, 4078871; 612385, 4078907; 612423, 4078925; 612458, 4078940;
612479, 4078947; 612520, 4078956; 612604, 4078959; 612662, 4078959;
612704, 4078960; 612812, 4078958; 612850, 4078951; 612897, 4078953;
612988, 4078967; 613045, 4078913; 613060, 4078936; 613099, 4078949;
613101, 4078961; 613094, 4078978; 613084, 4079005; 613073, 4079060;
613062, 4079129; 613051, 4079222; 613044, 4079306; 613056, 4079376;
613064, 4079397; 613082, 4079431; 613099, 4079501; 613130, 4079602;
613168, 4079601; 613177, 4079580; 613180, 4079551; 613198, 4079533;
613212, 4079488; 613220, 4079438; 613212, 4079355; 613203, 4079303;
613176, 4079297; 613165, 4079281; 613166, 4079253; 613195, 4079224;
613195, 4079212; 613176, 4079198; 613174, 4079174; 613177, 4079155;
613196, 4079139; 613205, 4079091; 613208, 4079041; 613195, 4078982;
613186, 4078964; 613182, 4078941; 613177, 4078906; 613172, 4078906;
613162, 4078914; 613153, 4078927; 613130, 4078938; 613103, 4078930;
613086, 4078918; 613073, 4078906; 613061, 4078885; 613061, 4078882;
612802, 4078842; 612765, 4078826; 612627, 4078767; 612606, 4078767;
612578, 4078759; 612552, 4078744; 612445, 4078722; 612278, 4078704;
612253, 4078701; 612170, 4078702; 612124, 4078719; 612110, 4078724;
612055, 4078722; 612071, 4078638; returning to 611998, 4078651.
(iii) Note: Unit 1 is depicted on Map 2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of
this entry.
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Unit 2: Manzanita Park, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 615541,
4076005; 615651, 4076047; 615859, 4076125; 616111, 4076311; 616209,
4076287; 616278, 4076318; 616316, 4076335; 616416, 4076435; 616503,
4076520; 616659, 4076565; 616566, 4076763; 616534, 4076874; 616515,
4076874; 616454, 4077003; 616562, 4077020; 616677, 4077028; 616820,
4077021; 616876, 4077008; 616925, 4076975; 617013, 4076959; 617053,
4076962; 617137, 4077017; 617176, 4077025; 617224, 4077020; 617259,
4077038; 617271, 4077094; 617286, 4077095; 617333, 4077097; 617481,
4077105; 617482, 4077105; 617488, 4076972; 617540, 4076890; 617565,
4076771; 617594, 4076701; 617703, 4076645; 617728, 4076486; 617830,
4076204; 617787, 4076190; 617729, 4076197; 617671, 4076233; 617643,
4076273; 617579, 4076433; 617565, 4076533; 617468, 4076615; 617445,
4076631; 617435, 4076657; 617402, 4076656; 617361, 4076620; 617305,
4076601; 617309, 4076551; 617377, 4076484; 617396, 4076450; 617407,
4076402; 617403, 4076354; 617377, 4076301; 617341, 4076268; 617287,
4076245; 617229, 4076245; 617167, 4076273; 617079, 4076356; 616934,
4076322; 616910, 4076259; 616884, 4076229; 616851, 4076207; 616814,
4076195; 616775, 4076192; 616737, 4076200; 616702, 4076217; 616655,
4076267; 616599, 4076383; 616511, 4076307; 616465, 4076283; 616430,
4076225; 616388, 4076189; 616213, 4076130; 616160, 4076127; 616111,
4076139; 616092, 4076133; 615967, 4076012; 615897, 4075959; 615835,
4075931; 615776, 4075922; 615706, 4075898; 615620, 4075896; 615575,
4075879; returning to 615541, 4076005.
(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
616488, 4074150; 616505, 4074167; 616533, 4074172; 616573, 4074209;
616573, 4074219; 616555, 4074267; 616557, 4074347; 616567, 4074401;
616736, 4074502; 616746, 4074512; 616760, 4074521; 616779, 4074536;
616804, 4074543; 616826, 4074543; 616853, 4074543; 616876, 4074540;
616890, 4074537; 616915, 4074552; 616943, 4074575; 617092, 4074595;
617327, 4074410; 617348, 4074387; 617367, 4074354; 617374, 4074335;
617379, 4074301; 617380, 4074258; 617379, 4074219; 617379, 4074218;
617346, 4074185; 617298, 4074145; 617219, 4074073; 617199, 4074072;
617186, 4074083; 617159, 4074076; 617134, 4074069; 617131, 4074058;
617114, 4074034; 616994, 4073984; 616944, 4073991; 616918, 4074001;
616981, 4074157; 617003, 4074188; 616891, 4074250; 616860, 4074246;
616845, 4074178; 616845, 4074160; 616853, 4074117; 616747, 4074137;
616712, 4074146; 616701, 4074171; 616673, 4074179; 616646, 4074104;
616652, 4074081; 616642, 4074056; 616620, 4074046; 616591, 4074041;
616568, 4074035; 616546, 4074023; 616532, 4074006; 616531, 4074006;
616490, 4074054; returning to 616488, 4074150.
(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
616931, 4073371; 616936, 4073410; 616951, 4073446; 616975, 4073477;
617003, 4073500; 617077, 4073542; 617094, 4073556; 617142, 4073581;
617382, 4073670; 617411, 4073676; 617450, 4073676; 617435, 4073712;
617512, 4073743; 617549, 4073763; 617598, 4073810; 617636, 4073830;
617694, 4073860; 617739, 4073865; 617774, 4073887; 617847, 4073880;
617879,
[[Page 60440]]
4073885; 617960, 4073894; 618016, 4073916; 618064, 4073947; 618117,
4073965; 618279, 4073927; 618244, 4074007; 618138, 4074038; 618106,
4074053; 618104, 4074059; 618103, 4074108; 618076, 4074150; 618071,
4074184; 618081, 4074204; 618095, 4074224; 618117, 4074247; 618176,
4074299; 618229, 4074318; 618261, 4074316; 618307, 4074300; 618370,
4074293; 618407, 4074278; 618448, 4074248; 618468, 4074227; 618507,
4074173; 618519, 4074146; 618533, 4074088; 618553, 4074051; 618566,
4074011; 618572, 4073986; 618574, 4073952; 618568, 4073913; 618533,
4073788; 618521, 4073761; 618495, 4073722; 618496, 4073601; 618482,
4073567; 618369, 4073570; 618365, 4073277; 618364, 4073029; 618261,
4072958; 618212, 4072996; 618157, 4073061; 618131, 4073086; 618090,
4073147; 618078, 4073173; 618064, 4073256; 618067, 4073314; 618081,
4073377; 618072, 4073413; 618044, 4073404; 618015, 4073401; 617985,
4073404; 617957, 4073413; 617931, 4073426; 617902, 4073452; 617885,
4073476; 617873, 4073501; 617927, 4073549; 618040, 4073586; 618063,
4073730; 618123, 4073826; 618134, 4073831; 618168, 4073834; 618228,
4073818; 618235, 4073822; 618191, 4073875; 618082, 4073823; 618062,
4073827; 618042, 4073815; 618025, 4073781; 617967, 4073798; 617970,
4073818; 617934, 4073823; 617913, 4073790; 617874, 4073780; 617778,
4073781; 617786, 4073711; 617701, 4073663; 617644, 4073637; 617551,
4073622; 617545, 4073563; 617491, 4073517; 617470, 4073382; 617262,
4073305; 617237, 4073287; 617138, 4073233; 617100, 4073222; 617071,
4073221; 617032, 4073229; 616997, 4073246; 616968, 4073272; 616946,
4073305; 616934, 4073342; returning to 616931, 4073371.
(iv) Note: Unit 2 is depicted on Map 2 in paragraph (9)(iv) of this
entry.
(9) Unit 3: Vierra Canyon, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 618886,
4071622; 618896, 4071742; 619157, 4071722; 619431, 4071664; 619441,
4071576; 619441, 4071573; 619385, 4071569; 619171, 4071553; 619166,
4071601; 618901, 4071615; 618892, 4071615; returning to 618886,
4071622.
(ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
620707, 4073069; 620865, 4073146; 620890, 4073140; 620917, 4073128;
620941, 4073111; 620961, 4073089; 620977, 4073064; 620987, 4073037;
620992, 4072992; 620897, 4072908; 620886, 4072879; 620778, 4072930;
620784, 4072971; 620736, 4072950; 620709, 4072963; returning to 620707,
4073069.
(iii) Subunit Unit 3c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
Prunedale. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 620984, 4073724; 621030, 4073752; 620987, 4073916; 620997,
4073968; 620996, 4073974; 621079, 4074094; 621133, 4074174; 621144,
4074209; 621084, 4074270; 621123, 4074335; 621127, 4074380; 621146,
4074396; 621173, 4074395; 621273, 4074227; 621256, 4074215; 621246,
4074203; 621206, 4074150; 621177, 4074089; 621151, 4074025; 621163,
4073968; 621171, 4073965; 621179, 4073920; 621159, 4073901; 621160,
4073898; 621124, 4073845; 621131, 4073829; 621129, 4073827; 621153,
4073753; 621073, 4073708; 621025, 4073710; returning to 620984,
4073724.
(iv) Note: Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 (Map 2) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60441]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 60442]]
(10) Unit 4: Aguajito, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 4a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 602332,
4048354; 602347, 4048427; 602354, 4048439; 602362, 4048452; 602366,
4048456; 602401, 4048489; 602508, 4048576; 602697, 4048582; 602735,
4048574; 602762, 4048562; 602786, 4048545; 602817, 4048507; 602832,
4048471; 602858, 4048345; 603034, 4048312; 603069, 4048294; 603115,
4048262; 603136, 4048241; 603158, 4048209; 603171, 4048172; 603173,
4048133; 603166, 4048094; 603143, 4048051; 603107, 4048018; 603072,
4048000; 603024, 4047993; 602966, 4048004; 602522, 4048105; 602451,
4048153; 602400, 4048198; 602373, 4048240; 602351, 4048287; returning
to 602332, 4048354.
(ii) Subunit 4b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Seaside. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 601574,
4047589; 601594, 4047664; 601625, 4047701; 601657, 4047723; 601695,
4047736; 601778, 4047749; 601839, 4047778; 601926, 4047801; 601965,
4047804; 602014, 4047795; 602048, 4047863; 602058, 4047918; 602064,
4047991; 602022, 4048044; 602000, 4048080; 601988, 4048107; 601973,
4048163; 601962, 4048239; 602022, 4048231; 602007, 4048253; 602060,
4048243; 602206, 4048211; 602231, 4048211; 602246, 4048135; 602250,
4048108; 602256, 4048082; 602264, 4048071; 602278, 4048051; 602309,
4048008; 602318, 4047990; 602345, 4047913; 602355, 4047883; 602350,
4047838; 602325, 4047746; 602278, 4047654; 602262, 4047623; 602199,
4047551; 602130, 4047497; 602054, 4047470; 601996, 4047474; 601864,
4047460; 601773, 4047445; 601743, 4047440; 601704, 4047440; 601657,
4047454; 601611, 4047490; 601582, 4047540; returning to 601574,
4047589.
(iii) Note: Unit 4 is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of
this entry.
(11) Unit 5: Old Capitol, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 599314, 4048918;
599497, 4049056; 599551, 4048997; 599551, 4048976; 599552, 4048959;
599562, 4048939; 599593, 4048923; 599625, 4048931; 599640, 4048934;
599655, 4048928; 599675, 4048937; 599685, 4048913; 599666, 4048844;
599649, 4048821; 599603, 4048784; 599561, 4048761; 599516, 4048757;
599437, 4048777; 599370, 4048808; 599329, 4048864; returning to 599314,
4048918.
(ii) Note: Unit 5 is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xv) of
this entry.
(12) Unit 6: Monterey Peninsula, Monterey County, California.
(i) Subunit 6a (portion between Forest Lake Road and Lopez Road):
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 594289.967,
4049237.581; 594267.618, 4049251.760; 594263, 4049271; 594241.397,
4049281.713; 594230.805, 4049278.096; 594214.503, 4049291.804;
594166.894, 4049364.694; 594176.917, 4049369.673; 594186.521,
4049380.709; 594196.880, 4049403.089; 594210.082, 4049442.288;
594216.994, 4049476.435; 594229.293, 4049570.617; 594241.651,
4049610.586; 594287.923, 4049701.637; 594338.715, 4049801.237;
594339.817, 4049802.777; 594348, 4049799; 594354, 4049797; 594354,
4049795; 594355, 4049717; 594451, 4049718; 594500, 4049735; 594512,
4049669; 594516.717, 4049635.323; 594514.946, 4049608.292; 594510.651,
4049578.721; 594505.106, 4049541.754; 594500.823, 4049516.756;
594500.581, 4049505.979; 594501.352, 4049498.500; 594502.886,
4049491.140; 594505.184, 4049484.320; 594508.514, 4049476.166;
594512.335, 4049469.471; 594516.239, 4049464.140; 594520.679,
4049459.245; 594525.606, 4049454.841; 594531.898, 4049450.388;
594539.672, 4049446.666; 594548.703, 4049443.138; 594554.822,
4049441.050; 594564.127, 4049438.323; 594572.946, 4049436.064;
594582.012, 4049431.785; 594588.766, 4049426.645; 594594.416,
4049420.310; 594598.418, 4049413.711; 594600.523, 4049407.460;
594603.006, 4049397.784; 594604.979, 4049387.614; 594607.304,
4049381.221; 594609.935, 4049375.747; 594584, 4049338; 594573, 4049333;
594557, 4049321; 594544, 4049303; 594544, 4049289; 594547, 4049272;
594547, 4049253.000; 594538, 4049237; 594472, 4049167; 594453, 4049150;
594446.759, 4049141.029; 594441.513, 4049144.159; 594348, 4049199;
594355, 4049219; returning to 594289.967, 4049237.581.
(ii) Subunit 6a (portion north of Morris Drive): From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596121, 4050849; 596117.233, 4050841.631;
596114.620, 4050840.555; 596109.729, 4050839.063; 596103.326,
4050838.039; 596096.103, 4050838.069; 596088.735, 4050839.482;
596080.383, 4050841.481; 596072.392, 4050843.713; 596064.531,
4050846.222; 596058.663, 4050848.305; 596051.053, 4050851.282;
596044.058, 4050854.305; 596033.962, 4050859.130; 596016.951,
4050866.753; 596001.620, 4050872.806; 595985.651, 4050878.329;
595968.711, 4050883.356; 595953.831, 4050887.092; 595943.540,
4050889.313; 595936.170, 4050889.798; 595925.089, 4050890.098;
595911.434, 4050889.762; 595897.656, 4050888.628; 595886.642,
4050887.141; 595874.824, 4050884.959; 595863.953, 4050882.401;
595853.066, 4050879.170; 595840.011, 4050874.858; 595824.735,
4050869.336; 595809.054, 4050863.117; 595794.290, 4050856.734;
595779.189, 4050850.247; 595765.663, 4050843.950; 595755.155,
4050838.710; 595744.162, 4050832.891; 595733.283, 4050826.778;
595724.193, 4050820.701; 595713.698, 4050813.076; 595702.950,
4050804.528; 595693.694, 4050796.502; 595686.111, 4050789.421;
595678.697, 4050782.009; 595670.691, 4050774.057; 595662.547,
4050766.912; 595653.948, 4050760.193; 595643.427, 4050752.976;
595634.919, 4050747.856; 595625.202, 4050742.712; 595616.147,
4050738.537; 595605.957, 4050734.502; 595595.897, 4050731.216;
595579.392, 4050726.890; 595558.919, 4050722.484; 595541.632,
4050719.570; 595525.140, 4050717.462; 595510.317, 4050716.119;
595497.922, 4050715.394; 595486.247, 4050715.162; 595474.894,
4050715.805; 595465.549, 4050717.074; 595432, 4050797; 595946, 4051094;
595954, 4051085; 595953, 4051067; 595953, 4051053; 595956, 4051034;
595963, 4051011; 595972, 4050989; 595984, 4050968; 596000, 4050950;
596035, 4050912; returning to 596121, 4050849.
(iii) Subunit 6a (Huckleberry Hill portion): From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596121, 4048995; 596114.435, 4048981.020;
596111.136, 4048973.151; 596108.142, 4048965.208; 596105.454,
4048957.114; 596103.071, 4048948.946; 596100.993, 4048940.704;
596099.068, 4048932.387; 596097.601, 4048924.073; 596096.727,
4048918.049; 596094.961, 4048908.666; 596093.180, 4048901.722;
596090.941, 4048894.850; 596090.194, 4048892.559; 596075.586,
4048855.180; 596044.639, 4048787.944; 596040.015, 4048778.903;
596034.930, 4048770.237; 596030.582, 4048763.941; 596026.078,
4048757.872; 596021.113, 4048752.103; 596017.649, 4048748.408;
596014.185, 4048744.789; 596010.566, 4048741.320; 596004.831,
4048736.381; 596000.751, 4048733.288; 595998.787, 4048731.742;
595994.706, 4048728.802; 595988.352, 4048724.693; 595983.962,
4048722.131; 595981.689, 4048720.962; 595979.416, 4048719.795;
595975.023, 4048717.536; 595970.322, 4048715.427; 595965.619,
4048713.546; 595963.344, 4048712.607; 595956.209, 4048710.166;
595948.918, 4048708.104; 595943.903,
[[Page 60443]]
4048706.982; 595939.037, 4048706.013; 595934.018, 4048705.196;
595928.997, 4048704.530; 595923.974, 4048704.018; 595918.949,
4048703.734; 595835.009, 4048702.117; 595829.978, 4048702.289;
595824.945, 4048702.691; 595817.470, 4048703.522; 595814.875,
4048703.874; 595809.990, 4048704.734; 595802.505, 4048706.404;
595800.376, 4048706.944; 595798, 4048708; 595762, 4048723; 595761,
4048724; 595739, 4048743; 595733.894, 4048751.431; 595730.885,
4048761.683; 595730.310, 4048772.343; 595731.877, 4048782.112;
595734.506, 4048792.426; 595734.563, 4048800.960; 595733.119,
4048807.573; 595728.590, 4048817.426; 595725.142, 4048826.074;
595722.591, 4048836.331; 595721.878, 4048845.617; 595722.245,
4048853.774; 595723.678, 4048861.865; 595726.474, 4048870.810;
595729.744, 4048878.237; 595735.436, 4048887.137; 595741.604,
4048894.292; 595748.688, 4048901.227; 595756.387, 4048907.712;
595764.398, 4048913.668; 595772.266, 4048918.555; 595779.212,
4048924.270; 595783.576, 4048929.194; 595788.071, 4048936.101;
595790.747, 4048942.149; 595792.648, 4048949.332; 595793.481,
4048956.655; 595792.933, 4048964.878; 595788.510, 4048978.999;
595781.840, 4048989.592; 595773.660, 4048998.948; 595765.407,
4049005.918; 595876, 4049140; 595883, 4049146; 595891, 4049158; 595930,
4049207; 595924, 4049215; 595929, 4049224; 595759, 4049460; 595749,
4049453; 595718, 4049483; 595671, 4049449; 595594, 4049477; 595482,
4049468; 595462, 4049369; 595546, 4049277; 595476, 4049214; 595407,
4049320; 595398, 4049332; 595379, 4049348; 595360, 4049358; 595245,
4049402; 595234, 4049415; 595234, 4049456; 595169, 4049482; 595110,
4049477; 595063, 4049474; 595058, 4049541; 595079, 4049565; 595102,
4049571; 595119, 4049575; 595140, 4049584; 595150, 4049615; 595159,
4049642; 595130, 4049674; 595090, 4049729; 595067, 4049769; 595039,
4049811; 595027, 4049835; 595027, 4049851; 595037, 4049882; 595060,
4049943; 595074, 4050018; 595084, 4050058; 595081, 4050093; 595057.323,
4050156.455; 594990.554, 4050158.347; 594967.842, 4050159.586;
594941.815, 4050161.163; 594939.740, 4050161.513; 594954, 4050173;
594969, 4050191; 594986, 4050216; 594995, 4050239; 595012, 4050254;
595029, 4050260; 595045, 4050258; 595063, 4050252; 595089, 4050249;
595114, 4050261; 595129, 4050283; 595135, 4050315; 595127, 4050348;
595118, 4050375; 595115, 4050400; 595117, 4050427; 595121, 4050447;
595131, 4050460; 595146, 4050469; 595168, 4050477; 595183, 4050486;
595190, 4050498; 595195, 4050513; 595192, 4050538; 595193, 4050538;
595299, 4050514; 595411, 4050490; 595535, 4050334; 595574, 4050254;
595621, 4050215; 595661, 4050192; 595699, 4050182; 595718, 4050203;
595735, 4050221; 595728, 4050282; 595737, 4050294; 595873, 4050317;
595931, 4050395; 595865, 4050456; 595764, 4050427; 595708, 4050454;
595647, 4050505; 595634, 4050565; 595491, 4050688; 595495.370,
4050690.280; 595496.493, 4050690.314; 595508.038, 4050690.905;
595520.374, 4050691.863; 595533.349, 4050693.238; 595546.186,
4050694.972; 595557.882, 4050696.879; 595569.523, 4050699.092;
595580.577, 4050701.486; 595593.215, 4050704.582; 595607.463,
4050708.587; 595620.527, 4050713.299; 595632.385, 4050718.427;
595645.083, 4050724.897; 595657.059, 4050732.019; 595668.185,
4050739.632; 595678.590, 4050747.738; 595687.611, 4050755.653;
595697.731, 4050765.724; 595707.498, 4050775.246; 595717.389,
4050784.009; 595727.809, 4050792.397; 595739.767, 4050801.074;
595750.271, 4050807.692; 595761.985, 4050814.082; 595774.723,
4050820.556; 595787.346, 4050826.503; 595803.552, 4050833.485;
595819.808, 4050840.511; 595835.796, 4050846.786; 595850.746,
4050852.106; 595863.800, 4050856.332; 595878.326, 4050860.141;
595893.138, 4050862.843; 595909.227, 4050864.579; 595923.931,
4050865.100; 595940.058, 4050864.509; 595955.311, 4050861.023;
595973.024, 4050856.090; 595989.675, 4050850.553; 596006.554,
4050844.003; 596020.972, 4050837.619; 596035.257, 4050830.854;
596050.951, 4050824.504; 596064.953, 4050819.844; 596081.870,
4050815.399; 596091.460, 4050813.429; 596095.984, 4050813.012;
596102.710, 4050812.958; 596111.615, 4050813.930; 596118.244,
4050815.455; 596127.446, 4050818.812; 596132.377, 4050821.278;
596136.011, 4050823.439; 596140.866, 4050832.937; 596142.583,
4050836.764; 596411, 4050626; 596492, 4050567; 596500, 4050556; 596506,
4050545; 596510, 4050531; 596514, 4050505; 596513, 4050484; 596493,
4050421; 596437, 4050262; 596404, 4050199; 596364, 4050134; 596358,
4050092; 596367, 4050043; 596370, 4050008; 596348, 4049956; 596334,
4049923; 596339, 4049885; 596365, 4049836; 596420, 4049812; 596418,
4049789; 596387, 4049778; 596366, 4049762; 596351, 4049725; 596344,
4049706; 596332, 4049696; 596302, 4049685; 596300, 4049646; 596303,
4049619; 596311, 4049598; 596310, 4049570; 596299, 4049556; 596283,
4049542; 596269, 4049528; 596260, 4049516; 596258, 4049492; 596272,
4049460; 596282, 4049429; 596299, 4049389; 596298, 4049372; 596274,
4049352; 596258, 4049329; 596166, 4049101; returning to 596121,
4048995.
(iv) Subunit 6a (Pescadero Canyon portion): From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 596202.421, 4048820.398; 596202.251,
4048823.977; 596201.106, 4048831.050; 596198.745, 4048837.881;
596195.323, 4048844.166; 596189.449, 4048851.720; 596181.453,
4048858.259; 596174.403, 4048861.914; 596168.285, 4048863.980;
596159.736, 4048865.409; 596150.776, 4048866.138; 596139.514,
4048869.809; 596131.375, 4048875.207; 596125.615, 4048881.289;
596120.666, 4048889.708; 596116.970, 4048898.758; 596115.407,
4048904.538; 596115.082, 4048907.507; 596114.880, 4048914.971;
596115.601, 4048920.919; 596117.073, 4048928.699; 596119.738,
4048940.221; 596121.820, 4048947.778; 596123.208, 4048952.171; 596149,
4048917; 596171, 4048889; 596214, 4048863; 596295, 4048862; 596318,
4048787; 596334, 4048726; 596363, 4048682; 596382, 4048673; 596405,
4048693; 596418, 4048724; 596441, 4048708; 596482, 4048660; 596510,
4048642; 596536, 4048625; 596561, 4048606; 596597, 4048578; 596651,
4048555; 596671, 4048551; 596715, 4048542; 596829, 4048531; 596878,
4048531; 596924.858, 4048521.004; 596936.135, 4048509.789; 596944.053,
4048516.909; 596953, 4048515; 597028, 4048494; 597074, 4048468; 597083,
4048454; 597096, 4048441; 597102, 4048435; 597103.186, 4048434.138;
597103.230, 4048432.889; 597122.598, 4048407.776; 597125.173,
4048401.474; 597125.117, 4048396.220; 597123.538, 4048391.757;
597121.041, 4048388.365; 597119.042, 4048386.644; 597115.317,
4048384.679; 597106.016, 4048382.581; 597099.373, 4048380.712;
597089.681, 4048377.084; 597078.307, 4048371.300; 597062.710,
4048362.620; 597050.160, 4048348.145; 597042.036, 4048336.655;
597037.007, 4048327.373; 597034.190, 4048320.921; 597026.181,
4048298.414; 597026, 4048298; 597008, 4048250; 596999, 4048220; 596952,
4048162; 596941, 4048146; 596932, 4048120; 596924, 4048090; 596907,
4048062; 596894, 4048049; 596833, 4048022; 596756, 4048000; 596740,
4047994; 596728, 4047994; 596689, 4047954; 596685, 4047941; 596674,
4047920; 596662, 4047900; 596648, 4047881; 596634, 4047862; 596542,
4047755; 596522, 4047739; 596506, 4047734; 596458, 4047725; 596449,
4047723; 596433, 4047716; 596297, 4047645; 596283, 4047635; 596220,
4047585; 596204, 4047568; 596197, 4047557; 596190, 4047539; 596163,
4047442; 596143, 4047425; 596133, 4047420;
[[Page 60444]]
596115, 4047406; 596103, 4047389; 596086, 4047360; 596074, 4047347;
596049, 4047337; 596017, 4047368; 595973, 4047400; 595910, 4047426;
595872, 4047443; 595867, 4047523; 595864, 4047594; 595870, 4047667;
595880, 4047728; 595887.445, 4047772.169; 595896.900, 4047807.905;
595923.997, 4047835.258; 595982.485, 4047890.602; 596001.110,
4047917.832; 596009.167, 4047943.965; 596008.899, 4047989.340;
596008.385, 4048016.218; 595998.060, 4048035.162; 595980.074,
4048045.653; 595962.288, 4048046.253; 595934.059, 4048032.734;
595906.862, 4048017.073; 595878.916, 4047992.590; 595843.991,
4047964.452; 595820.544, 4047955.446; 595781.236, 4047949.719;
595706.444, 4047946.467; 595701, 4047953; 595605, 4048051; 595588,
4048057; 595526, 4048090; 595504, 4048118; 595501, 4048132; 595502,
4048132; 595524, 4048140; 595565, 4048157; 595630, 4048169; 595634,
4048198; 595676, 4048233; 595673, 4048267; 595698, 4048322; 595840,
4048309; 595893, 4048311; 595982, 4048326; 595982, 4048327; 595973,
4048417; 595974, 4048417; 596135, 4048438; 596251, 4048453; 596208,
4048594; 596220, 4048604; 596231, 4048624; 596230, 4048641; 596215,
4048727; 596218, 4048782; 596209, 4048811; returning to 596202.421,
4048820.
(v) Subunit 6a (portion between Sunridge Road and Spruance Road):
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595662.607,
4048782.410; 595606.350, 4048793.214; 595593.683, 4048794.978;
595581.024, 4048795.981; 595576.755, 4048796.238; 595555.424,
4048796.153; 595501.980, 4048792.589; 595494.224, 4048791.208;
595486.477, 4048789.065; 595479.043, 4048786.088; 595472.075,
4048782.353; 595464.363, 4048777.086; 595456.518, 4048769.991;
595445.525, 4048758.212; 595435.299, 4048745.984; 595425.842,
4048733.156; 595417, 4048719.878; 595406.232, 4048701.550; 595399.076,
4048687.299; 595394.765, 4048677.576; 595363.443, 4048602.869;
595358.414, 4048589.176; 595349.695, 4048563.960; 595302.138,
4048562.504; 595301.073, 4048566.064; 595297.396, 4048581.566;
595294.480, 4048597.228; 595292.475, 4048613.053; 595291.233,
4048628.962; 595290.750, 4048644.956; 595291.183, 4048660.884;
595291.979, 4048671.483; 595293.081, 4048682.085; 595294.641,
4048692.616; 595296.926, 4048706.356; 595298.350, 4048715.285;
595299.470, 4048724.287; 595300.132, 4048733.285; 595300.642,
4048742.281; 595300.693, 4048751.348; 595300.573, 4048762.165;
595301.386, 4048771.317; 595305.088, 4048780.957; 595309.740,
4048787.409; 595316.836, 4048793.277; 595326.841, 4048797.960;
595339.744, 4048802.370; 595357.214, 4048807.211; 595374.849,
4048810.835; 595397.370, 4048813.599; 595411.528, 4048814.747;
595424.137, 4048818.163; 595434.605, 4048823.670; 595484.115,
4048850.827; 595495.005, 4048858.109; 595502.701, 4048864.899;
595506.769, 4048869.134; 595512.925, 4048877.278; 595517.565,
4048884.797; 595521.729, 4048894.062; 595538.984, 4048938.367;
595541.571, 4048946.013; 595543.020, 4048952.734; 595543.674,
4048962.493; 595542.650, 4048972.310; 595539.803, 4048981.725;
595534.506, 4048992.180; 595527.091, 4049001.317; 595516.619,
4049011.257; 595500.614, 4049025.555; 595483.704, 4049038.929;
595460.208, 4049055.429; 595441.798, 4049066.653; 595430.144,
4049073.305; 595423.232, 4049078.257; 595412.777, 4049088.386;
595406.135, 4049094.828; 595402.263, 4049100.499; 595400.808,
4049107.949; 595402.256, 4049114.822; 595406, 4049121; 595417, 4049126;
595438, 4049124; 595459, 4049129; 595480, 4049130; 595500, 4049127;
595517, 4049127; 595527, 4049130; 595546, 4049127; 595578, 4049111;
595609, 4049086; 595612, 4049077; 595622, 4049064; 595638, 4049045;
595658, 4049031; 595679, 4049021; 595703, 4049013; 595731, 4049004;
595754, 4048992; 595761.777, 4048985.026; 595769.192, 4048975.966;
595773.393, 4048968.089; 595775.156, 4048960.261; 595774.489,
4048951.721; 595771.678, 4048944.147; 595767.928, 4048938.772;
595761.284, 4048933.289; 595755.383, 4048929.567; 595748.428,
4048924.690; 595741.782, 4048919.436; 595733.484, 4048911.953;
595727.456, 4048905.944; 595720.990, 4048898.177; 595715.891,
4048890.806; 595711.118, 4048881.535; 595706.533, 4048868.989;
595704.225, 4048857.307; 595703.595, 4048845.414; 595704.641,
4048833.541; 595707.208, 4048821.913; 595710.348, 4048813.567;
595713.185, 4048805.066; 595713.125, 4048796.760; 595710.460,
4048789.721; 595706.253, 4048784.418; 595698.078, 4048779.603;
595689.711, 4048778.368; 595677.796, 4048779.563; returning to
595662.607, 4048782.
(vi) Subunit 6a (portion west of Spruance Road): From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 595323, 4049123; 595368.117, 4049101.720;
595382.240, 4049092.277; 595410.579, 4049065.011; 595418.415,
4049059.232; 595432.679, 4049050.857; 595444.489, 4049043.827;
595456.001, 4049036.335; 595467.211, 4049028.460; 595483.502,
4049015.918; 595493.961, 4049007.120; 595504.272, 4048997.940;
595515.056, 4048987.393; 595520.624, 4048979.912; 595524.072,
4048971.342; 595525.218, 4048964.116; 595524.719, 4048954.207;
595521.124, 4048943.526; 595504.298, 4048899.506; 595499.078,
4048889.315; 595491.417, 4048879.402; 595484.782, 4048873.157;
595475.253, 4048866.804; 595424.286, 4048839.148; 595418.003,
4048835.465; 595406.606, 4048832.596; 595395.796, 4048831.866;
595381.337, 4048830.335; 595367.040, 4048828.043; 595348.039,
4048823.794; 595338.773, 4048821.253; 595324.957, 4048816.757;
595314.336, 4048812.602; 595302.378, 4048805.459; 595294.389,
4048797.600; 595286.759, 4048784.944; 595283.230, 4048773.401;
595282.287, 4048762.267; 595282.561, 4048751.299; 595282.244,
4048738.649; 595281.317, 4048726.144; 595279.779, 4048713.631;
595276.920, 4048696.686; 595275.215, 4048685.544; 595273.573,
4048668.688; 595272.604, 4048646.202; 595272.943, 4048629.292;
595274.197, 4048612.469; 595275.541, 4048601.208; 595277.188,
4048590.103; 595279.292, 4048579.003; 595281.851, 4048568.060;
595283.456, 4048561.932; 595253, 4048561; 595225, 4048650; 595206,
4048683; 595203, 4048704; 595204, 4048727; 595225, 4048781; 595225,
4048914; 595222, 4048941; 595134, 4049009; 595111, 4049027; 595081,
4049069; 595056, 4049144; 595117, 4049145; 595138, 4049144; 595159,
4049140; 595178, 4049134; 595194, 4049129; 595211, 4049127; 595228,
4049128; 595275, 4049132; 595292, 4049131; 595309, 4049128; returning
to 595323, 4049123.
(vii) Note: Unit 6a is depicted on Map 3 in paragraph (12)(xiv),
and in detail on Map 4 in paragraph (12)(xv) of this entry.
(viii) Subunit 6b (east portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 593541.388, 4048770.432; 593510.848, 4048805.177;
593532.068, 4048818.876; 593548.960, 4048826.486; 593570.875,
4048833.182; 593586.397, 4048837.747; 593608.312, 4048838.660;
593624.139, 4048838.965; 593639.357, 4048836.834; 593659.141,
4048830.747; 593680.751, 4048822.529; 593727.015, 4048798.788;
593782.106, 4048772.004; 593790.904, 4048768.133; 593778.000,
4048727.000; 593772.946, 4048696.679; 593772.083, 4048696.721;
593715.333, 4048703.457; 593701.565, 4048705.802; 593683.913,
4048711.031; 593675.394, 4048714.531; 593667.133, 4048718.602;
593659.167, 4048723.224; 593651.533, 4048728.376; 593634.547,
4048741.500; 593627.799, 4048746.427; 593624.257, 4048748.773;
593616.962, 4048753.136; 593609.188, 4048757.152; 593605.208,
4048758.975; 593597.085,
[[Page 60445]]
4048762.239; 593592.951, 4048763.677; 593588.773, 4048764.984;
593584.556, 4048766.159; 593580.298, 4048767.201; 593575.860,
4048768.137; 593571.387, 4048768.928; 593566.891, 4048769.572;
593562.377, 4048770.069; 593557.849, 4048770.418; 593548.770,
4048770.669; 593544.229, 4048770.572; returning to 593541.388,
4048770.432.
(ix) Subunit 6b (west portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 593522.950, 4048768.330; 593488.310, 4048763.587; 593468.619,
4048760.890; 593462.417, 4048760.143; 593456.341, 4048759.609;
593450.817, 4048759.302; 593488.543, 4048788.440; 593498.544,
4048796.096; returning to 593522.950, 4048768.330.
(x) Subunit 6c (east portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 593678.031, 4049656.997; 593676.816, 4049655.549; 593657.430,
4049624.243; 593645.847, 4049580.582; 593642.129, 4049535.973;
593642.297, 4049535.749; 593636.462, 4049526.819; 593633.154,
4049523.033; 593630.739, 4049520.709; 593628.167, 4049518.558;
593625.453, 4049516.590; 593622.609, 4049514.816; 593618.129,
4049512.535; 593613.436, 4049510.732; 593610.214, 4049509.805;
593606.936, 4049509.104; 593501.928, 4049490.433; 593498.284,
4049510.927; 593545.854, 4049574.412; 593548.648, 4049578.141;
593566.979, 4049609.782; 593647.949, 4049681.627; returning to
593678.031, 4049656.997.
(xi) Subunit 6c (west portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
Monterey. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 593686.191, 4049823.525; 593718.176, 4049820.816; 593726.510,
4049844.038; 593779, 4049814.000; 593781.227, 4049812.692; 593779.785,
4049811.940; 593744.860, 4049740.544; 593707.564, 4049692.197;
593617.531, 4049767.523; 593559.935, 4049774.021; 593531, 4049764.000;
593486, 4049731.000; 593474, 4049707.000; 593460, 4049690.000; 593428,
4049662.000; 593408, 4049649.000; 593383, 4049632.000; 593351.999,
4049611.999; 593334.206, 4049625.645; 593326.515, 4049621.339;
593318.546, 4049617.573; 593306.155, 4049612.974; 593297.659,
4049610.629; 593284.662, 4049608.222; 593271.487, 4049607.167;
593258.273, 4049607.477; 593245.162, 4049609.148; 593232.293,
4049612.162; 593219.803, 4049616.488; 592978.342, 4049724.383;
592966.840, 4049728.949; 592959.041, 4049731.592; 592954.985,
4049732.755; 592941.323, 4049735.664; 592939, 4049733.000; 592930,
4049733.000; 592918, 4049760.000; 592920, 4049789.000; 592936.305,
4049827.951; 593018.581, 4049826.666; 593098.417, 4049780.812;
593207.036, 4049823.766; 593283.323, 4049815.508; 593358.944,
4049812.254; 593444.705, 4049788.911; 593458.448, 4049795.812;
593602.831, 4049855.126; 593635.133, 4049863.106; 593661.279,
4049846.810; returning to 593686.191, 4049823.525.
(xii) Subunit 6d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
591851, 4048564; 591855, 4048576; 591861, 4048580; 591868, 4048583;
591873, 4048588; 591879, 4048594; 591884, 4048602; 591887, 4048610;
591889, 4048617; 591889, 4048625; 591891, 4048632; 591918, 4048685;
591925, 4048690; 591925, 4048690; 591935, 4048688; 591945, 4048672;
591953, 4048660; 591961, 4048648; 591969, 4048636; 592120, 4048437;
592141, 4048411; 592144, 4048397; 592144, 4048351; 592144, 4048317;
592136, 4048297; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287; 592116, 4048287;
592096, 4048293; 592073, 4048322; 592062, 4048334; 592050, 4048344;
592038, 4048354; 591992, 4048388; 591951, 4048418; 591951, 4048418;
591933, 4048448; 591931, 4048452; 591928, 4048456; 591924, 4048461;
591920, 4048466; 591920, 4048466; 591912, 4048476; 591908, 4048485;
591907, 4048489; 591905, 4048496; 591902, 4048503; 591899, 4048510;
591895, 4048517; 591891, 4048523; 591886, 4048529; 591882, 4048534;
591877, 4048538; 591872, 4048543; 591866, 4048548; 591860, 4048552;
591855, 4048556; returning to 591851, 4048564.
(xiii) Subunit 6e: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Monterey.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
595552, 4051784; 595527, 4051833; 595413, 4051790; 595404, 4051837;
595404, 4051843; 595404, 4051846; 595403, 4051858; 595401, 4051873;
595399, 4051888; 595397, 4051903; 595395, 4051917; 595392, 4051932;
595389, 4051947; 595386, 4051961; 595382, 4051976; 595379, 4051990;
595375, 4052005; 595371, 4052019; 595370, 4052021; 595370, 4052022;
595366, 4052033; 595362, 4052047; 595357, 4052061; 595352, 4052075;
595346, 4052089; 595341, 4052103; 595334, 4052116; 595332, 4052121;
595330, 4052124; 595325, 4052130; 595324, 4052130; 595323, 4052138;
595292, 4052402; 595329, 4052407; 595339, 4052409; 595340, 4052409;
595342, 4052409; 595344, 4052409; 595345, 4052409; 595347, 4052409;
595348, 4052409; 595349, 4052409; 595351, 4052409; 595352, 4052409;
595354, 4052409; 595356, 4052409; 595358, 4052409; 595359, 4052409;
595361, 4052409; 595363, 4052409; 595365, 4052409; 595366, 4052409;
595367, 4052410; 595368, 4052410; 595370, 4052410; 595372, 4052410;
595373, 4052411; 595375, 4052411; 595377, 4052412; 595379, 4052412;
595380, 4052412; 595382, 4052413; 595384, 4052413; 595385, 4052414;
595387, 4052415; 595388, 4052415; 595390, 4052416; 595392, 4052416;
595393, 4052417; 595395, 4052418; 595397, 4052419; 595398, 4052419;
595400, 4052420; 595401, 4052421; 595403, 4052422; 595404, 4052423;
595406, 4052424; 595407, 4052425; 595409, 4052426; 595410, 4052427;
595412, 4052428; 595413, 4052429; 595414, 4052429; 595425, 4052438;
595487, 4052473; 595545, 4052519; 595569, 4052552; 595574, 4052559;
595785, 4052448; 595838, 4052420; 595829, 4052400; 595798, 4052339;
595762, 4052253; 595751, 4052224; 595736, 4052189; 595703, 4052125;
595688, 4052091; 595683, 4052085; 595672, 4052071; 595634, 4052047;
595633, 4052045; 595632, 4052043; 595631, 4052041; 595630, 4052039;
595628, 4052037; 595627, 4052035; 595626, 4052033; 595625, 4052030;
595624, 4052028; 595623, 4052026; 595622, 4052024; 595621, 4052021;
595621, 4052019; 595620, 4052017; 595619, 4052015; 595618, 4052012;
595618, 4052010; 595617, 4052008; 595616, 4052005; 595616, 4052003;
595615, 4052001; 595615, 4051998; 595614, 4051996; 595614, 4051993;
595614, 4051991; 595613, 4051989; 595613, 4051986; 595613, 4051984;
595613, 4051981; 595612, 4051979; 595612, 4051977; 595612, 4051974;
595612, 4051972; 595612, 4051969; 595612, 4051967; 595613, 4051964;
595613, 4051962; 595613, 4051960; 595613, 4051957; 595613, 4051955;
595614, 4051952; 595614, 4051950; 595614, 4051948; 595615, 4051945;
595615, 4051943; 595616, 4051940; 595617, 4051938; 595617, 4051936;
595618, 4051933; 595618, 4051931; 595619, 4051929; 595620, 4051926;
595621, 4051924; 595625, 4051914; 595629, 4051904; 595634, 4051892;
595638, 4051882; 595643, 4051871; 595655, 4051846; 595657, 4051842;
595663, 4051824; returning to 595552, 4051784.
(xiv) Note: Map of Unit 6 (Map 3) follows:
(xv) Note: Detail map of Subunit 6a (Map 4) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.002
[[Page 60447]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 60448]]
(13) Unit 7: Point Lobos Ranch, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Monterey and Soberanes
Point. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,
N): 595261, 4040950; 595269, 4041010; 595302, 4041071; 595344, 4041106;
595399, 4041136; 595410, 4041165; 595402, 4041291; 595387, 4041367;
595377, 4041400; 595365, 4041437; 595365, 4041463; 595389, 4041491;
595453, 4041513; 595516, 4041504; 595570, 4041472; 595597, 4041500;
595597, 4041536; 595602, 4041585; 595627, 4041649; 595635, 4041663;
595716, 4041696; 595759, 4041700; 595783, 4041693; 595801, 4041670;
595825, 4041613; 595827, 4041585; 595813, 4041551; 595807, 4041531;
595812, 4041518; 595844, 4041470; 595915, 4041508; 595889, 4041596;
595951, 4041638; 595966, 4041648; 595986, 4041664; 595850, 4041803;
595867, 4041802; 595891, 4041808; 595893, 4041869; 595904, 4041919;
595915, 4041930; 595910, 4041935; 595945, 4041988; 595990, 4042022;
596063, 4042063; 596142, 4042098; 596156, 4042104; 596211, 4042114;
596241, 4042109; 596269, 4042011; 596275, 4041978; 596276, 4041975;
596317, 4041764; 596343, 4041583; 596373, 4041510; 596515, 4041436;
596694, 4041433; 596927, 4041428; 597048, 4041584; 597068, 4041628;
597136, 4041714; 597204, 4041766; 597235, 4041783; 597291, 4041803;
597332, 4041812; 597381, 4041807; 597425, 4041787; 597461, 4041754;
597484, 4041711; 597492, 4041663; 597484, 4041614; 597467, 4041579;
597441, 4041550; 597408, 4041528; 597363, 4041511; 597341, 4041491;
597323, 4041415; 597248, 4041313; 597288, 4041280; 597098, 4041279;
597103, 4041079; 597060, 4041079; 597045, 4041092; 596996, 4041118;
596889, 4041130; 596702, 4041138; 596646, 4041140; 596553, 4041137;
596503, 4041119; 596451, 4041086; 596363, 4041006; 596211, 4040900;
596003, 4040843; 595913, 4040829; 595905, 4040827; 595884, 4040824;
595865, 4040825; 595753, 4040829; 595629, 4040826; 595611, 4040841;
595574, 4040832; 595575, 4040825; 595539, 4040822; 595537, 4040822;
595497, 4040858; 595465, 4040822; 595393, 4040831; 595371, 4040840;
595366, 4040838; 595297, 4040891; returning to 595261, 4040950.
(ii) Note: Unit 7 is depicted on Map 5 in paragraph (14)(ii) of
this entry.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60449]]
(14) Unit 8: Palo Colorado, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Soberanes Point. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 598818,
4027785; 598823, 4027824; 598834, 4027852; 598855, 4027884; 598877,
4027904; 599017, 4027985; 599111, 4028022; 599176, 4028075; 599179,
4028121; 599198, 4028182; 599233, 4028238; 599262, 4028268; 599316,
4028304; 599373, 4028315; 599431, 4028304; 599479, 4028271; 599498,
4028249; 599518, 4028204; 599522, 4028146; 599508, 4028099; 599476,
4028056; 599471, 4028019; 599511, 4027964; 599527, 4027921; 599543,
4027880; 599551, 4027832; 599546, 4027793; 599531, 4027757; 599514,
4027733; 599484, 4027707; 599430, 4027685; 599362, 4027687; 599326,
4027702; 599282, 4027741; 599266, 4027766; 599135, 4027707; 599026,
4027647; 598988, 4027637; 598949, 4027637; 598893, 4027655; 598855,
4027686; 598830, 4027728; 598821, 4027756; returning to 598818,
4027785.
(ii) Note: Map of Units 7 and 8 (Map 5) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC07.004
[[Page 60450]]
* * * * *
Dated: October 5, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07-5136 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C